Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

[The Derp]

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?

First of all, if a business cannot be profitable while paying its employees a wage high enough that they don't qualify for benefits, then that is a failing business. There are plenty of businesses that do pay their workers a wage high enough that they don't qualify for assistance. So if those businesses can do it, why can't they all? You're not entitled to own a business. That's not a right or an entitlement. A bank isn't going to loan you money to start your business if you can't maintain profit margins. Why should taxpayers subsidize your poor business skills because you can't run a business to be profitable without having your employees rely on government assistance? If your employees rely on government assistance, that means you as the business owner do as well since your employees are your responsibility.

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.

Yes, a minimum is still a minimum. But if the minimum is high enough that it disqualifies you for assistance, then the minimum is accomplishing its goal, and taxpayers are saving.

It's a fallacy that prices rise an equivalent amount that wages do. That is a lie that has never been proven true or accurate. It's just Conservative "wisdom" that is a fantasy and myth.

 

[The Derp]

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.

No, skills are not the only factor. A business' profit margins are factor as well. You seem to be arguing that we need a lower standard of living, rather than a genuine increase in wages. And I'm not sure why you think that. You want to keep wages low, but get rid of assistance programs. That results in a lower standard of living.

 

[The Derp]

Mine don't and I make a profit. That's because they offer skills that are valuable not ones that a monkey can do.

Great! You pay your workers enough that they don't qualify for benefits, which means your business isn't a welfare business. So if you can make a profit while paying your workers a living wage, why can't every business?

 

[The Derp]

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.

We have established as a society that the maximum benchmark qualifier for most assistance programs is about $15/hr. Which means any wage below that is supplemented by government assistance. You seem to want to keep wages low, while removing government assistance. The only result of that is a lower standard of living.

 

[The Derp]

A business does NOT use government assistance when determining a wage. Period.

Yes they fucking do! They know that government assistance programs supplement low wages, so they offer as low a wage as possible in order to maintain profit margins. That's a choice the business makes.
It's why Walmart's workers average wage is around $11/hr, and why Costco's starting wage is around $18/hr. Walmart and Costco are the same business type. Yet Walmart's business model relies on low-wage workers who are partially subsidized by taxpayers, while Costco's aren't.

You've never run a business in your life, have you? When you said you did before, you were lying, weren't you? Admit it. I can tell when you're lying.

If there were no government assistance programs, nothing would happen to wages.

So then we end up with a lower standard of living. That's your goal?

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.

Not sure why you think this because it's not true, and it's not how wages work or are determined. Your problem is that you're pretending to know what you're talking about, but the reality is that you don't, and you're just reacting because you don't want to give me the satisfaction that I'm right and you're wrong. Your ego simply cannot handle that.

 

[The Derp]

No you don't have a say since you don't pay taxes.

You don't know shit about me.

Secondly, it seems like you're agreeing that since US taxpayers subsidize corporate profits, that taxpayers do have a say in profits for businesses that rely on government assistance to bridge the gap between the wages they offer, and the standard of living.

Which one are you, boy, a house or field nigger?

What's sad is that you have underachieved in your life, so the only way you can justify that underachievement is to denigrate other people, so you can feel better.

What a pussy.

 

[The Derp]

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.

I bet that you accept some form of government handout. In fact, I'm 100% certain you do. You hate yourself for it because at some point in your life, you bought into the "prosperity gospel", where you think those who earn more money are of higher moral character than those who don't.

I suspect you're one of "those who don't", and that's why you're so married to this dogma.

You argue for a lower standard of living, not understanding what that entails.

 

[CFM]

No, skills are not the only factor. A business' profit margins are factor as well. You seem to be arguing that we need a lower standard of living, rather than a genuine increase in wages. And I'm not sure why you think that. You want to keep wages low, but get rid of assistance programs. That results in a lower standard of living.

Since the one's offering the skills want to keep their skills low, they want low wages. If they're being paid what their skills are worth, if they're low, it's their fault. No one is going to pay a wage higher than what the skill is worth.

 

[CFM]

I bet that you accept some form of government handout. In fact, I'm 100% certain you do. You hate yourself for it because at some point in your life, you bought into the "prosperity gospel", where you think those who earn more money are of higher moral character than those who don't.

I suspect you're one of "those who don't", and that's why you're so married to this dogma.

You argue for a lower standard of living, not understanding what that entails.

If you're so certain, provide what you say I receive and prove it with the numbers. Unless you can, your best option is to STFU about something for which you have no knowledge.

I argue for a standard of living based on what your skills earn you not what some bleeding heart Liberal like you thinks the taxpayers should provide freeloaders.

The amount earned isn't related to moral character. However, someone that earns less then expects someone else to offset their low earnings/skills has none the moment they start demanding someone else do for them what they refuse to do for themselves.

 

[CFM]

You don't know shit about me.

Secondly, it seems like you're agreeing that since US taxpayers subsidize corporate profits, that taxpayers do have a say in profits for businesses that rely on government assistance to bridge the gap between the wages they offer, and the standard of living.




What's sad is that you have underachieved in your life, so the only way you can justify that underachievement is to denigrate other people, so you can feel better.

What a pussy.

Since you don't pay taxes, you have no say, boy.

