The Great American Lie: Work Earns Living Wage

[Machismo]

so your basically a libertarian.

I'm not big on calling myself that, because most people who do call themselves libertarians, aren't.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Again there is not some finite amount of work to be done. Increasing the workforce would only lower wages if there was a limit to the work needed to be done, but that is not the case, though it is true we may be reaching the point now due to mechanization (but we were certainly not at that point 40 years ago).

2. No they didn't. They loaded up on debt because that is what was required for the system to function. If you think otherwise then show me how the system balances in terms of the system producing large quantities of goods without a matching rise in purchasing power. Are we going to sell to martians or start building "goods" mountains in the middle of the Sahara? How does it work exactly?

3. No that is not what happened. Businesses and the 1% rewrote the rules of the system for their benefit so that they captured all the gains. The number of workers is irrelevant. You are again making the assumption that there is some fixed amount of work. All that increase in workforce vastly increased economic output but did not give rise to matching increased household incomes because the 1% did not want it to.

At some point, the amount of work needed to be done is going to slow (already has happened). Mechanization is the future, whether we like it or not. It will come even faster if labor costs are increased.

I agree, our society of consumption relies on people spending as much money as possible, it's a stupid fucking system. What they spent their money on was not the necessities, they blew it on luxury items.

Businesses did re-write laws, and it's something I oppose. However, they also thought about all these issues, whereas the average American was blissfully ignorant. They got lazy, they got complacent. The corporations beat them at the bargaining table, and they outthought them (totally a word). All the workers and consumers had to do, was spend their money more wisely, refuse to work for less, and put their money where their mouths were. The power still lies with the consumer, they are just too dumb to realize it.

- - - Updated - - -

People in this thread boiling the issue down to "conservatives vs liberals" where "all conservatives = people who want the rich to be insanely powerful and everyone else to starve," and "all liberals = people who are too lazy to even dress themselves and want a nanny state which provides everything" essentially why these kinds of problems have been perpetuated for so long.

While you guys fight and rag and blame each other, both of you slide further into whats essentially become enslavement and the rich continue to get richer and disregard your democratic and human rights.

Seriously, look at your election. You have mega-rich pro-oligarchy 1%er Hillary Clinton and mega-rich pro-oligarchy 1%er Donald Trump as your choices.

Both sides fucked up pretty bad.

That's why I proudly support neither.

[Fugus]

I support the most possible freedom attainable. That means very little government. Basically, all government should be there to do, is restrict an action that actually creates a victim. In the case of a voluntary agreement between two entities, you are not likely to have a victim.

That is an understandable goal and way of thinking but you are making the mistake of thinking that just because you remove THE government from a situation that you actually remove government from it. Many times when you remove the government from the situations, you end up allowing the biggest players in it to become the government in those areas.

Same as with the wage negotiations. Many times government is needed to step in and set baselines as the negotiations can be very one sided in favor one a single party. And when it comes to those, it is mainly in favor of the employer until we end up with 100% employment, universal income, or hugely powerful unions to counterbalance the scale.

Wage negotiations many times are negotiations where the employee is forced into the agreement under duress as they need some form of income to survive, especially if they have others to support. If you are trying to negotiate a wage when you figuratively have a gun to your families head if you can't bring in any money, you don't have the ability to fairly negotiate your wages.

[Masark]

That's why I proudly support neither.

Despite your strident claims otherwise, every jot and tittle of your proposed policies align with the conservatives and encourage a return to the gilded age.

[A dot Ham]

Or you could pay people a fair wage so they can afford things that aren't as cheap as possible.

Let's be clear here....there's a higher percentage of consumers willing spend more on good products then there are businesses who aren't trying to find a way to pay people less.

You're under the false assumption that more expensive = better quality... and that isn't always the case.

Apple Computers for example are extremely high priced, perform no better than the competition and... are manufactured in China.

[Tinykong]

PMI? I used first home owners loan and am at 2.99% Locked percentage. No extra taxes or fees. or are you taking about property taxes?

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mort...rance-pmi.aspx

No down payment on a $300k loan is ~$300 a month in PMI.

[petej0]

Adaptation to evolving markets, bolstering the buying power of the lower and middle classes,

No offense, but that just sounds like buzz words to me. It is just stuff politicians say for votes but doesnt really mean anything when you try to put it into action. You dont think the "free" market is adapting to evolving markets? Ecommerce has literally changed the face of commerce. You no longer need to leave your house to buy the necessities of life. Brick and mortar sites are struggling to compete with their sister Ecommerce sites. Those retail jobs are few compared to just 20 years ago. The market has adapted, the results are not good, not for the low skilled.

taxing the ultra wealthy businesses and corporations who have assigned so much tax money to themselves, and creating new government jobs from the revenue.

