U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:30 PM
 
5,429 posts, read 4,199,032 times
Reputation: 5731

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
So I take it that you do not mind paying more taxes to supplement social serivices for these low wage earners so that their corporate bosses can bring home bigger bonuses for themselves. It bothers the **** out of me and I totally resent it...why does it not bother you?
It bothers me, but I blame the government for the redistribution, not the businesses.

 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:30 PM
 
10,097 posts, read 7,017,659 times
Reputation: 5225
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
An opinion piece is hardly debunking. Who is going to create this new law forcing businesses to eat the difference? At some point it would be simplier just to pay the uneducated and lazy not to work.....oh wait.......
Well at least you admit that one alternative solution is to force the businesses to eat the difference. Now we're getting somewhere.

It's funny that you ask who is going to create this new law. Well like the New Deal in the 30s, this is a new precedent. Like I said the issue has always been and will always be political and this is where the workers will need support for something that is at this point politically controversial, but not economically tangible.

Do you guys need more lessons or have I made my case already, because we're just going in circles now. ?By now you guys should finally get it.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:33 PM
 
47,316 posts, read 24,634,182 times
Reputation: 14468
Again, even if the strike and the demands are unrealistic, Americans retain the right to be unrealistic.

It's not my place to tell burger flippers what they should or shouldn't demand or get paid. That's for them to determine. They have every right to ask for what they think the market can bear.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:34 PM
 
10,097 posts, read 7,017,659 times
Reputation: 5225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
I've forgotten more economics than you will ever know.

It was labor union wage demands in that era that generated the wage price spiral, just like the one you stupids will set off if you get your way.

You no-skill leftists are the problem, not the solution.
Sorry but you're wrong. The big auto companies were given everything they wanted and still went under in the end.

Are unions to blame for the current economic crises? Again, you don't know economics, you know the basics of whatever Thomas Sowell told you about his marginalized school of thought.

You can actually debate or get off the stage now because all you've done is assert your arguments and call me a stupid-face. Real clever, bub.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,801 posts, read 30,052,880 times
Reputation: 17694
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99 View Post
Well at least you admit that one alternative solution is to force the businesses to eat the difference. Now we're getting somewhere.

It's funny that you ask who is going to create this new law. Well like the New Deal in the 30s, this is a new precedent. Like I said the issue has always been and will always be political and this is where the workers will need support for something that is at this point politically controversial, but not economically tangible.

Do you guys need more lessons or have I made my case already, because we're just going in circles now. ?By now you guys should finally get it.
Sounds like the model used for outsourcing. We should be careful what we ask for.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,722,338 times
Reputation: 22159
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Again, even if the strike and the demands are unrealistic, Americans retain the right to be unrealistic.

It's not my place to tell burger flippers what they should or shouldn't demand or get paid. That's for them to determine. They have every right to ask for what they think the market can bear.
It was theirs to determine at the time they accepted the job. Just like the rest of us, when we accept a job is when we agreed to work for a particular salary.

If there wasn't a huge oversupply of cheap labor, then wages would rise to their natural level. It is the liberals working for unlimited immigation after all. Unlimited immigration of nothing but the cheapest labor -- to compete with Americans at the bottom.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,036 posts, read 15,241,170 times
Reputation: 11770
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Back when the Clintons pushed through NAFTA, they even told us we needed to start competing with third world labor. And then they opened the border and allowed cheap foreign labor to start pouring on in.

What would anyone have expected? Liberals are hypocrits, they know full well their globalist agenda and open borders policies are all only for the purpose of having ultra cheap labor.

Liberals are not like the liberals of the past. Remember when Walter Mondale marched with Cesar Chavez's group to demand the border be enforced? Remember when the UFW worked to shut down the Bracero program? Now liberals want unlimited cheap labor. The cheaper and less educated the better.
"Liberals want unlimited cheap labor?"

I take it then that you support these fast food workers' fight for a living wage?
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
 
10,868 posts, read 6,579,257 times
Reputation: 6143
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99 View Post
Sorry but you're wrong. The big auto companies were given everything they wanted and still went under in the end.

Are unions to blame for the current economic crises? Again, you don't know economics, you know the basics of whatever Thomas Sowell told you about his marginalized school of thought.

You can actually debate or get off the stage now because all you've done is assert your arguments and call me a stupid-face. Real clever, bub.
Sorry but you are wrong. I remember.

The only thing you union slugs will accomplish is putting people out of work.

The wage price spiral of the Carter era put the unions down for the count. The same will happen today if you stupids get your way. Unions eat their young.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,066,939 times
Reputation: 3357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oildog View Post
No, all jobs shouldn't pay a livable wage...maybe for one person, but not to support a family. Spend some more time in the working world. Till then stick to video gaming.

If I could make what I do now in engineering as say a lifeguard at a beach. I'd get the umbrella and sunscreen asap.
Wow, you honestly think that it's OK for a person working full time to make less than he needs to survive?

If you stop and think about it, that is really an amazing belief. You're basically saying that you're OK with businesses to pay workers so little that government has to step in and help them survive.
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:41 PM
 
10,097 posts, read 7,017,659 times
Reputation: 5225
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Sounds like the model used for outsourcing. We should be careful what we ask for.
Which is exactly what was the assault the big companies used the first around. Yet, how come the onus is always on the worker to defend his motives? When companies outsource like this they're doing what's in their rational self interests, even if it devastates whole communities. When people ask for a higher wage to live in the city they reside in, that's irrational?

One is a tangible realistic solution to reduce the salaries of the top brass to evenly spread it among the workplace.

The other is an idealistic notion that says that you cannot do that because it will infringe upon the rights of the owners and even if he devastates whole communities by leaving we still have to uphold that rightl.

So what we have is a solution grounded in reality that works and is fairly pragmatic vs. this idealistic notion of liberty that is worth more to some of you than the communities which might be devastated.

Now tell me which one is more irrational? Instead of resorting to ad hominems and ignoring I would like any of you in here to speak their mind and address this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top