Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

CFM said:
There is a difference between the can't and won't work groups.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of those groups exist and the other doesn't. The "can't work" people tend to be white people who abuse SSDI. More government dependency there. There is no such thing as a "won't work" group. It's a fevered delusion the right-wing concocted to justify their shitty policies no one likes.

I bet you're on SSDI, aren't you? Most keyboard right-wing warriors are. They have a "bad back" or "pleurisy" or some other bullshit.


CFM said:
A bigger problem is certain ideologies incorrectly tend to classify the won'ts into the can'ts. There's also another distinction that should be made between the didn't cause their situation and in that situation due to your own bad choices. When it comes to the won'ts and the caused their own problems by their bad choices, tough shit. It's not someone else's place to offset either one.
Click to expand...

The "won't" doesn't exist.
 
The Derp said:
Great! Which means we need to put a Universal Basic Income in place. Thanks for the support on that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Sorry, not with you on a UBI. Though I've listened a bit to the arguments for and against.

A 17 year old living at home with their parents doesn't need a UBI. What they need, generally speaking, are the experience of working which is what minimum wage jobs provide.
 
cawacko said:
Yeah, no. Sorry, not with you on a UBI. Though I've listened a bit to the arguments for and against. A 17 year old living at home with their parents doesn't need a UBI. What they need, generally speaking, are the experience of working which is what minimum wage jobs provide.
Click to expand...

Who works the minimum wage jobs when the kids are at school?

Like, who works the lunch shift at McDonald's?

Who works weekdays at Walmart?

Do those businesses just shut down when school's in session?
 
cawacko said:
you tell me if you're asking a rhetorical question. It doesn't change the point.
Click to expand...

It's not a rhetorical question. You say these jobs are minimum wage jobs, that are worked by kids. So who works the jobs when the kids are at school? It's not a rhetorical question.

Your problem is that you buy into this "prosperity gospel" bullshit, which makes you feel better about yourself by looking down on those who earn so little. But you never stop to ask yourself why you're doing that; and the ultimate reason is because of your own personal insecurities and deficiencies.
 
The Derp said:
It's not a rhetorical question. You say these jobs are minimum wage jobs, that are worked by kids. So who works the jobs when the kids are at school? It's not a rhetorical question.

Your problem is that you buy into this "prosperity gospel" bullshit, which makes you feel better about yourself by looking down on those who earn so little. But you never stop to ask yourself why you're doing that; and the ultimate reason is because of your own personal insecurities and deficiencies.
Click to expand...

El Oh El. I laughed so I give you credit for that. Better than most of the trolls on here.
 
cawacko said:
El Oh El. I laughed so I give you credit for that. Better than most of the trolls on here.
Click to expand...

Notice how you avoided the direct question regarding minimum wage jobs; that's no accident. You did that deliberately because you know your point is bullshit. It's fine. I'm used to seeing people like you do that. It's a toxic culture of entitlement of which too many assholes like you have taken refuge.
 
cawacko said:
El Oh El. I laughed so I give you credit for that. Better than most of the trolls on here.
Click to expand...

So who works the minimum wage jobs when the kids are in school? Someone must be because Walmart doesn't close its doors between 9:00AM and 3:00PM.
 
The Derp said:
No. The other option is paying workers more and moving businesses off the government dole. Businesses pay their workers shit wages because they know that government assistance programs exist to pick up the slack. So the real welfare dependents are the business and corporations who pay their workers so little, that they qualify for assistance programs.

Why do you want to subsidize corporate profits? Is it because you know most businesses can't succeed if they pay their workers a living wage? Because that's what it appears to be.

Thing is, most businesses can afford to pay their workers more. Like Walmart. Walmart made $14B in profit last year, yet US taxpayers shelled out $6B to pay for welfare for Walmart's workers. So if Walmart paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, they would have still made $8B in profit.
Click to expand...

The only option is to pay a worker what they are worth not based on their existence and stop social welfare. If they make it, fine. If they don't, either better their skills or do without.

Those businesses don't pay their workers what they pay with the business model of their workers will receive social welfare. Take away the social welfare and see if those businesses raise their wages. They won't which means your premise is false.

You have it all wrong. Do away with social welfare, Walmart still makes $14 B, and the taxpayers save $6B.
 
The Derp said:
So who works the minimum wage jobs when the kids are in school? Someone must be because Walmart doesn't close its doors between 9:00AM and 3:00PM.
Click to expand...

People that offer a skills set equivalent to a kid. Not much to brag about.
 
The Derp said:
Who works the minimum wage jobs when the kids are at school?

Like, who works the lunch shift at McDonald's?

Who works weekdays at Walmart?

Do those businesses just shut down when school's in session?
Click to expand...

Dropouts that quit school.
 
CFM said:
Dropouts that quit school.
Click to expand...

And you would be 100% wrong. Most people who work those jobs are high school graduates and single parents whose average age is 29.

So you're saying that a high school degree isn't worth enough for someone to get paid a living wage.

So then naturally, you would support free colleges so that people can get a college degree and earn a higher wage, right? Oh no, you don't support that. So what you do instead is create a catch-22; you say that people need more education if they want to get a higher wage, yet you make that unattainable because you don't want to make colleges free. So the problem is how does a minimum wage worker, with a high school degree, afford to pay tuition for a college degree when you're also wanting to cut social assistance programs and raise tuition for colleges?

You haven't thought your position through, have you? Just admit it. Admit that you came to a sloppy and hasty conclusion because you don't really know what you're talking about, but you just want to feel better about yourself.
 
The Derp said:
You don't think workers are worth a wage that's high enough to live on?
Click to expand...

I think workers are worth what the one doing the paying deems the skills required to do the job are worth. If the person can live on it, good for them. If they can't, it's not the fault of the one paying but the one offering such low skills.
 
The Derp said:
And you would be 100% wrong. Most people who work those jobs are high school graduates and single parents whose average age is 29.

So you're saying that a high school degree isn't worth enough for someone to get paid a living wage.

So then naturally, you would support free colleges so that people can get a college degree and earn a higher wage, right? Oh no, you don't support that. So what you do instead is create a catch-22; you say that people need more education if they want to get a higher wage, yet you make that unattainable because you don't want to make colleges free. So the problem is how does a minimum wage worker, with a high school degree, afford to pay tuition for a college degree when you're also wanting to cut social assistance programs and raise tuition for colleges?

You haven't thought your position through, have you? Just admit it. Admit that you came to a sloppy and hasty conclusion because you don't really know what you're talking about, but you just want to feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

I support people taking responsibility for themselves instead of constantly demanding those of us that did provide them with what they refuse to provide themselves. If they can't, it's not my problem. It's theirs.
 
CFM said:
I think workers are worth what the one doing the paying deems the skills required to do the job are worth.
Click to expand...

And who determines that? You? Fuck you.

Corporations are relying on government assistance programs to subsidize their low wages. So the only solution is for corporations to pay their workers more.

There is no other way.

It's funny how you're arguing against wage growth.
 
The Derp said:
Admit that you just pulled that from your fat ass.

The average age of a fast food worker is 29. Nearly 35% of fast food workers have children. And over 70% of fast food workers have a high school diploma.
Click to expand...

A 29 year old can't be a dropout?

That 35% have children is their choice. It's not the responsibility of the owner to pay them a wage for choices they made.

If the only job someone with a high school diploma can get is fast food, or the like, the problem is them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top