Also,
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/08/tipless_restaurants_the_linkery_s_owner_explains_why_abolishing_tipping.html
What Happens When You Abolish Tipping
I got rid of gratuities at my restaurant, and our service only got better.

10/7/2013 8:12:27 PM

Quote :

"You are making two assumptions that are based on your limited world view."

uh... no

your first argument (well posting a not very related link about IBM) doesn't respond to the point at all

your second argument sets up a premise that is not true and is not the basis of my argument, its pretty textbook logical fallacy

but please, tell me more about my world view while posting terrible unrelated points

10/7/2013 9:47:04 PM

I think you had a case of tl;dr if you did not think that article was relevant to the point I was making. Let me put together some cliff notes on how we went from valuing every employee and providing wages that allowed a living wage for everyone, to focusing on increasing the shareholder value at all costs, including cutting salaries, pensions, and jobs in general:

Quote :

"In the decades after World War II, as the U.S. economy boomed, the interests of companies, shareholders, society and workers appeared to be in tune. Towns such as Endicott flourished. Even until 1981, the Business Roundtable trade group understood the need to balance these different stakeholders. “Corporations have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public quality goods and services at fair prices, thereby earning a profit that attracts ­investment to continue and enhance the enterprise, provide jobs, and build the economy,” the group said at the time, in a document cited this year in an article in the publication Daedalus. It continued: “The long-term viability of the corporation depends upon its responsibility to the society of which it is a part. And the well-being of society depends upon profitable and responsible business enterprises.” But changes were already afoot in the academic world that would reshape the fundamental relationship between this country and its companies. Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law at Cornell University Law School, traces the transformation to the rise of the “Chicago school” of free-market economists. In 1970, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine in which he famously argued that the only “social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” Then in 1976, economists Michael Jensen and William Meckling published a paper saying that shareholders were “principals” who hired executives and board members as “agents.” In other words, when you are an executive or corporate director, you work for the shareholders. Stout said these legal theories appealed to the media — the idea that shareholders were king simplified the confusing debate over the purpose of a corporation. More powerfully, it helped spawn the rise of executive pay tied to share prices — and thus the huge rise in stock-option pay. As a result, average annual executive pay has quadrupled since the early 1970s. The shift was dramatic. by 1997, the Business Roundtable had a new statement, also unearthed in the Daedalus article. It stated that the principal objective of a business enterprise “is to generate economic returns to its owners” and that if “the CEO and the directors are not focused on shareholder value, it may be less likely the corporation will realize that value.” “This is a horrible business model,” said Lee Conrad, a coordinator for Alliance@IBM, a group that advocates for company employees. “It’s all about the EPS [earnings per share] and not about growing the business. The customers are being impacted by this when good employees are being cut. It’s just a mess."

IN regards to your second argument,

Quote :

"the emotional appeal is compelling, but it doesn't change anything about my point. if you pay fast food workers $15/hr, most of the people working the job today will no longer have a job"

You are plain wrong, assuming nothing else changes, yes they WILL have a job, one that will pay $15/hr at that. People will NOT suddenly drop out of colleges and quit their skilled trade and white collar jobs to go work in a fast food joint.

But keep listening to Fox News

Ironically, moron makes the most sense in this thread so far

10/7/2013 9:58:17 PM

lol no he doesn't.

10/7/2013 10:05:40 PM

Switzerland is going ahead with this kind of stuff:

Switzerland Will Vote to Give All Adults a Guaranteed $2,800 Monthly Income
http://www.policymic.com/articles/66677/switzerland-will-vote-to-give-all-adults-a-guaranteed-2-800-monthly-income

Quote :

"Swiss residents will soon vote on an initiative that would guarantee a basic monthly income of 2,500 Swiss franks ($2,800) for all working adults in the country to combat income inequality across the nation. The initiative collected the 100,000 signatures needed for a referendum on the proposal, and to mark this historic initiative, a truck in the city of Bern unloaded 8 million five-cent coins, on Friday to represent Switzerland's 8 million citizens."

Here is another vote in the pipeline, also highly relevant to this thread, and directly relevant to what Igor and moron are talking about:

Quote :

"As Switzerland has the 100,000 signature threshold, the country frequently votes on public measures. On November 24, the country will vote on another initiative to cap executive pay at the maximum of twelve times the lowest paid salary member. "

Wow, I wonder if that will pass!

