Unpopular Opinion Time

I don't care about muh constitution.

Of course you don't; most liberals tend to wipe their dumb asses with it.

I care about logic and what works.

There is nothing logical about claiming criminals will suddenly obey more laws.

Economists can determine what a living wage would be.

How do you suppose they would do that? Crystal ball? :laugh:

I've actually been called a Russian bot and an undercover Righty pretending to be a Leftist.

I would not be surprised. Liberals are really dumb people. ;)
 

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI), also called minimum income, is a system[1] of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test, and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to reduce poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a universal basic income.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage


words and terms have meanings

why don't you even know the most basic terms ?


Because you go on mind swirls instead of facts

United States[edit]
In the United States, the state of Maryland and several municipalities and local governments have enacted ordinances which set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum that requires all jobs to meet the living wage for that region. This usually works out to be $3 to $7 above the federal minimum wage. However, San Francisco, California and Santa Fe, New Mexico have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances.[citation needed] U.S. cities with living wage laws include Santa Fe and Albuquerque in New Mexico; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C.[36] The city of Chicago, Illinois also passed a living wage ordinance in 2006, but it was vetoed by Mayor Richard M. Daley.[37] Living wage laws typically cover only businesses that receive state assistance or have contracts with the government.[38]
This effort began in 1994 when an alliance between a labor union and religious leaders in Baltimore launched a successful campaign requiring city service contractors to pay a living wage.[39] Subsequent to this effort, community advocates have won similar ordinances in cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis. In 2007, there were at least 140 living wage ordinances in cities throughout the United States and more than 100 living wage campaigns underway in cities, counties, states, and college campuses.[40] In 2014, Wisconsin Service Employees International Union teamed up with public officials against legislation to eliminate local living wages. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, Wisconsin Jobs Now - a non-profit organization fighting inequality through higher wages - has received at least $2.5 million from SEIU organizations from 2011 to 2013.[41]
Although these ordinances are recent, a number of studies have attempted to measure the impact of these policies on wages and employment. Researchers have had difficulty measuring the impact of these policies because it is difficult to isolate a control group for comparison. A notable study defined the control group as the subset of cities that attempted to pass a living wage law but were unsuccessful.[42] This comparison indicates that living wages raise the average wage level in cities, however, it reduces the likelihood of employment for individuals in the bottom percentile of wage distribution.[citation needed]
 
United States[edit]
In the United States, the state of Maryland and several municipalities and local governments have enacted ordinances which set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum that requires all jobs to meet the living wage for that region. This usually works out to be $3 to $7 above the federal minimum wage. However, San Francisco, California and Santa Fe, New Mexico have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances.[citation needed] U.S. cities with living wage laws include Santa Fe and Albuquerque in New Mexico; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C.[36] The city of Chicago, Illinois also passed a living wage ordinance in 2006, but it was vetoed by Mayor Richard M. Daley.[37] Living wage laws typically cover only businesses that receive state assistance or have contracts with the government.[38]
This effort began in 1994 when an alliance between a labor union and religious leaders in Baltimore launched a successful campaign requiring city service contractors to pay a living wage.[39] Subsequent to this effort, community advocates have won similar ordinances in cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis. In 2007, there were at least 140 living wage ordinances in cities throughout the United States and more than 100 living wage campaigns underway in cities, counties, states, and college campuses.[40] In 2014, Wisconsin Service Employees International Union teamed up with public officials against legislation to eliminate local living wages. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, Wisconsin Jobs Now - a non-profit organization fighting inequality through higher wages - has received at least $2.5 million from SEIU organizations from 2011 to 2013.[41]
Although these ordinances are recent, a number of studies have attempted to measure the impact of these policies on wages and employment. Researchers have had difficulty measuring the impact of these policies because it is difficult to isolate a control group for comparison. A notable study defined the control group as the subset of cities that attempted to pass a living wage law but were unsuccessful.[42] This comparison indicates that living wages raise the average wage level in cities, however, it reduces the likelihood of employment for individuals in the bottom percentile of wage distribution.[citation needed]

What is a living wage?
 
I've heard it called a living wage, but okay.
So I think everyone should get guaranteed income and have access to free social programs, instead of a minimum wage.

you are not a Democratic party member


your ideas are loosely constucted silly
 
United States[edit]
In the United States, the state of Maryland and several municipalities and local governments have enacted ordinances which set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum that requires all jobs to meet the living wage for that region. This usually works out to be $3 to $7 above the federal minimum wage. However, San Francisco, California and Santa Fe, New Mexico have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances.[citation needed] U.S. cities with living wage laws include Santa Fe and Albuquerque in New Mexico; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C.[36] The city of Chicago, Illinois also passed a living wage ordinance in 2006, but it was vetoed by Mayor Richard M. Daley.[37] Living wage laws typically cover only businesses that receive state assistance or have contracts with the government.[38]
This effort began in 1994 when an alliance between a labor union and religious leaders in Baltimore launched a successful campaign requiring city service contractors to pay a living wage.[39] Subsequent to this effort, community advocates have won similar ordinances in cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis. In 2007, there were at least 140 living wage ordinances in cities throughout the United States and more than 100 living wage campaigns underway in cities, counties, states, and college campuses.[40] In 2014, Wisconsin Service Employees International Union teamed up with public officials against legislation to eliminate local living wages. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, Wisconsin Jobs Now - a non-profit organization fighting inequality through higher wages - has received at least $2.5 million from SEIU organizations from 2011 to 2013.[41]
Although these ordinances are recent, a number of studies have attempted to measure the impact of these policies on wages and employment. Researchers have had difficulty measuring the impact of these policies because it is difficult to isolate a control group for comparison. A notable study defined the control group as the subset of cities that attempted to pass a living wage law but were unsuccessful.[42] This comparison indicates that living wages raise the average wage level in cities, however, it reduces the likelihood of employment for individuals in the bottom percentile of wage distribution.[citation needed]