What jobs, we can hardly pay for the government services we get now. Besides that, what are you going to do to stop corporations from leaving to escape higher taxes?

[Machismo]

That is an understandable goal and way of thinking but you are making the mistake of thinking that just because you remove THE government from a situation that you actually remove government from it. Many times when you remove the government from the situations, you end up allowing the biggest players in it to become the government in those areas.

Same as with the wage negotiations. Many times government is needed to step in and set baselines as the negotiations can be very one sided in favor one a single party. And when it comes to those, it is mainly in favor of the employer until we end up with 100% employment, universal income, or hugely powerful unions to counterbalance the scale.

Wage negotiations many times are negotiations where the employee is forced into the agreement under duress as they need some form of income to survive, especially if they have others to support. If you are trying to negotiate a wage when you figuratively have a gun to your families head if you can't bring in any money, you don't have the ability to fairly negotiate your wages.

But at the same time, a corporation would have that same gun to their heads. When the executives of a company deal with labor negotiations, their jobs are often at stake. They still answer to the shareholders, and strikes are bad for business. Really, the only time government should get involved in private labor negotiations, is to make sure people are fulfilling their end of the bargain.

Unions are not as powerful as they used to be, and there's many reasons for it. First and foremost, people don't see the major positive impacts that unions used to bring. They did create the middle class. However, they became so powerful, they got a little too greedy on long-term contracts, and it bit some people in the ass. Pensions were a major cause of that. Another issue was the advent of public-employee unions. In those cases, the union and the executives were often bargaining from the same side of the table... since the money did not belong to either one of them.People saw public employees making more and more, especially at the federal level... and they got pissed.

I still think unions can play an important role, but should focus on the private sector. They should also focus on providing their own setup for pensions,a s they can disappear very quickly if a company goes through tough times.

- - - Updated - - -

Despite your strident claims otherwise, every jot and tittle of your proposed policies align with the conservatives and encourage a return to the gilded age.

Well, libertarians are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Being fiscally conservative does not mean someone supports our shitty corporatist society. It just means that they also don't support the alternative pushed by social democrats.

[Mayhem]

All the workers and consumers had to do, was spend their money more wisely, refuse to work for less, and put their money where their mouths were. The power still lies with the consumer, they are just too dumb to realize it.

Ok i´m not a US citizen, but i doubt it´s that easy. Refuse to work for less. So just don´t have a job? You know, you´re right, if the civil population or better the workforce would come together as one entity this would actually work. How do you think this is going to work though? I mean, just stay jobless for up until companies are willing to pay what they should be paying? Wait i think i know how this could be accomplished: minimum wage. I mean in the end all you´re asking from consumers and workers is to know everything about companies and agree on working together. That shouldn´t be too hard. Easy.

[Fugus]

But at the same time, a corporation would have that same gun to their heads. When the executives of a company deal with labor negotiations, their jobs are often at stake. They still answer to the shareholders, and strikes are bad for business. Really, the only time government should get involved in private labor negotiations, is to make sure people are fulfilling their end of the bargain.

Unions are not as powerful as they used to be, and there's many reasons for it. First and foremost, people don't see the major positive impacts that unions used to bring. They did create the middle class. However, they became so powerful, they got a little too greedy on long-term contracts, and it bit some people in the ass. Pensions were a major cause of that. Another issue was the advent of public-employee unions. In those cases, the union and the executives were often bargaining from the same side of the table... since the money did not belong to either one of them.People saw public employees making more and more, especially at the federal level... and they got pissed.

I still think unions can play an important role, but should focus on the private sector. They should also focus on providing their own setup for pensions,a s they can disappear very quickly if a company goes through tough times.

No, the corporation does not have the same gun to their head. With the current market, the corporations can treat them like garbage and throw them away just as easy because there is a line forming just for any job and they know it. The only time they would have that same gun held to their head is again with 100% employment, universal income or something as before where the worker can literally walk away and get another job with ease or flat out do without. But so long as the employee needs a job and the company is so flooded with labor that they can throw them out like tissue paper, it isn't the same.

And you are comparing executives to entry level which are two completely different fields and you typically won't see strikes without unions or the likes otherwise it will generally be so small scale that they can be ignored and/or replaced.

And unions aren't as strong for many more and important reasons and a great deal of it has to do with companies and politicians making sure to cut them off at the knees with many of them being recorded as literally phrasing it that way as their goals. Cutting Unions was the entire reason behind passing laws allowing people to get the benefits of a union without being in one to cut off union funding with scabs along with lots of propaganda trying to claim unions were bad and so on. You want a laugh, you should see the anti-union video they make you watch as part of Walmart orientation, that thing reminds you of a comedy skit.

