wealth inequality

[petej0]

The problem is that you think that there are jobs "made for teenagers".

They are not made specifically for teens. They are low skilled with little to no responsibility and a high turnover rate. Because of that they are low paying and attract a younger crowd who are low skilled and can work odd hours around a high school or college schedule.

[Deleted]

Why not just get more money? It's just as magical as 'go get a better job'. Just plant a money tree in your backya... I mean in a secluded public park.

I do agree, those jobs created for teenagers that operate during school hours are keen.

Because a job that does not require any skill at all doesn't deserve more then what they are getting.
If you want a better life, go work for it instead of standing behind a cash register serving people food that you heat up.

[Machismo]

So according to you people should not be able to take care of them selves or deserve any kind of fun or security for their labour. Thats okay, but it makes you a monster just like the guy you quoted suggested. And he isn't saying that the employers should do that, that is you implying stuff again, everyone pretty much agrees that this is a job of the government.

And we do not have a choice, if the choice is buying something or starving then you do not have a choice.

And what you say about the government is exactly the same as any other big company, the only difference is that the government isn't out to squeeze you out of your last dime and actually tries to better the situation of the people.

I think people should be able to take care of themselves. I have a real problem with forcing others to take care of them instead. People think this is a job for government, because they aren't willing to do it themselves. They are dependent, lazy, and complacent. I'm not a big fan of having the government do everything for me, because I don't want them to also do things against me.

You seem to think I want corporations to rule over us, i do not.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because they need money to surive, but you make it sound as if everybody can just go out and start a business and succeed.

I never said everyone will succeed, some people will fail. However, by using the government to unbalance the playing field, you are trying to pick winners and losers.

[petej0]

By being the employer? A business that cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage is a flawed business that shouldn't exist. We end up paying the differance through social programs, crime or deterioration of quality of life. Every single employee that gets welfare or gets any sort of state assistance, is actually supporting the business through tax payers making up the differance.

If you want to talk about large and medium sized corps, I will agree with you. However there are a lot of small businesses that cant afford to pay their workers a "living wage". Pizza Shops (hell most food shops), beverage stores, grocery/convenience stores, etc.. It isnt like these owners are filthy rich themselves.

[Cthulhu 2020]

How is that the responsibility of an employer?

And no, a living wage is not a subsistence wage. There is a difference.

- - - Updated - - -



You do have a choice, you simply elect not to make that choice. Your plan is to actually increase costs, meaning you have even less of a choice than you already claim to have.

The government is not evil (usually), it is simply cumbersome, inept, corrupt, and oppressive.

There is no choice. Your entire argument hinges on people having a huge number of choices. I actually do put my money where my mouth is when I can - I buy local produce from the farmer's market, but that only covers so much of my household needs. It's slightly more expensive but I know that shopping locally puts more money into my local economy.

Consumers do not have many choices. While there are monopolies in some areas on some things (for instance cable and Internet providers) other businesses such as grocery stores may not have a monopoly, but there is no way to choose to shop at one that pays more.

Your ENTIRE argument hinges on people having limitless choices. It's why laissez Faire economics works in theoey, in your mind, but never in reality. Youve created an ideal world where everyone has choices on where to work, how much they want to work for, where they shop and how much they spend. Reality does not work that way, and your entire idea of how the world should work shatters in the face of reality.

[Machismo]

By being the employer? A business that cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage is a flawed business that shouldn't exist. We end up paying the differance through social programs, crime or deterioration of quality of life. Every single employee that gets welfare or gets any sort of state assistance, is actually supporting the business through tax payers making up the differance.

Want less taxes? Have employees pay their workers a wage that removes their need for social programs. According to the 2013 CBO, an increase to 10 bucks n hour, would remove 900k families from poverty line and every social program they qualified for.



This is just silly. What percentage of good's value is it's local minimum wage workers? How much would these people be putting back into the pockets of these companies by being able to spend more?



What is government corruption? As a representation of the people, government corruption centers on doing the will of corporations or those who can afford to influence government. In this case, the clear case of corruption is the very thing you are advocating. If the goal was representing the people and not corporations, we would have seen cost of living increases in the minimum wage. But, because government is pretty much paid off through lobbying, the welfare of the people is ignore.

An employer agrees to pay an employee a specific wage, and the employee agrees to work for that wage. The employer isn't obligated to pay more, just as the employee is not obligated to work more than was originally agreed upon. If you are going to demand the employer pay more, then surely you would be fine if the employer decided to demand the employee work more. All's fair, right?

Many businesses have a large portion of their costs in low-wage workers. Restaurants and retail stores are a prime example of that. By increasing the cost to the company, you are going to increase the cost of their products. Or do you simply think those companies should be forced to absorb the added cost?

