Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
"This is the question the right has to answer. Do you want smaller government with less handouts, or do you want a low minimum wage? Because you cannot have both.
|
Congratulations.....you have provided us with a Fallacy known as the False Dilemma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
If Colonel Sanders isn't going to pay the lady behind the counter enough to live on, then Uncle Sam has to, and I for one am getting a little tired of helping highly profitable companies pay their workers.: ~ Bill Maher
|
I'm going to use your own government to embarrass and beat down the both of you.
The US government, specifically, the Department of Housing & Urban Development says that a single person......
I did not stutter....a single person with an annual income of $53,490 qualifies for tax-payer subsidized Section 8 Housing.
If you do not have the courage to admit that, then can you at least provide some evidence to refute it?
At 2,000 hours per year....
$53,490 / 2000 = $26.75/hour
Do you have the courage to admit that, or at least provide evidence to refute it?
If the US government says that $26.75/hour is not enough for
a single person to afford their own place to live, and the tax-payers have to bail them out, then explain how raising the "federal" minimum wage to $15/hour will reduce government handouts.
The Department of Housing & Urban Development says that a single person......
I did not stutter....a single person living in some places in the united States with an annual income of $9,101 is disqualified, barred, prohibited and ineligible for tax-payer subsidized Section 8 Housing.
If you do not have the courage to admit that, then can you at least provide some evidence to refute it?
At 2,000 hours per year....
$9,101 / 2000 = $4.55/hour
Do you have the courage to admit that, or at least provide evidence to refute it?
Note that $4.55/hour is less than the "federal" minimum wage of $7.25/hour.
Will you admit or deny that?
If the US government says that an single American living in some places in the US does not need a tax-payer bailout to pay for their housing with an income equivalent to $4.55/hour, then explain why the "federal" minimum wage should not be reduced to $4.55/hour.
Will you do that? Because, that would seem to be the Liberal Quagmire.
For you see, your own government says that $4.55/hour
is a "living wage" (snicker) in some parts of the US.
Bill Maher isn't nearly half as smart as he thinks he is. Invite him to come here. I'll bury his ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
no.
|
Yes, it [
raising federal minimum wage also help from uncle sam] is. It's government interference. It's Command Economics a la Soviet-style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Oh yes, I love the wisdom of the right, the ability to wash your hands of issues that might come from employers trying to pay their employees too little.
|
Employers pay their employees what the Laws of Economics say they should be paid.
Employers who violate the Laws of Economics, whether of their own accord, or through coercion by unions or the government fail and go out of business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Here is the problem folks:
Quote:
The dominant characteristic of the US economy today—and a fundamental cause of the faltering, stop-go economic recovery in the U.S. since 2009—is the long term and continuing growth of income inequality in America.
|
|
Wrong.....it is global competition.
Quote:
Median Real disposable household income has been declining steadily over the long term since 2000 and that decline has accelerated since 2008, at a rate between 1-2% per year.
|
Actually, they started declining before that....
National Average Wage Index
1951-1960: 4.09%
1961-1970: 4.45%
1971-1980: 7.31%
1981-1990: 5.34%
1991-2000: 4.35%
2001-2010: 2.64%
That is fully consistent with a State reaching 100% Industrialization.
Wages in developing States generally double every 10 years until development begins to approach 100%, at which time wage increases begin to decline until they are negligible. Increasing competition may accelerate the decline or stagnation of wage increases.
Nothing unusual or abnormal happening there.
Quote:
With consumption constituting 70% of the US economy, spending by 100 million wage earning households in the US (bottom 80%) has limped along based increasingly on debt spending, more credit card usage, more withdrawals from 401k and savings accounts, and more part time second job employment. Recent data show more than 50% of all 401k withdrawals, which are rising rapidly, are withdrawn just to pay monthly bills.
|
Thank you for proving that your economy is unsustainable over the mid-term and long-term.
Quote:
Meanwhile, corporations sit on more than $2 trillion in cash ...
|
There is one and only one possible way a publicly traded corporation can prevent an hostile take-over, leveraged buyout, forced merger or forced acquisition.
What is it?
Cash....hoarding cash...lots and lots of cash.
Why don't you impress us all and explain how Korean corporation Life's Good was able to buy up and shut-down the [US] Zenith Corporation?
Will you do that?
I'll give you some hints...Zenith employees were paid too much....Zenith could not compete globally....Zenith had no cash....and Korean LG Corporation then bought up all of the Zenith stock, and shut down Zenith, causing the lay-off of all employees, except for those at Zenith Labs, which LG Corporation retained for R&D purposes.
Quote:
while corporate profits have continued to grow so too has the income of the top 1 wealthiest households.
|
Then stop watching Harpo Winfrey, and she won't be in the top 1%. Cancel your all sports package for cable or satellite and the top 1% will drop to the top 0.1%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
What do you think about the minimum wage?
|
It isn't what I think, it's what I know, and I know you don't understand it, because you have proven that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Would you rather have it increased or would you rather have an increase in the need for food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, etc.....?
|
Again, you have presented a False Dilemma.
Furthermore, your drivel is specious, since it's based on subjective fantasies.
Government can easily change its policies and regulations, so that only those persons in non-related multi-family households are eligible to apply for Food Stamp benefits.
For example, family of three in a single household is not eligible to apply for Food Stamps, but a family of three that is sharing an apartment, rental home, home or mobile home with another unrelated household, such as a family of four, is then eligible to apply for Food Stamps.
However, since sharing living accommodations will increase the amount of disposable income for the family of three, they would not be eligible for Food Stamps, since they have enough money to buy food.
Problem solved.
Same with HUD Section 8.....a single person with $53,490 in annual income needs to find a room-mate, share with another household, or move back in with mommy and daddy instead of bleeding the tax-payers to death.
Questioning...
Mircea