What is wrong with retail/service being paid a "liveable" wage? (guns, violent)

[irspow]

The biggest problem with "living wage" or arbitrarily raising wages, in our economic system, is that it only creates inflation when the market corrects itself and no one is any better off. Raise wages arbitrarily, raise costs, reduce purchasing power...back at square one again.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by bUU

The right-wing's biggest failure is the inability to show human compassion toward others. They engage in evasions to protect their fragile egos from having to feel what it would be like to have had different circumstances. And they chalk up the difference exclusively to skill or effort, and refuse to acknowledge that luck is a much more prominent player, including luck of birth.

The left wing's biggest success is their ability to show cheap compassion by using other people's money. If the the left is truly compassionate, they would pool their own money together and fund their own causes. Look at Warren Buffett, have you seen him writing a bigger check to IRS while talking about raising tax on the rich?

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by irspow

The biggest problem with "living wage" or arbitrarily raising wages, in our economic system, is that it only creates inflation when the market corrects itself and no one is any better off. Raise wages arbitrarily, raise costs, reduce purchasing power...back at square one again.

The real problem is asking everybody to pay for above fair market rate on a service or a product, in this case, jobs required little to no skills.

[West Coast Republican]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

The left wing's biggest success is their ability to show cheap compassion by using other people's money. If the the left is truly compassionate, they would pool their own money together and fund their own causes. Look at Warren Buffett, have you seen him writing a bigger check to IRS while talking about raising tax on the rich?

The Roman's called it the "Cheap Bread and Circus" method. Promise people "free" stuff, and do it with a faux smile while pretending you care about the people at the bottom, and they'll follow you.

[Kreutz]

Read an interesting article on the Bakken oil fields, where even nearby McDonalds workers clear 18/hr to compete with the oil fields.

Apparently a gallon of milk costs $7.00 there.

Higher wages translate into higher prices.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by katestar

For those arguing that minimum wage should be done away with all together, what is the likely trend that wages will take?

An intelligent person would ask why employers pay more than the minimum wage.

In the Cincinnati Market, fast food workers have been paid more than the minimum wage since the mid-1990s. Starting wages are $8.50/hour to $10.50/hour.

In fact, today, right now, this second, you can get hired at a White Castle's for $10.50/hour with a $0.25/hour increase after 90 days and another increase 90 days later, with benefits.

Originally Posted by katestar

Will employers expect people to work for $5/hr and will people work for that?

Let's take some time to review Reality, and we'll start with what your government claims.

Your government has stated that there are 1,539 Markets in the United States.
Your government states that $4.55/hour or $9,101 is a living wage for a single person in some of those 1,539 Markets.

At the same time, your government also says that in some of the 1,539 Markets, $26.75/hour is not a living wage, and will allow a single person earning $53,400 to have their rent subsidized by tax-payers under HUD Section 8.

Based on those government facts, what conclusions can you draw?

In some places in the US $4.55/hour = $26.75/hour

Originally Posted by katestar

I'm interested to hear some theories?

I would theorize that many Americans are emotionally ill, and perhaps suffer mental illness as well.

That's especially true for the Left-Wing.

The Left-Wing refuses to accept or recognize the wonderful diversity here in the US with respect to terrain, topography, geography, geology, hydrology, agriculture, climate, weather, demographics, culture, economics, Markets, Labor Markets, Housing Markets, Cost-of-Living and such.


I would further theorize that his is due to the destruction of the education system by the Left-Wing Elite.

The evidence clearly shows concrete thinking, with no ability whatsoever to think abstractly.

I will prove that here.....

Gina lives in Cincinnati (OH) making $54,000 annually.
Barb lives in White Plains (NJ) earning $100,000 annually.

Which one has the higher Standard of Living?

Spoiler

The answer is: Neither.....they are both identical in every way, shape and form.

If you got the answer wrong, it's an indication that you cannot think in the Abstract.

If I gave you a tour of Barb's home, and then blind-folded you and took you to Gina's home, you'd swear on the graves of your children than you were still at Barb's home.

They have the exact same bedroom suite; exact same wardrobe; exact same shoes; exact same lingerie from Victoria Secrets; the exact same kitchen/dining furniture; exact same living room; they drive identical cars; they dine out 35x month and so on.