10/7/2013 10:38:24 PM

^^Yes he does, but you are welcome to pick at his posts and give us your thoughts

Quote :

"Inflation is a bitch. Raising the minimum wage just accelerates inflation. If everyone uses a $20 as the base, then a loaf of bread costs $20. Those $1 are only good for a pack of gum. (wait, gum is already a dollar, long gone is the $.25, $.10, or $.05 packs)"

When your currency is circulated worldwide and tied to all sorts of indexes, markets, and debts, causes and behavior of inflation is nowhere near that simple. When most of your consumer products are made overseas, your "bread basket" cost is not all that dependent on the minimum wage.

I lived through a couple of rounds of hyperinflation, and its causes had NOTHING to do with minimum wage.

I also remember times when saying that someone was a "cashier" was not an insult, they were respected just as much as a construction worker, a welder, a teacher, or an engineer, or any other productive member of the community. In fact, people who were good at it were proud of being a "good" cashier, and they got paid better for being more efficient or skillful at work. They did not necessarily have to become an assistant manager just to be able to afford a home and a decent life for their families. Before you call me a communist, remember that there was a period in the US history about half of a century ago where you COULD work on an assembly line or a Sears store, or a diner, and make a career out of it, and have your house with a white picket fence. Now somehow these people are considered by you college educated fucks as unsuccessful, second class citizens.

[Edited on October 7, 2013 at 10:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2013 10:39:07 PM

^ Inflation is probably the wrong term for it, but the fact of the matter is when there's more money in the hands of consumers the market finds ways to absorb it. That's the fundamental truth of raising the minimum wage... all you're doing is raising the level of the poverty line.

10/8/2013 8:00:43 AM

Quote :

"But keep listening to Fox News"

i'm a radical socialist who grew up in a family of crazy social activist missionary parents. minimum wage is a poor way to get the results it wants to accomplish, a strong social safety net of tax credits, subsidies and programs is much more effective. If you want to do it through payroll policy, the German system is a much more effective model.

10/8/2013 8:08:22 AM

^background noted. But you did sound like most Fox people would, at least until you mentioned tax credits and government programs.

The problems with trying to eliminate poverty with the tax credits and subsidies vs raising minimum wage are as follows:
It is not promoting employment (poor person on welfare gets same tax breaks as poor working person)
Tax incentives either don't add that much money to poor working people's income (they are already in the lowest tax bracket) or it requires taking tax dollars from completely unrelated people and causes to pay for their welfare, as opposed to taking money directly from their employer (or the customers that they serve). I personally don't mind my taxes helping people in need, but I can see where some people will look at it as propping someone's profits with their tax money, and they wouldn't be wrong.

10/8/2013 10:17:01 AM

Capping executive pay to a factor of average worker pay is something we should do here, and I feel like it could be sold politically.

I'd want to see that in place before I saw another min wage hike.

10/8/2013 10:31:50 AM

you're missing the point

Rather than re-post the argument I've already made, I'm going to cheat and let someone else say it more concisely:
Tax Structure vs. Minimum Wage
http://www.americanteeth.org/2013/08/26/tax-structure-vs-minimum-wage/

Quote :