By law its supposed to meet any states minimum cost to live there after working 40 hours


Its actually an unfollowed law already

BECAUSE the republicans refuse to adjust the law to meet its intent
 
If you're liberal or conservative on every single issue, then you're not thinking for yourself.
True or very true?

Sometimes one is indifferent about a particular issue but taker sides anyway because most of the the people on the other side are so repugnant.
 
By law its supposed to meet any states minimum cost to live there after working 40 hours


Its actually an unfollowed law already

BECAUSE the republicans refuse to adjust the law to meet its intent

Yeah, and I disagree with having a minimum wage. So that is something in the DNC platform I disagree with.
 
Well I don't think we should raise the minimum wage, because that just causes companies to lay people off. I rather we redistribute wealth through social programs and a living wage.
And I know this isn't a nation-wide DNC thing, but I don't think we should have sanctuary cities.

your ideas here are utterly stupid


you want tob subsidize the employers by paying their employees enough to live when they are nit willing to pay them enough


who is going to provide that money?
 
Yeah, and I disagree with having a minimum wage. So that is something in the DNC platform I disagree with.

and why would you do something so stupid?

that is an idiot idea


History proved we needed to FORCE the employers to pay enough to live or they would pay slave wages

go read the history of the minimum wage idiot


you really have no idea what you are speaking of
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#History


History[edit]
"It is a serious national evil that any class of his Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil [...and...] ultimately produce a fair price. Where... you have a powerful organisation on both sides... there you have a healthy bargaining.... But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
Winston Churchill MP, Trade Boards Bill, Hansard House of Commons (28 April 1909) vol 4, col 388
Modern minimum wage laws trace their origin to the Ordinance of Labourers (1349), which was a decree by King Edward III that set a maximum wage for laborers in medieval England.[9][10] King Edward III, who was a wealthy landowner, was dependent, like his lords, on serfs to work the land. In the autumn of 1348, the Black Plague reached England and decimated the population.[11] The severe shortage of labor caused wages to soar and encouraged King Edward III to set a wage ceiling. Subsequent amendments to the ordinance, such as the Statute of Labourers (1351), increased the penalties for paying a wage above the set rates.[9]
While the laws governing wages initially set a ceiling on compensation, they were eventually used to set a living wage. An amendment to the Statute of Labourers in 1389 effectively fixed wages to the price of food. As time passed, the Justice of the Peace, who was charged with setting the maximum wage, also began to set formal minimum wages. The practice was eventually formalized with the passage of the Act Fixing a Minimum Wage in 1604 by King James I for workers in the textile industry.[9]
By the early 19th century, the Statutes of Labourers was repealed as increasingly capitalistic England embraced laissez-faire policies which disfavored regulations of wages (whether upper or lower limits).[9] The subsequent 19th century saw significant labor unrest affect many industrial nations. As trade unions were decriminalized during the century, attempts to control wages through collective agreement were made. However, this meant that a uniform minimum wage was not possible. In Principles of Political Economy in 1848, John Stuart Mill argued that because of the collective action problems that workers faced in organisation, it was a justified departure from laissez-faire policies (or freedom of contract) to regulate people's wages and hours by the law.
It was not until the 1890s that the first modern legislative attempts to regulate minimum wages were seen in New Zealand and Australia.[12] The movement for a minimum wage was initially focused on stopping sweatshop labor and controlling the proliferation of sweatshops in manufacturing industries.[13] The sweatshops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their employees, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay fairly. Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self-sufficient.[14]
 
If you know the world history of minimum wage then you would have to be an idiot to not see its value in use
 
your ideas here are utterly stupid


you want tob subsidize the employers by paying their employees enough to live when they are nit willing to pay them enough


who is going to provide that money?

The 1% through taxation.
Companies will still have to pay their employees, since we'd still have a mostly free market.
 
Don't care to learn them? I literally just used the right term after you told me it.

anddidnt care enough about the subject YOU PICKED to already know them

YET

you keep pretending you are to be taken seriously



you made up your mind without researching the subject


that is what a fool does


you have already lost the debate

want to pick another one?
 
The 1% through taxation.
Companies will still have to pay their employees, since we'd still have a mostly free market.

so you make it all complicated by taking taxes from the very people who you could have just raised the minimum wage on to make them pay a fair wage


how very lame an idea
 
Back
Top