The only real difference is the amount of money required to have a given Life-Style: Gina needs only $54,000 to have what Barb has at $100,000.

That's because of the differences in the Cost-of-Living, which is based on the tremendous diversity in the US that the Left-Wing despises.

There is nothing nefarious, evil, immoral or unethical here...it's just the Laws of Economics doing their thing.

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

The thing is there are people who got ahead of you who worked less hard then you did.

Well, that sounds like 5 good reasons to waste $TRILLIONS of tax-payer dollars and ruin Millions of people's lives.

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

.... this whole idea that everyone should look out for themselves is based on selfishness and is not an American ideal.

So we should surrender ourselves to control-freaks who will make all decisions for us.

Great. When can we visit the Temples at Syrinx?

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

The workers are getting paid from profits of the company to so they are not taking it from anyone's pocket either.

I think the best thing for you would be to sit down and write a business plan, and then shop it around. I hope you can handle rejection.

It's a real simple formula: Operating Costs + Labor Costs + Materials Costs + Overhead = Total Cost

It is from the Total Cost that you determine a number of things, including pricing and profit margin.

Your false claim that "workers are getting paid from profits" is refuted.

Originally Posted by Storm Eagle

The whole reason people are getting government check aides is that companies are not paying enough for their employees.

No, the reason is because people like you insist upon using coercion to take my money to use for Food Stamps so that Food Stamp recipients don't have to spend their beer, dope and lottery money on food.

Americans are entitled to a 12-pack per day, and it's not fair if they have to use their food or rent money to buy beer, right?

Refuting...

Mircea

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by bUU

The right-wing's biggest failure is the inability to show human compassion toward others.

Compassion is Subjective.

I seriously doubt Mother Teresa could rise to satisfy your lofty vacuous expectations...you'd claim she was stingy with the pink and wouldn't spread her legs and give it up.

Originally Posted by bUU

Perhaps you simply don't understand what minimum wage does and does not cover.

That is this fallacy...

Is-Ought
The is-ought fallacy occurs when a conclusion expressing what ought to be so is inferred from premises expressing only what is so, in which it is supposed that no implicit or explicit ought-premises are needed.

Originally Posted by bUU

Ignorance (perhaps feigned) of the ramifications of poverty is one of those aspects many right-wingers refuse to acknowledge.

How many Americans do not have access to running water?

I said "running water"; I did not say "indoor-plumbing."

State the number of hours impoverished Americans spend each week traveling to and from a source of water, and transporting that water to their homes for use in cooking, cleaning, washing or bathing.

For the ignorant, the World Data Bank is a good source of information on time spent getting water.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

It is selfish to want to take what others have earned.

Originally Posted by bUU

That's not what is happening.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening.

You are selfishly taking my money and giving to others to buy beer, dope and lotto tickets.

Originally Posted by bUU

Dumbing it down for you: You earn your net income. You are working so hard to blind yourself from acknowledging this simple fact. Forcefully insisting on the nonsense that is the foundation of the corrupt perspective you prefer isn't impressive.

Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.

It's not up to you to decide what people's income ought to be. It is not up to Society either. That's this fallacy again:

Is-Ought
The is-ought fallacy occurs when a conclusion expressing what ought to be so is inferred from premises expressing only what is so, in which it is supposed that no implicit or explicit ought-premises are needed.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I will never understand the liberal mindset that says that it's selfishness to want to keep what you earned but it's not selfishness to want to take what others have earned.

Originally Posted by bUU

The problem you're having is that you're allowing yourself to be duped into a dumbed-down corruption of the liberal mindset, probably promulgated by too much time in the right-wing echo chamber that most right-wingers spend their time in. One effectively way of defending immoral selfishness is to mischaracterize what you support and what others condemn within that which you support, as you've done here.

The total fail in your argument is that Morality is Objective, and not Subjective.

Ethics are Subjective.

We must seriously question the motives, credibility or mental stability of those who claim to be omniscient and know exactly what each person needs or doesn't need.

Originally Posted by bUU

The failures of your rationalizing include that there is any aspect of this that pertains to what people want.

You have no idea want people want.