Telling you what you are isn't denigrating you. Since you choose to be what you are, a cowardly piece of shit, you denigrate yourself to the point that no one else has to.

 

[The Derp]

Since the one's offering the skills want to keep their skills low, they want low wages. If they're being paid what their skills are worth, if they're low, it's their fault. No one is going to pay a wage higher than what the skill is worth.

The worth of the skill is the wage PLUS the government assistance that the wage qualifies for. The business is replacing wages with the reliance on government assistance. It's artificially keeping wages low.

But if you get rid of assistance and don't raise wages, then you lower the standard of living.

That seems to be your goal; to lower the standard of living in the US.

 

[The Derp]

If you're so certain, provide what you say I receive and prove it with the numbers.

You want me to prove you're a moocher by referencing "numbers"?

When you cut assistance and don't raise wages, you lower the standard of living. You understand that, right?

 

[The Derp]

I argue for a standard of living based on what your skills earn you not what some bleeding heart Liberal like you thinks the taxpayers should provide freeloaders.

People who work are freeloaders, but the businesses who keep wages low that their workers qualify for assistance aren't?

The standard of living includes assistance programs.

If you cut assistance programs, you cut the standard of living.

So why do you want to reduce the standard of living? Because when you reduce the standard of living for assistance workers, you're reducing the standard for everyone. So why do you want to do that? You think Americans have a standard of living that's too high?

The amount earned isn't related to moral character. However, someone that earns less then expects someone else to offset their low earnings/skills has none the moment they start demanding someone else do for them what they refuse to do for themselves.

So you say it's not related to moral character, then in the next sentence say that it is.

I think you're just not a smart person, but you exercise Dunning-Kruger because you're wildly insecure.

 

[The Derp]

Since you don't pay taxes, you have no say, boy.

So you seem to be projecting here; after all you're an uneducated, insecure white Christian. Which means you're probably on some form of government assistance. I think your personal standard of living is so shitty, that you feel resentful that others don't suffer like you. But you've been given every institutional advantage to succeed, and you haven't. So stop pushing your insecurities on everyone else. Get over yourself.

elling you what you are isn't denigrating you. Since you choose to be what you are, a cowardly piece of shit, you denigrate yourself to the point that no one else has to.

You don't know me at all. And you're the pussy who can't defend himself without a gun, not me.

 

[CFM]

The worth of the skill is the wage PLUS the government assistance that the wage qualifies for. The business is replacing wages with the reliance on government assistance. It's artificially keeping wages low.

But if you get rid of assistance and don't raise wages, then you lower the standard of living.

That seems to be your goal; to lower the standard of living in the US.

The worth of the skill is the wage. That someone applies for handouts is based on their lack of skills.

If you get rid of assistance, then freeloaders will either step up and start doing or they'll fade away.

My goal is for people to stop demanding someone offset their lack of skills and start taking responsibility for themselves. For those of us that have accepted it and done well, we continue to raise our standard of living. You want the low skilled folks to have their standard raised by doing nothing but begging for it. If that particular group's standard is lowered in order to motivate them to do better, fine by me. Since their current standard is based on receiving someone else's money through handouts, it needs to be lowered until they decide to better themselves.

 

[CFM]

People who work are freeloaders, but the businesses who keep wages low that their workers qualify for assistance aren't?

The standard of living includes assistance programs.

If you cut assistance programs, you cut the standard of living.

So why do you want to reduce the standard of living? Because when you reduce the standard of living for assistance workers, you're reducing the standard for everyone. So why do you want to do that? You think Americans have a standard of living that's too high?




So you say it's not related to moral character, then in the next sentence say that it is.

I think you're just not a smart person, but you exercise Dunning-Kruger because you're wildly insecure.

Freeloaders need to have their standard cut in order to motivate them to do better.

When you reduce it for those unwilling to do for themselves and people that have been forced to support their sorry asses for years get to keep more of their own money, it raises their standard.

 

[CFM]

So you seem to be projecting here; after all you're an uneducated, insecure white Christian. Which means you're probably on some form of government assistance. I think your personal standard of living is so shitty, that you feel resentful that others don't suffer like you. But you've been given every institutional advantage to succeed, and you haven't. So stop pushing your insecurities on everyone else. Get over yourself.




You don't know me at all. And you're the pussy who can't defend himself without a gun, not me.

You're a fucking coward that says I shouldn't own something then refuses, with permission, to try and take it. Rest assured I have no problem defending myself without a gun. Rest assured you're not man enough to find out.

 

[The Derp]

The worth of the skill is the wage. That someone applies for handouts is based on their lack of skills.

And the worth is determined by both assistance and the wage. Because the assistance is supplemental to the wage.

 

[The Derp]

If you get rid of assistance, then freeloaders will either step up and start doing or they'll fade away.

Step up how?

Also, if you get rid of assistance, you lower the standard of living for everyone, including yourself.

That's your goal?

 

[CFM]

You want me to prove you're a moocher by referencing "numbers"?

When you cut assistance and don't raise wages, you lower the standard of living. You understand that, right?

I want you to prove your claim that you're 100% positive that I receive handouts. Can you, nigger, or do you simply run your mouth like the typical coon?