Government corruption goes both ways. A government that restricts the freedom of the people, at the request of businesses, is no different than one that restricts the freedoms of companies at the request of the people. Both are corrupt and oppressive, but you seem fine with one. I do not support either.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no choice. Your entire argument hinges on people having a huge number of choices. I actually do put my money where my mouth is when I can - I buy local produce from the farmer's market, but that only covers so much of my household needs. It's slightly more expensive but I know that shopping locally puts more money into my local economy.

Consumers do not have many choices. While there are monopolies in some areas on some things (for instance cable and Internet providers) other businesses such as grocery stores may not have a monopoly, but there is no way to choose to shop at one that pays more.

Your ENTIRE argument hinges on people having limitless choices. It's why laissez Faire economics works in theoey, in your mind, but never in reality. Youve created an ideal world where everyone has choices on where to work, how much they want to work for, where they shop and how much they spend. Reality does not work that way, and your entire idea of how the world should work shatters in the face of reality.

My entire argument relies on the observation that people are unwilling to make the choice, either through ambivalence, complacency, or just plain laziness.

Consumers have all the choices, they simply choose not to exercise them. They have consistently chosen cheaper products, and ignored the workers. Instead, they want the government to step in... but will still want those same cheap products. That's not going to happen.

Refusing to make a choice is not the same as not having one.

[Felya]

Because a job that does not require any skill at all doesn't deserve more then what they are getting.
If you want a better life, go work for it instead of standing behind a cash register serving people food that you heat up.

How can you say "go work" when the issue is people working? A lightbulb should go off as you type that...

[Captain N]

How can you say "go work" when the issue is people working? A lightbulb should go off as you type that...

It doesn't. His arguments are always the same -- People need to go do better when they're in low paying jobs, and when you show him no skill jobs that pay better than himself he deflects it into people being overpaid despite the required education and skills that go with that better paid job. It's the typical response around here poor people = bad and people who make more money than me = overpaid. It's the Kobayashi Maru of debates with some people.

[Felya]

If you want to talk about large and medium sized corps, I will agree with you. However there are a lot of small businesses that cant afford to pay their workers a "living wage". Pizza Shops (hell most food shops), beverage stores, grocery/convenience stores, etc.. It isnt like these owners are filthy rich themselves.

I said nothing of the filthy rich, that's not my concern. We should have people who are filthy rich, there as absolutley nothing wrong with that at all. Those stores need to charge more, if they cannot afford to pay their employees. Their business model is flawed and in fact contributes to their issues, if they are afraid to raise prices due to affordability.

[Deleted]

How can you say "go work" when the issue is people working? A lightbulb should go off as you type that...

Sorry, I should have typed "Go to work that actually involve you using your brain or anything thats physical & hard or so disgusting people don't want to do it" .. like you know, anything else but a dead end shit job that could be done by a monkey you would train for 2 weeks.

So sick and tired of these treads, you being on this planet doesn't mean the rest of us should take care of you.
If you want something, go earn it.
If you don't want to do that then be happy with the scraps you get.


In before a crazy amount of hate from people sitting on their couch all day saying how much they want to work!

[Cthulhu 2020]

An employer agrees to pay an employee a specific wage, and the employee agrees to work for that wage. The employer isn't obligated to pay more, just as the employee is not obligated to work more than was originally agreed upon. If you are going to demand the employer pay more, then surely you would be fine if the employer decided to demand the employee work more. All's fair, right?

Many businesses have a large portion of their costs in low-wage workers. Restaurants and retail stores are a prime example of that. By increasing the cost to the company, you are going to increase the cost of their products. Or do you simply think those companies should be forced to absorb the added cost?

Government corruption goes both ways. A government that restricts the freedom of the people, at the request of businesses, is no different than one that restricts the freedoms of companies at the request of the people. Both are corrupt and oppressive, but you seem fine with one. I do not support either.

- - - Updated - - -



My entire argument relies on the observation that people are unwilling to make the choice, either through ambivalence, complacency, or just plain laziness.

Consumers have all the choices, they simply choose not to exercise them. They have consistently chosen cheaper products, and ignored the workers. Instead, they want the government to step in... but will still want those same cheap products. That's not going to happen.

Refusing to make a choice is not the same as not having one.

Is there a choice to shop at $15/hr grocery stores if none have ever existed? Is there a choice if you live in one of the hundreds of towns with less than 5000 population and there's 1 or 2 grocery stores? Again, this choice you keep talking about does not, for the most part exist.