Originally Posted by bUU

A moral society is about how society behaves, not what you individually want or do not want.

Anthropomorphism
This is the error of projecting uniquely human qualities onto something that isn’t human.

Hypostatization
The error of inappropriately treating an abstract term as if it were a concrete one.

"Society" did not murder Sharon Tate....that was Charlie Manson.

Originally Posted by bUU

Stop attacking people who you know nothing about because you hate them because their existence interferes with your ability to afford NFL Sunday Ticket.

You just contradicted yourself.

You are saying that he must give up the NFL Sunday Ticket so that others can have money to buy beer and dope and lottery tickets.

Originally Posted by bUU

Exploiting this economy's opportunity to earn income comes with responsibilities to society itself.

No person has any concomitant responsibility to Society.

To suggest otherwise to is state that people are Slaves.

Originally Posted by bUU

So we're back to your being blinded by what you want so much that you refuse to allow yourself to see the whole picture - the gain for you, from your engagement with our society's economy, which you do see, and the obligation on you, from your engagement with our society's economy, which you blind yourself to.

And you blind yourself to the reality that there are 1,539 separate economies in the US....your government says, and is stands in terms of Economics, it happens to be true.

The fact that government aggregates economic data for reporting and propaganda purposes does not alter the fact that there are 1,539 separate economies.

So, to which one of the Societies' 1,539 economies are you referring?

Originally Posted by bUU

Your citizenship is much more than just a contract.

And it does not require any overt action on the part of anyone.

Originally Posted by bUU

If you don't like the terms, then you can leave.

Then define the terms objectively using no uncertain language so that everyone can understand, compare and contrast.

Do you have an issue with that?

'Cause, you know, it's really selfish to claim there are terms but then refuse to define them.

Originally Posted by bUU

Good luck finding a place to accept you as a self-centered, antisocial citizen.

Any Ivy League university will gladly accept him.

Originally Posted by bUU

Stop lying to yourself. What is yours is your income after tax. That's the contract of citizenship - imposed even on non-citizens by the way.

Circular Reasoning, again.

Taxes come in two forms.

The first form, which is the only legitimate form is Opportunity Costs.

In the Cincinnati Market (economy) an armed guard goes for $15/hour.

$15 * 168 hours * 52 weeks = $131,040

Now, you can pay that .....so that your family and property can be protected ....or you can pay $2,000 annually in property taxes.

Which is the better deal?

Which part of the, um, you know, "citizenship contract" requires me to buy a 12-pack for Billy Greenteeth?

Originally Posted by bUU

You're not Lord of the Manor. You're not God. You're a member of a collective group, the citizens of the state and nation.

That's voluntary, not mandated.

Just as people have the freedom to associate, they also have the freedom to not associate.

Originally Posted by bUU

The only stealing in this context is the refusal to abide by society's precepts regarding taxation, as society determines it, even if you think you deserve more net income than what society determines you get from your gross income.

Well, Mr. Morality, what are you doing to ensure tax dollars are used properly?

Do you not have a moral obligation to ensure tax dollars are used properly?

Mr. Morality, what if your "Society" deems that everyone is entitle to 10 doobies every day. What next? Doobie Stamps? You're going to steal our money to make sure everyone that wants dope gets it?

Originally Posted by bUU

Then stop objecting to jobs bills and other measures to ensure that more people have access to the ability to pay their own way and secure their own future. Stop stacking the deck against the poor.

Um, enabling The Poorâ„¢ to engage in bad behaviors is stacking the deck against them.

Originally Posted by bUU

A comment for which the only reasonable interpretation is a scurrilous, immorally vindictive intent to cause harm to people you think aren't behaving the way you want them to behave.

What a coincidence, since you are doing the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by bUU

Who the heck do you think you are?

I am no one.

What of it?

Originally Posted by bUU

If you want to address what you consider to be lack of effort and bad choices then do so without it benefiting you personally, financially, and without it adversely impacting the ability for anyone - anyone - who does put forth effort and makes the best choices available to them, to access the means to pay their own way and secure their own futures. Your perspective's actual innate laziness is no justification for its vindictiveness toward the perceived laziness of others.

Uh-huh....why don't you explain to us how NetFlix secures one's Future, and I'll explain to you how to use wren's livers to predict earthquakes.