"My Facebook has been flooded lately with pleas to raise the minimum wage, usually delivered in the typical content-free info-graphic format. This is a question I've settled already with more than one friend with actual credentials in economics, so it's kind of an exhausting argument to be having again. The opinion seems to be: -Wages are too low -Employers have a responsibility to pay a living wage. -We should codify such in law. -Where the second item comes from I have no idea; as far as I knew employer responsibility ended at "honor the fucking employment contract," but this is what's presented. My counterargument has been as follows: -Minimum wages act as a tariff on labor and reduce the performance of the labor market. -Society is the one complaining about a living wage, so they're the better candidate to pay for it anyway. -Therefore increasing the EITC, or instituting a negative income tax, and allowing the "under-payed" to take advantage of such a social safety net, correctly separates the problem and doesn't deprive us of as many of the market's production benefits. The central complaint I've dealt with has been with the second point again. The best argument I've heard is that the market is distorted in favor of employers because the politics that define it are distorted by money in politics. This starts off okay, but then it continues into the assertion that "unchecked capitalism" (whatever that means) is necessarily going to produce such a situation, so my offered solution of "fix it" isn't a valid avenue. Let's leave both of those aside, though, and come at this another way. The minimum wage and social benefits seem at first to be very different. I believe that any two arguments can be better compared if you can state them in the most similar possible terms. In this case we'd want to make the EITC or negative income tax look like a wage restriction, or we'd want to make the minimum wage look like a tax system or credit. I believe I can make the minimum wage look like a system of tax deductions and credits. I believe I can do so to the satisfaction of minimum wage proponents, such that they would feel comfortable framing the debate around this construction of the minimum wage, and I believe that comparing that tax system to a negative income tax and other tax policy makes the debate clearer and more concise. Let's begin assuming the negative income tax, and look at one crucial moment in either of these systems: the arrival of the low-wage employee's paycheck. Customarily, employers withhold income tax from employees and relay it to the government directly, with corrections made at the year-end W2. It follows, then, that if income tax went negative, employers would cut a larger check and seek reimbursement. So far, so good. This transaction looks identical to the minimum wage: employers cut larger checks and employees take home more money, so from an employee perspective the two are identical. Either way it's a bigger paycheck. Of course for this to be structurally identical to the minimum wage, said negative income tax would have to be structured to flatten wages below a certain line. You might not want to do that, for a few reasons, but I'll concede it for now. But we've involved another transaction where the negative income tax is still different: the employer usually takes withheld income tax and relays it to the government. In the case of negative income tax it would seek reimbursement, or take a credit toward how much of those withholding it had to submit. The correction is obvious: we impose an additional tax on corporations, proportional to the number of low-wage employees it has, scaled by how low their wages are, such as to negate said reimbursement. Now we've imposed the minimum wage, with the same flow of cache and a surprisingly similar amount of bureaucratic overhead, by simple manipulation of tax law. So now we can re-frame the minimum wage position more simply: The negative income tax is only rendered fair by a complementary tax on employers in exact proportion to the amount of benefits their employees receive. That's a much smaller set of points. This argument now feels clearer. I'm inferring that I haven't stepped on any minimum-wage-proponents' toes, but if everyone's on-board, this debate is simpler. And the question that remains is how married are you to that only and exact? I never said we couldn't raise corporate taxes per se to fund the new negative end of the tax curve, so the question becomes why is this exact tax structure the only fair way to do it? A general corporate profit tax would give a break to small business owners who aren't necessarily making much more than their low wage employees and still hit the "big evil corporations" you're blaming for the whole mess. You could actually fund part of it with a high-bracket income tax hike and get a similar effect yet again. I'm sure you could hit them hard enough to be satisfied (and I won't even suggest a limit for corporate profit or high income tax here at all!) without connecting it to any sort of job-creating activity, which should keep the market healthy. Thoughts?"

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM. Reason : post]

10/8/2013 10:36:59 AM

That's some economic Harry Houdini bullshit. So raising minimum wage would create inflation and stifle labor market, because people will have more money to spend and employers will have to pay more out of pocket. But if you just make that into a separate transaction that would withhold the same money from employer and then pay it to the employee, and that will somehow punish big corporations more than small businesses? Because big corporations don't use creative accounting to hide minimize their profits (and sometimes turn them into losses)? And what if company is not making a profit, do their low-wage worker not receive this negative tax, or does it get covered by other funds in government coffers? Because if some companies are except from paying this tax, now there is not enough money to cover all the minimum-wage workers. And I completely fail to see how this is any better in fighting inflation than just raising minimum wage to the same level.

Also, this system may look reasonable if the minimum wage is going up by 5-10%. If a more radical change is needed to bring minimum wage in line with living wage, which is likely, then you have a tax that approaches the wage itself, so now the "evel corporations" are still robbing their folks according to Dems and "evil government" is robbing the job creators according to GOP

10/8/2013 11:08:52 AM

but you agree with the premise that you can make taxes operate like a minimum wage?

Quote :

"And what if company is not making a profit, do their low-wage worker not receive this negative tax, or does it get covered by other funds in government coffers?"

you are totally missing how this works. yes, the workers still get paid.

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

10/8/2013 11:26:56 AM

Up to a certain percentage raises, yes, but I am still not convinced it would be more beneficial than a minimum wage raise. To me, using a tax approach is a more complex system that produces limited results, does not avert any pitfalls, and will likely to be opposed by more people.

10/8/2013 11:34:35 AM

but minimum wage burdens businesses. that might not be an issue for big employers, but it is one for many small employers. It also decreases the number of jobs available, because many jobs are no longer cost effective (this is generally where your economic textbook talks about elevator operators, etc...)