Do you know why people shop at wherever is the cheapest? Because the minimum wage has become shit over the years. They do not have the money to shop elsewhere. There is no choice to shop somewhere more expensive if the vast majority of the country does not have the money. It's funny that you've acknowledged the only choice is often going hungry or dying if you do not like the way things are. Fucking hilarious. And yet you keep spouting as if there is a meaningful choice.

The real world does not work in the way you envision it. You've been sheltered and have obviously never faced a tough decision in your life where the choices were shitty and more shitty.

[Deleted]

Is there a choice to shop at $15/hr grocery stores if none have ever existed? Is there a choice if you live in one of the hundreds of towns with less than 5000 population and there's 1 or 2 grocery stores? Again, this choice you keep talking about does not, for the most part exist.

Do you know why people shop at wherever is the cheapest? Because the minimum wage has become shit over the years. They do not have the money to shop elsewhere. There is no choice to shop somewhere more expensive if the vast majority of the country does not have the money. It's funny that you've acknowledged the only choice is often going hungry or dying if you do not like the way things are. Fucking hilarious. And yet you keep spouting as if there is a meaningful choice.

The real world does not work in the way you envision it. You've been sheltered and have obviously never faced a tough decision in your life where the choices were shitty and more shitty.

Almost all successful (using this term for anyone that made something out of them selfs) have had hundreds of tough decisions in their life time.
But anyone that does not agree with your "lets take care of everyone dream world" has always lived a sheltered life, coming from rich parents .. blablablabla!

[petej0]

I said nothing of the filthy rich, that's not my concern. We should have people who are filthy rich, there as absolutley nothing wrong with that at all. Those stores need to charge more, if they cannot afford to pay their employees. Their business model is flawed and in fact contributes to their issues, if they are afraid to raise prices due to affordability.

Thier business model is not flawed in that they cant charge much higher prices because the big corps can charge cheaper prices because they buy in bulk. Do you think a local family pizza shop can afford to charge $5 for a large pizza like most chain places can? No, because they dont buy their ingredients in bulk like the Chain places do.

[Captain N]

Is there a choice to shop at $15/hr grocery stores if none have ever existed? Is there a choice if you live in one of the hundreds of towns with less than 5000 population and there's 1 or 2 grocery stores? Again, this choice you keep talking about does not, for the most part exist.

The $15/hour grocery store may not exist but the small business that has to charge a little more than the Wal-Mart or Target certainly does. That's the part I never understood about people arguing against wage increases when it actually gives people the choice to shop at the small business versus the chain stores. It doesn't take much to look around at the places with higher than average wages and seeing family owned clothing, food, and merchandise stores in abundance. However, in the areas were wages are low you'll usually only see the familiar chain stores and many boarded up businesses that failed due to location. There is a choice but unfortunately in many areas people are pinching pennies so tightly that they can't afford that extra 5%-10% markup the small stores has to run to keep up with its bulk purchasing competitors.

[zenkai]

Do you know why people shop at wherever is the cheapest? Because the minimum wage has become shit over the years. They do not have the money to shop elsewhere.

If you made more money you would shop at a more expensive grocery store? Why would you pay more for the same item just because you made more money?

[Felya]

An employer agrees to pay an employee a specific wage, and the employee agrees to work for that wage. The employer isn't obligated to pay more, just as the employee is not obligated to work more than was originally agreed upon. If you are going to demand the employer pay more, then surely you would be fine if the employer decided to demand the employee work more. All's fair, right?

An employee needs a job, not obliged. The fact that employers are not obliged, literally means that they are doing this, because there is no legal demand for increasing the minimum wage and corporations have no ability for moral distinction.

I don't even know what you mean by work more. Their job is dictated by the ebb and flow of the work load. If you are saying working more hours at increased pay, I don't see a problem with that. That's overtime and exists today, just like it would with increased minimum wage. I don't see your point at all...

Many businesses have a large portion of their costs in low-wage workers. Restaurants and retail stores are a prime example of that. By increasing the cost to the company, you are going to increase the cost of their products. Or do you simply think those companies should be forced to absorb the added cost?

What is the percentage? "Large" is a subjective term and doesn't actually say anything about what portion they represent. There is a myriad of things a business can do to lower costs. But, the bottom line, if they cannot afford to pay their workers, then they shouldn't exist. If manufacturing the product costs too much for what you can sell it, do we prop up the business with government aid? Do we subsidize their employees to make it affordable? Why is it employees need to find better jobs, but businesses that cannot afford to pay them are not told to find a better business model?

Government corruption goes both ways. A government that restricts the freedom of the people, at the request of businesses, is no different than one that restricts the freedoms of companies at the request of the people. Both are corrupt and oppressive, but you seem fine with one. I do not support either.