Originally Posted by bUU

Whether you like it or not, the economy is an artifact of society - not your own personal tool to extract comfort and luxury - and government is the means by which society exercises its ownership of the economy. If you want to have anything to do with the economy, like earning income, "like it or not" you will play by society's rules rather than your own.

Then you need to define the rules Objectively in no uncertain terms.

Originally Posted by bUU

I'm labeling bad behavior.

Yeah, and so are we.

Using coercion or threat of force to take my money so that someone else can drink beer is bad behavior.

Originally Posted by bUU

Post a substantive moral defense against the moral repudiation that I've directed at what you advocate.

Economics is amoral.

Originally Posted by bUU

Stop trying to dodge and evade the righteous condemnation by side-stepping the basic moral dichotomy between the prioritization of the comfort and luxury of those who have much, which you advocate, over the prioritization of the basic human needs of those most vulnerable in society, which I call for.

Oh, great, the "most vulnerable in society."

Another Orwellian Double-New-Speak phrase that means nothing.

Naturally, just as sure as you blatantly refuse to define "living wage" objectively in no uncertain terms, you will refuse to define "the most vulnerable in society" objectively in no uncertain terms.

You do understand that your blatant refusal is immoral, right?

All you're doing is engaging sophistry.

Originally Posted by bUU

But all people are valuable enough to be able to pay their own way to live.

What a treat!

Another fallacy:

Equivocation
Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

An individual's self-worth is in no way related to the value of their Labor.

Originally Posted by bUU

That work should be reconstituted such that it is valuable enough to warrant a living wage.

Is-Ought
The is-ought fallacy occurs when a conclusion expressing what ought to be so is inferred from premises expressing only what is so, in which it is supposed that no implicit or explicit ought-premises are needed.

Originally Posted by bUU

There's absolutely NOTHING WRONG with government reflecting humane and compassionate values in its fulfillment of its obligation toward the most vulnerable in society.

But is is absolutely wrong when people hide behind vacuously subjective definitions.

One other thing...........if you did practice what you preached, then there would be no need for government to be involved, right?

Clearly, you have failed.

Objectively...

Mircea

[bUU]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

The left wing's biggest success is their ability to show cheap compassion by using other people's money.

The right wing's biggest success is duping weak-minded and morally bankrupt sycophants into believing self-centered and callous disregard for others is a defensible perspective.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by bUU

The right wing's biggest success is duping weak-minded and morally bankrupt sycophants into believing self-centered and callous disregard for others is a defensible perspective.

At least the right aren't robbing other people's money and using it to show off their phony compassion while playing the game of "holier than thou." Now that's truly morally bankrupt!

If you want to advance your causes, use your own money! Nobody stops you from saving the poor using your own money. Do it and many will follow you, and that is called "lead by example."

[AKAdragon]

Originally Posted by bUU

The right wing's biggest success is duping weak-minded and morally bankrupt sycophants into believing self-centered and callous disregard for others is a defensible perspective.

Eh, many right-wingers are no more moral than left-wingers. They still like taxation (which equals theft) so they can jail people who drink or smoke or inject themselves or whatever. They also like bombing a lot of innocents for whatever "cause" they want. Getting back to socialism: socialism is Machiavellian. You cannot do it as a state policy unless you take by force from some people and then give to others (the means justify the ends). Nobody, including a 99.9% of a majority, has a right to take stuff from other people or to force them to do something they don't want to. If you look into how state operates, including with socialistic policies, you would spot psychopathic behaviour. After all, one psychopath test on youtube asks if it's OK to sacrifice one innocent fat person to save more people (in that example from being killed by a train). If you replace "saving life" with "having liveable wage", you get same moral issues.

Since until pretty recently I was on the same side like you, I believe people are way too much indoctrinated with the idea that having people with power over us is good, or something like taxation is just unavoidable so many people think that since you pay taxes anyway, why give them to special interests and not to the poor. Problem is politicians will never move money from special groups to the poor, they would just raise taxes to give to both. Once you realise that the legislation power will NEVER have the good will or competence to EVER fix anything complicated, like economy, you will likely lean towards voluntarism/libertarianism.