By shifting it to a credit or subsidy system, you open up lots of new low-paying jobs that don't exist under a minimum-wage system and you can decide how much you want to open that up by where you set the subsidy/negative tax. The benefit is that it doesn't look different to the employee, and they now have more jobs. its better for the worker and the employer.

also, if you want to stand by your position and the status quo, you need to first establish why it is the responsibility of business to provide a living wage and not the responsibility of society. I've made it easier for you by accepting and agreeing that the responsibility exists, which others in here will not agree with. (I, however, think the responsibility is on society and not employers)

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

10/8/2013 11:39:24 AM

Quote :

"but minimum wage burdens businesses. that might not be an issue for big employers, but it is one for many small employers"

Actually, the way it is set up in the article you posted, it takes the burden of businesses that post losses and places it on the businesses that post profit. It does not discriminate between small and large business. There are plenty of small and young businesses that post profit, and large established corporations that post losses. In a way, it de-incentives profitable operations (similar to other progressive taxes)

Quote :

"By shifting it to a credit or subsidy system, you open up lots of new low-paying jobs that don't exist under a minimum-wage system"

And you also make some other low-paying job suddenly more of a burden to profitable companies, because they now have to pay enough money to cover the negative tax of THEIR employees and also all the employees working for non-profitable companies. So as soon as a company starts making a profit, it gets hit with a double whammy, which sets it back (maybe not to Square one, as now they established operations, but it certainly does not encourage growth)

Quote :

"also, if you want to stand by your position and the status quo, you need to first establish why it is the responsibility of business to provide a living wage and not the responsibility of society."

I completely agree with you there. That's why I think companies should be required to pay a living wage.

Quote :

"I, however, think the responsibility is on society and not employers"

Plz to explain. I agree that society has a responsibility to take care of people in need, temporarily or permanently, for reasons outside of their control, but we certainly don't have a responsibility to pad someone's profits by subsidizing their employees with tax money that could be used elsewhere.

10/8/2013 12:07:00 PM

Quote :

"it takes the burden of businesses that post losses and places it on the businesses that post profit."

if you want to pay for it by taxing profits, it does this. but that's awesome, redistribution of wealth is good. by deciding what the subsidy level is you can decide how much of this you want to do.

Quote :

"And you also make some other low-paying job suddenly more of a burden to profitable companies, because they now have to pay enough money to cover the negative tax of THEIR employees and also all the employees working for non-profitable companies. So as soon as a company starts making a profit, it gets hit with a double whammy, which sets it back (maybe not to Square one, as now they established operations, but it certainly does not encourage growth) "

that's only true if you are requiring them to add those jobs. which no one is. so its not true. those new jobs will only be created where it makes sense.

Quote :

"I completely agree with you there. That's why I think companies should be required to pay a living wage."

you haven't yet established why this is the responsibility of employers. if someone is willing to work for a wage, why is that not good enough?

Quote :

"certainly don't have a responsibility to pad someone's profits by subsidizing their employees with tax money that could be used elsewhere."

you are not subsidizing any employers you are subsidizing the worker. its no different than if you gave the employer the money directly, the point was to set it up in a way to show you how its the exact same. if you want to give the money to the employer directly, that's fine.

this is the last time i will respond to aaronburro-style sentence dissection

please explain the following:
why someone should be prevented from working for a wage if they want to
why it is the responsibility of a company to provide a certain wage
why allowing people to work for whatever wages they accept and then providing a social net to bring them up to the level you want is not at-least as or more moral


[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2013 12:14:09 PM

Sentence dissection allows me to address specific points or flaws that I see with your argument. It is, in my view, better than typing some pre-formulated answer that does not address half of the points the previous poster made.

Quote :

"why someone should be prevented from working for a wage if they want to"

For the same reason women should be protected from working in prostitution. People that have means but do not have morals will pray on people who are vulnerable, and use those people for their own benefit. You are not a hero just because you decide to give a hungry dog a bone, and then put him into a dog fight to make money off of it.

Quote :

"why it is the responsibility of a company to provide a certain wage"

Society, through government, regulates business enterprise so it can contribute to the improvement of the society. Taxation of profits and minimum wage are two very basic ways to make sure companies are giving back to society, not just taking from it.

Quote :

"why allowing people to work for whatever wages they accept and then providing a social net to bring them up to the level you want is not at-least as or more moral"

First part already been answered. I am for social net for people who are in need, but the employers put them in that situation should take up the responsibility. If someone has a job, working for someone else, where they spend forty hours a week, they should be able to afford a decent living just with their salary.We've already established the need for it, and that's why there are minimum wage laws. All we are arguing about is what that "decent living" standard is.

I am not against corporate tax supporting negative tax, or combination of thereof, but I don't see why other tax funds should support someone's employees when if that someone can actually afford to pay them enough to support themselves.