No, government represent the people, not businesses. Corporations specifically dissolve liability through incorporating, something that people cannot do. Doing what your constituents want, is not corruption. Corruption is when it's cheaper to lobby the government, than it is to pay your workers. A government that is the will of the people is not corrupt...

It's sad that you think a government that actually represents it's people, instead of special interest, is corrupt.

[Deleted]

If you made more money you would shop at a more expensive grocery store? Why would you pay more for the same item just because you made more money?

People don't, I don't.
Still shop at the same store, eat the same food.

Just spend the extra income on traveling & shit I don't really need.

[zenkai]

People don't, I don't.
Still shop at the same store, eat the same food.

Just spend the extra income on traveling & shit I don't really need.

Same, I'm all about saving money on stuff I need so I have more to spend on stuff I want.

[Felya]

If you made more money you would shop at a more expensive grocery store? Why would you pay more for the same item just because you made more money?

I don't shop at Walmart, because more expensive stores tend to have better service, fresher produce and far less hassle. They also have niche items that cheap chains do not carry. But, I also can afford to support local businesses that cannot compete with places that get lower prices due to volume.

- - - Updated - - -

Same, I'm all about saving money on stuff I need so I have more to spend on stuff I want.

That's bizarre... I spend more on things I need, then buy things I want. Saving on rent and food, to buy a video game, seems childish.

[Machismo]

Is there a choice to shop at $15/hr grocery stores if none have ever existed? Is there a choice if you live in one of the hundreds of towns with less than 5000 population and there's 1 or 2 grocery stores? Again, this choice you keep talking about does not, for the most part exist.

Do you know why people shop at wherever is the cheapest? Because the minimum wage has become shit over the years. They do not have the money to shop elsewhere. There is no choice to shop somewhere more expensive if the vast majority of the country does not have the money. It's funny that you've acknowledged the only choice is often going hungry or dying if you do not like the way things are. Fucking hilarious. And yet you keep spouting as if there is a meaningful choice.

The real world does not work in the way you envision it. You've been sheltered and have obviously never faced a tough decision in your life where the choices were shitty and more shitty.

The choices to exist, they are simply less convenient. I grew up in a town that was 36 miles away from the nearest stoplight. You can't get much more rural than that. The one store we did have, well, everything was expensive (go figure). We traveled about 40 miles to go grocery shopping, because we wanted a better selection. Was it easy? No, not really, that can be a pain in the ass.

People go for the cheapest product, because they are cheap. It;s in their financial best interest to pay as little as possible Guess what, that's the exact same goal most businesses have. You seem fine when consumers do it, but want to bitch and moan when a business does the exact same thing. You want to punish businesses, all for doing the same thing you do every day.

The real world doesn't work, because it is filled with lazy people who would rather have the government oppress others, instead of doing the work themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

An employee needs a job, not obliged. The fact that employers are not obliged, literally means that they are doing this, because there is no legal demand for increasing the minimum wage and corporations have no ability for moral distinction.

I don't even know what you mean by work more. Their job is dictated by the ebb and flow of the work load. If you are saying working more hours at increased pay, I don't see a problem with that. That's overtime and exists today, just like it would with increased minimum wage. I don't see your point at all...



What is the percentage? "Large" is a subjective term and doesn't actually say anything about what portion they represent. There is a myriad of things a business can do to lower costs. But, the bottom line, if they cannot afford to pay their workers, then they shouldn't exist. If manufacturing the product costs too much for what you can sell it, do we prop up the business with government aid? Do we subsidize their employees to make it affordable? Why is it employees need to find better jobs, but businesses that cannot afford to pay them are not told to find a better business model?



No, government represent the people, not businesses. Corporations specifically dissolve liability through incorporating, something that people cannot do. Doing what your constituents want, is not corruption. Corruption is when it's cheaper to lobby the government, than it is to pay your workers. A government that is the will of the people is not corrupt...

It's sad that you think a government that actually represents it's people, instead of special interest, is corrupt.

If you are going to demand that a company pays more than they agreed to pay, then you have justified the company demand that the employee work more than they agreed to work. Do you think a company should be able to use the government to force employees to work longer hours than they ever agreed to? If not, then you are a fucking hypocrite.

People are a special interest. Since I clearly don't want the government to do this, and you do, it's not working for all the people, is it? You want it to work for a specific group, which makes it a special interest. Congratulations, you are no different than the corporatists and lobbyists who do the exact same thing.

Not all businesses are corporations. Besides, I do not support the idea of the government reducing liability via incorporation. If you want to support getting rid of such a concept, I will be right there beside you.