But no, corporations don't have that same gun at their head either and never have since unionization and minimum wage took off in the United States. And they won't again unless Unions make a huge resurgence and become global unions or we have universal income where the employees really can collectively tell the company to fuck off if they don't like the terms anymore.

But till then, the employers have all the power when it comes to wage negotiations and they know it with government intervention being the only thing holding them in check to any level.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No offense, but that just sounds like buzz words to me. It is just stuff politicians say for votes but doesnt really mean anything when you try to put it into action. You dont think the "free" market is adapting to evolving markets? Ecommerce has literally changed the face of commerce. You no longer need to leave your house to buy the necessities of life. Brick and mortar sites are struggling to compete with their sister Ecommerce sites. Those retail jobs are few compared to just 20 years ago. The market has adapted, the results are not good, not for the low skilled.

The market is adapting, yes, which is why people demanding jobs be brought BACK from China, Mexico and elsewhere are delusional.

It sounds like a political buzzword, and it is something that was the main driving force of our strong economy during the mid 20th century. Consumers with strong buying power is what gave rise to small towns, built up around industries that paid them well because of unions. Now most of those towns are dead. Figure out a method to recreate that buying power among consumers.

What jobs, we can hardly pay for the government services we get now. Besides that, what are you going to do to stop corporations from leaving to escape higher taxes?

We have decaying infrastructure, much of which is severely outdated. There are a multitude of services this country needs but does not have due to lack of willingness to fund them. The sciences lately have been strangled for funding from government.

Corporations WANT to do business in the US, it is an enormous consumer market with humongous profit potentials. Penalties for those who take advantage of tax havens. Tax their income within the US, and hire plenty of people to ensure they are being truthful. The IRS used to have teeth and would go after businesses who even had a hint of cheating on their taxes. These days the IRS's authority and power has been declawed and defanged. Nobody is scared to cheat on their taxes as long as they know to even slightly cover their tracks.

Give unions back their power. People took for granted the wage stability and benefits they gave us, and now those are all but gone.

[Bodakane]

I did read it, and it seems like you really wanted to go off on a rant.

You can whine all you like, but it's not going to solve your problem, is it? I have no problem trying to solve the problems I bitch about. You seem to have an aversion to work, and prefer to whine.

So you're not going to admit that you misunderstood (purposely or not) what I said multiple times about you comparing your experience? You're also not going to admit you were wrong about what I was saying about welfare and how it differs form now?

And here I thought you cons were about personal responsibility....

- - - Updated - - -

You're under the false assumption that more expensive = better quality... and that isn't always the case.

Apple Computers for example are extremely high priced, perform no better than the competition and... are manufactured in China.

No, I'm not making that false assumption.

What is it with you guys?

You blamed consumers for low wages as you believe wages are low because of demand for cheap products. I'm trying to get you to understand, that it was businesses that lowered the quality of products by decreasing the skill needed to create a product so they could make it cheaper.

Again, there is a greater percentage of consumers who are willing to spend more on higher quality products then there are percentage of companies who want to pay their employees more.

[Stacyrect]

Mass immigration? lol.

Can I interest you in the studies that show you that Big Ag is bringing in the majority of illegals so they have a workforce with limited rights they can pay like crap?

Oh no, you won't care about that.

- - - Updated - - -



No they weren't.

Big Ag isn't directly responsible for bringing over illegals, but they indirectly are a large part of the problem with hiring them and providing them shelter. Corporate farms like Wal-marts, landolakes, Sargento, Kraft, and Safeway are among the worst of offenders. They cry bitch and moan about the millions of dollars in insured and protected crops while pandering to the government for more handouts and tax breaks. Even worse, look at how big dairy and government spend tax payer dollars are fucking lies, trying to ram fuckin dairy products in every orifice you have.



When obama got elected he had a democratic house and 57 democratic senators with 2 independents and 41 republican senators. So yeah, for 2 years, shit didn't get done.

[petej0]

The market is adapting, yes, which is why people demanding jobs be brought BACK from China, Mexico and elsewhere are delusional.

They are not delusional, just uninformed. I dont really blame them they are lashing out, you have 50 year old people who made a living building cars, bicycles, what have you. That is all they know and they are angry that their plant closed its doors and moved out of country. Going to school to learn to be a systems engineer is a little out of the question for these people. These are people who even if they took on the debt and returned to school to acquire another skill would be competing with people 30 years younger then them for a junior position somewhere. Realistically, their employment opportunities are slim.

