You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Again, you're thinking it's your place to determine how much profit a company should make. Not your place, boy. Never has been and never will be.
Try making a profit without having your workers qualify for government assistance.
You seem to think anyone is entitled to own a business. That's completely false. No one has that entitlement.
ow about those guns you say I shouldn't own. Figured out when you're going to be man enough to try to take them? I'm guessing never. Permission still stands for you to try.
I'm not going to break the law. But at the very least, I made you question your own gun security. So maybe you'll think twice about how secure your weapons really are. Which is all I hoped to accomplish.
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
They're not paying them what they're worth...which is why government assistance programs exist.
And in the real world, not the land of fairies and unicorns that you live in, what would happen to the assistance thresholds if a living wage was mandated?
If an individual can't offer skills that warrants a wage that supports them, perhaps they should voluntarily go away.
Labor's value is $15/hr.
Corporations pay less because taxpayers subsidize those low wages.
So you support corporate welfare, but oppose individual welfare.
That's because you're a hypocrite.
That a worker uses government assistance has nothing to do with the skill equivalent wage they get but their offering of too low of a skill set.
The worker only qualifies for assistance because the corporation is keeping the wage low in order to maintain profits. It's got nothing to do with their true value. The true value of labor is around $15/hr, and we know that because that is the maximum benchmark qualifier for most assistance programs.
Last edited:
If a worker offers skills that are worth $5/hour and the business is having to pay them $7.25/hour because the federal government has a law saying so, that worker is getting paid more than their skills are worth and still can't make it. That they use welfare has nothing to do with the worth of their skills but the lack of skills.
Who established that was the worth? From where does that worth come? From an equation that includes government assistance programs.
If there were no government assistance programs, what would happen to wages?
Again, not your place to determine how much profit a business can make.
When my tax dollars are subsidizing their profits, you better fucking believe I have a say in that.
You don't pay a worker more than the skills are worth unless you're a fucking idiot and you've proven you're one. You're dumber than the niggers.
Racist Nazi loser.
I can tell I'm really getting under your skin because your racist tendencies are coming out -LEAPING OUT of the closet.
Your problem is that you don't know how to establish the true "worth" of labor. You're given all the tools to do that, but you just refuse to because you're fucking lazy and sloppy.
The true value of labor is established by the benchmarks set forth in assistance qualifiers. That's what's determined as an adequate standard of living in the US. So to meet that standard, you get there with a combination of wages and assistance. If you surpass the standard, then no assistance is necessary. But that might mean less profits. So just like I said, corporations rely on government assistance programs to bridge the gap between their wages, and the standard of living.
It's simple. Stop welfare and let businesses pay a worker what they think that worker is worth. The business makes the profits it wants, the taxpayers don't support leeches, and the freeloaders can whine and cry like babies.
So you do believe that most businesses wouldn't be profitable if they no longer could rely on government assistance for their workers.
And in the real world, not the land of fairies and unicorns that you live in, what would happen to the assistance thresholds if a living wage was mandated?
They'd go away! There wouldn't be a need for assistance programs if workers were paid a living wage. We'd save all those billions on assistance programs. Isn't that what you want?
Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of assassination — former CIA analyst
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/reneged-progressive-promises/
link?
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
I see. So in this eutopia, where no one is poor, and the small businesses you deem not worthy to operate have shut down, are the remaining small businesses not going to reflect the increased cost of doing business, in the cost of their services? How about those greedy, evil corporations like Walmart and McDonald's whose only goal is to maximize profit? Or will altruism be mandated as well to offset all that?They'd go away! There wouldn't be a need for assistance programs if workers were paid a living wage. We'd save all those billions on assistance programs. Isn't that what you want?
The reality is that minimum is still minimum, and those adults who make the minimum will always be on assistance because the poverty level will rise with wages as the cost of goods and services rise.
I see. So in this eutopia, where no one is poor, and the small businesses you deem not worthy to operate have shut down, are the remaining small businesses not going to reflect the increased cost of doing business, in the cost of their services? How about those greedy, evil corporations like Walmart and McDonald's whose only goal is to maximize profit? Or will altruism be mandated as well to offset all that?
The reality is that minimum is still minimum, and those adults who make the minimum will always be on assistance because the poverty level will rise with wages as the cost of goods and services rise.
And on the other hand.....
The gross national product of the USA is 18.75 trillion dollars every year so if it was shared equally every single person including babies could have $50,000 per year.