We have decaying infrastructure, much of which is severely outdated.

It is outdated because nobody is willing to pay increased taxes to have a new public water lines run in their town. Nobody is willing to pay increased taxes for better roads. When was the last time the Federal Gas tax went up? We have a decaying infrastructure because politicians all bend over backwards to say they wont raise taxes. On anyone.

There are a multitude of services this country needs but does not have due to lack of willingness to fund them. The sciences lately have been strangled for funding from government.

There is no desire to fund them on either side. The sciences arent funded because those monies are funneled into projects that fall under the military some of it is good stuff. Electric trucks and what not.

Corporations WANT to do business in the US, it is an enormous consumer market with humongous profit potentials. Penalties for those who take advantage of tax havens. Tax their income within the US, and hire plenty of people to ensure they are being truthful. The IRS used to have teeth and would go after businesses who even had a hint of cheating on their taxes. These days the IRS's authority and power has been declawed and defanged. Nobody is scared to cheat on their taxes as long as they know to even slightly cover their tracks.

The tax code is so god damn complex and changes annually, I doubt the IRS can keep up, let alone enforce it.

[A dot Ham]

So you're not going to admit that you misunderstood (purposely or not) what I said multiple times about you comparing your experience? You're also not going to admit you were wrong about what I was saying about welfare and how it differs form now?

And here I thought you cons were about personal responsibility....

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm not making that false assumption.

What is it with you guys?

You blamed consumers for low wages as you believe wages are low because of demand for cheap products. I'm trying to get you to understand, that it was businesses that lowered the quality of products by decreasing the skill needed to create a product so they could make it cheaper.

Again, there is a greater percentage of consumers who are willing to spend more on higher quality products then there are percentage of companies who want to pay their employees more.

Yes you are making false assumptions.

Apple computers are the highest priced computers out there but the quality is equal or worse (depending on how you talk to) when compared to other competitors.

You assume cheap = poor quality, and that also... is not the case. I doubt if tags were removed you could tell the difference between something manufactured in the US vs made in China.

Hondas nay lets go cheaper, Toyotas are imported, cheap, and of high quality. Ask a Ferrari owner how often their vehicle is in the shop... price and quality do not always share an averse relationship.

[Machismo]

No, the corporation does not have the same gun to their head. With the current market, the corporations can treat them like garbage and throw them away just as easy because there is a line forming just for any job and they know it. The only time they would have that same gun held to their head is again with 100% employment, universal income or something as before where the worker can literally walk away and get another job with ease or flat out do without. But so long as the employee needs a job and the company is so flooded with labor that they can throw them out like tissue paper, it isn't the same.

And you are comparing executives to entry level which are two completely different fields and you typically won't see strikes without unions or the likes otherwise it will generally be so small scale that they can be ignored and/or replaced.

And unions aren't as strong for many more and important reasons and a great deal of it has to do with companies and politicians making sure to cut them off at the knees with many of them being recorded as literally phrasing it that way as their goals. Cutting Unions was the entire reason behind passing laws allowing people to get the benefits of a union without being in one to cut off union funding with scabs along with lots of propaganda trying to claim unions were bad and so on. You want a laugh, you should see the anti-union video they make you watch as part of Walmart orientation, that thing reminds you of a comedy skit.

But no, corporations don't have that same gun at their head either and never have since unionization and minimum wage took off in the United States. And they won't again unless Unions make a huge resurgence and become global unions or we have universal income where the employees really can collectively tell the company to fuck off if they don't like the terms anymore.

But till then, the employers have all the power when it comes to wage negotiations and they know it with government intervention being the only thing holding them in check to any level.

Yes, you are talking about the current market, and for lower-skilled employees. As for unions, companies can't really get rid of them, unless they refuse to hire employees who are part of unions. What hurt unions, was forcing people into them whether they wanted to be or not, and requiring dues be paid without permission. They used that very same government to get what they wanted, and it angered a lot of people.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok i´m not a US citizen, but i doubt it´s that easy. Refuse to work for less. So just don´t have a job? You know, you´re right, if the civil population or better the workforce would come together as one entity this would actually work. How do you think this is going to work though? I mean, just stay jobless for up until companies are willing to pay what they should be paying? Wait i think i know how this could be accomplished: minimum wage. I mean in the end all you´re asking from consumers and workers is to know everything about companies and agree on working together. That shouldn´t be too hard. Easy.

I'm asking for consumers and employees to be informed, and put their money where their mouths are. If that's too difficult for them, then I'm not apt to feel much sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're not going to admit that you misunderstood (purposely or not) what I said multiple times about you comparing your experience? You're also not going to admit you were wrong about what I was saying about welfare and how it differs form now?

And here I thought you cons were about personal responsibility....

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm not making that false assumption.

What is it with you guys?

You blamed consumers for low wages as you believe wages are low because of demand for cheap products. I'm trying to get you to understand, that it was businesses that lowered the quality of products by decreasing the skill needed to create a product so they could make it cheaper.

Again, there is a greater percentage of consumers who are willing to spend more on higher quality products then there are percentage of companies who want to pay their employees more.

Are you still going off on your rant? What you did, was try and twist words (many of which I never even said) in order to push an agenda. I called you on it, and you whined. You are nothing more than a trollish zealot, who has allowed his cognitive dissonance to cloud any semblance of reason.

[Fugus]

Yes, you are talking about the current market, and for lower-skilled employees. As for unions, companies can't really get rid of them, unless they refuse to hire employees who are part of unions. What hurt unions, was forcing people into them whether they wanted to be or not, and requiring dues be paid without permission. They used that very same government to get what they wanted, and it angered a lot of people.

Actually, companies have worked to get rid of them both politically and otherwise. I hate to keep using them but Walmart is a shining example of it.

They have actually had a store unionize before, it was immediately shut down with all employees fired rather than allow a union shop to open.

And it wasn't forcing people into unions that hurt them, it was the opposite where people got the benefits of the union without being a member or paying union dues that cut union funding greatly and with it their ability to fund their operations. Plus the bad unions which get talked about like they were the norm or something when they weren't. Remember, we still have the less informed blaming the union for Hostess while ignoring the whole situation to peddle the narrative.

The government has been operating at the behest of these same corporations to help weaken unions.

And overall, the picture is still one where the employer has the power and the employees lack the leverage to negotiate a proper wage.

[Iamanerd]

If "this one person" can do it anyone can is a really shitty argument.

- - - Updated - - -



Wait staff can make excessive amounts of money. I know servers who can make double their rent on a good day.

Pretty much, it depends on where you work for the most part, my uncle works as a waiter in a poker room at a Casino here and he makes a solid 70k a year as a waiter due to high tips. Regardless though I was pointing out to who I quoted that the person they knew was making way above minimum wage to be supporting what she has with that rent payment.

[Gamdwelf]

PMI? I used first home owners loan and am at 2.99% Locked percentage. No extra taxes or fees. or are you taking about property taxes?

PMI is private mortgage insurance that is required since the reforms after the crash of 08 if you don't have a certain amount of down payment.

- - - Updated - - -

It should at least support one person....no?

It does if you aren't retarded and you are willing to live in your means.

[Machismo]

Actually, companies have worked to get rid of them both politically and otherwise. I hate to keep using them but Walmart is a shining example of it.

They have actually had a store unionize before, it was immediately shut down with all employees fired rather than allow a union shop to open.

And it wasn't forcing people into unions that hurt them, it was the opposite where people got the benefits of the union without being a member or paying union dues that cut union funding greatly and with it their ability to fund their operations. Plus the bad unions which get talked about like they were the norm or something when they weren't. Remember, we still have the less informed blaming the union for Hostess while ignoring the whole situation to peddle the narrative.

The government has been operating at the behest of these same corporations to help weaken unions.

And overall, the picture is still one where the employer has the power and the employees lack the leverage to negotiate a proper wage.

Hostess was not the fault of unions, it was the fault of the takeover team who gutted the business. The union was right to not bend, because they knew their employees were getting screwed. Of course, Hostess also had other problems, their product was simply twice the price of comparable competitors. Once again, that fault lies with years of mismanagement, and not on the union.

I have no problem with Wal-Mart closing a unionized store, that's how they deal with such things. It's not very nice, but t is damn effective. Governments do act at the behest of corporations. However, they also do so at the behest of unions. That is especially true in California, where unions basically control the state. Both are capable of some really shitty things when they decide to lobby the government. I'd be much happier if neither had any sway with government.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I've grown up to learn that getting a job means you're self-sufficient, you don't need to rely on anyone and if you do what you're supposed to, you'll live comfortably. Still to this day, I don't know a single person who needs to hold down 2 or even 3 jobs just to survive. They're able to live very comfortably on wages from working with young children, as convenience store clerks and one even at McDonald's.

I remember clear as day this woman sitting on some American show going "I hold 3 jobs to keep my family afloat, and I am PROUD to do so, it's the American dream!!"...I think I also saw someone say "If people can get comfortable where they're at, what will spurr them on to become even greater (rich)??"...Pretty fucked up, as if everyone just wants to be RICH like the 1%...