Every family of four would have $200,000. If the metric was asset valuation that's $760,000 per family.
We can afford to be more moral than we are, can't we? And your moral answer is doubling down on the machinery that creates the inequality in wealth, i.e. state of nature.
Sorry, the Democratic party believes we are more intelligent than algae. Sad that sharing our large brains, you Republicans cannot come up with a better idea than could
a fruit bat.
Dirt McGirt
Verified User
Are you actually suggesting that the GNP be redistributed every year, or are you trying to prove some kind of point about how greedy you see people? Because if it's the former, that's just asinine. And if it's the latter it's equally as asinine to claim that taking something by force that you didn't earn is moral.And on the other hand.....
The gross national product of the USA is 18.75 trillion dollars every year so if it was shared equally every single person including babies could have $50,000 per year.
Every family of four would have $200,000. If the metric was asset valuation that's $760,000 per family.
We can afford to be more moral than we are, can't we? And your moral answer is doubling down on the machinery that creates the inequality in wealth, i.e. state of nature.
Sorry, the Democratic party believes we are more intelligent than algae. Sad that sharing our large brains, you Republicans cannot come up with a better idea than could
a fruit bat.
And I would say that it's the Democrat party that craps on the intelligence of the American people on a regular basis. The Republicans may outright lie about their intentions to take care of the working man, but at least they don't have the nerve to belittle people by making them believe that they are incapable of providing for themselves unless the government steps in and does it for them.
You're all hung up on skills, but that's not even a factor in this. The value of labor is about $15/hr if you're using government assistance qualifiers as your benchmark.
Otherwise, you're arguing for a lower standard of living.
Skills are the only factor. Government assistance isn't based on skills. It's based on some POS worker offering such low skills they can't support themselves and expect others to offset their low existence.
Try making a profit without having your workers qualify for government assistance.
You seem to think anyone is entitled to own a business. That's completely false. No one has that entitlement.
Mine don't and I make a profit. That's because they offer skills that are valuable not ones that a monkey can do.
I'm not going to break the law. But at the very least, I made you question your own gun security. So maybe you'll think twice about how secure your weapons really are. Which is all I hoped to accomplish.
You wouldn't be if given permission. Either you're man enough to try or you aren't. Seems we know which one, coward.
What we've learned is that you know you can't do what you say should occur and try to blame your superior because you're a lesser person. I had you finally realize that and it was all I was intending to do.
Labor's value is $15/hr.
Corporations pay less because taxpayers subsidize those low wages.
So you support corporate welfare, but oppose individual welfare.
That's because you're a hypocrite.
The worker only qualifies for assistance because the corporation is keeping the wage low in order to maintain profits. It's got nothing to do with their true value. The true value of labor is around $15/hr, and we know that because that is the maximum benchmark qualifier for most assistance programs.
Labor's value is what the one paying says it is not some arbitrary number you made up because your skills aren't worth the current minimum of $7.25.
Who established that was the worth? From where does that worth come? From an equation that includes government assistance programs.
If there were no government assistance programs, what would happen to wages?
A business does NOT use government assistance when determining a wage. Period.
If there were no government assistance programs, nothing would happen to wages. They're based on the value of the skills the person offers not whether that person is a freeloader expecting taxpayers to offset their shitty skills.
When my tax dollars are subsidizing their profits, you better fucking believe I have a say in that.
Racist Nazi loser.
I can tell I'm really getting under your skin because your racist tendencies are coming out -LEAPING OUT of the closet.
Your problem is that you don't know how to establish the true "worth" of labor. You're given all the tools to do that, but you just refuse to because you're fucking lazy and sloppy.
The true value of labor is established by the benchmarks set forth in assistance qualifiers. That's what's determined as an adequate standard of living in the US. So to meet that standard, you get there with a combination of wages and assistance. If you surpass the standard, then no assistance is necessary. But that might mean less profits. So just like I said, corporations rely on government assistance programs to bridge the gap between their wages, and the standard of living.
No you don't have a say since you don't pay taxes.
Which one are you, boy, a house or field nigger?
So you do believe that most businesses wouldn't be profitable if they no longer could rely on government assistance for their workers.
Stop welfare, pay the people what they get paid now, the businesses would be profitable, and the honorable people of this country that provide for themselves would have more by not having to support freeloaders like you. It's a win-win-lose. The businesses win, the taxpayers win, and people like you remain the born losers you were when you were born.