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2013 12:34:25 PM

reformat and post again please

10/8/2013 12:35:21 PM

Maybe this subsidy could get these people off other tax funded programs?

10/8/2013 12:39:41 PM

Society, through government, regulates business enterprise so it can contribute to the improvement of the society. Taxation of profits and minimum wage are two very basic ways to make sure companies are giving back to society, not just taking from it. Workers should be protected by society from low wages for the same reason women should be protected from working in prostitution. People that have means but do not have morals will pray on people who are vulnerable, and use those people for their own benefit. You are not a hero just because you decide to give a hungry dog a bone, and then put him into a dog fight to make money off of it. I am for social net for people who are in need, but the employers put them in that situation should take up the responsibility. If someone has a job, working for someone else, where they spend forty hours a week, they should be able to afford a decent living just with their salary. We've already established the need for it, and that's why there are minimum wage laws. All we are arguing about is what that "decent living" standard should be. I am not against corporate tax supporting negative tax, or combination of thereof, but I don't see why other tax funds should support someone's employees when if that someone can actually afford to pay them enough to support themselves.

10/8/2013 12:39:52 PM

When you are "protecting" someone from a low wage job, what are you protecting them from? You seem to imply because they should be guaranteed protections in life, they should be guaranteed that they have access to a certain standard of living. the problem is that I've already agreed with that, I stated explicitly that its true.

You haven't yet explained why its the responsibility of a private business to guarantee that someone has access to a certain standard of living and not the responsibility of society.

If someone makes a decision, of their own free will with no coercion, to work a job then why should they not be allowed to do that. Why should two free people not be able to enter an agreement to provide labor for certain wages? this is what you need to answer.


(also, prostitution should be allowed)

10/8/2013 12:47:10 PM

Quote :

"You haven't yet explained why its the responsibility of a private business to guarantee that someone has access to a certain standard of living and not the responsibility of society"

Because private business does not operate in a vacuum, it operates within a society, and as a society, we elected this government to make the regulation that will allow the society to prosper (not just the business owners and shareholders). If the business does not like that, they need to GTFO and find another society that they are happy with.

Quote :

"If someone makes a decision, of their own free will with no coercion, to work a job then why should they not be allowed to do that. Why should two free people not be able to enter an agreement to provide labor for certain wages? this is what you need to answer."

Because one side right now has a stronger stand in the negotiations due to the capital it amassed and it stands to benefit from desperation of the other side. Government's job is to try to level the playing field by getting behind the little guy (unions do the same thing).

Quote :

"prostitution should be allowed"

But as soon as that happens, all the fast food joints will lose their workers to the prostitution industry, right?

10/8/2013 1:18:45 PM

but the government can still work to level the playing field if there is no minimum wage, in fact they could do it more effectively and more people would be able to choose to work.

and you still haven't established why its the responsibility of a private employer and not society to provide a certain quality of life. your response is circular logic, you are saying "the way it is now is right because its the law, its the law because it is right." you haven't even begun to establish a moral, philosophical, or economic defense.

10/8/2013 1:23:45 PM

Because I don't think I needed to defend what's right. Private employer uses the society's resources, so it must abide by society's laws. Going into moral, philosophical, or economic defense of why that is the case is way beyond the scope of this thread, do I need to rehash the entire purpose of the government? If you are for pure unrestricted capitalism, then just say so and provide some examples where that system worked well for the society in general. Maybe establish a establish a moral, philosophical, or economic defense of such system, while you are at it.

10/8/2013 1:45:06 PM

So if our law is what's right, then why do you want to increase minimum wage? By your logic it is correct where it is today and always will be. Do you see how your circular logic fails?

No where have I been for pure unrestricted capitalism, and I've stated clearly and explicitly that I'm pretty far from it. But minimum wage is not an effective way to guarantee that people have an acceptable quality of life.

I've proposed an alternate to minimum wage that has the same effect to the employee, however you want the status quo. Please explain why it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure a certain quality of life for an employee that has free will. If someone wants to work for $5/hour, and no one is coercing them, why should they not be allowed to?

10/8/2013 1:48:53 PM

no one "wants" to work for $5, the existing system is coercing them. You don't see the forest for the trees.

10/8/2013 1:56:09 PM

how do you know that no one is willing to work for $5? If they currently are making $0 per hour because they can't find a job, and are willing to work a job that becomes available at $5 per hour, why should they not be allowed to?



[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM. Reason : that was the biggest thing i learned living in shitty places, that some people just want to work]

10/8/2013 1:59:40 PM

Of course, as long as there is unemployment and no other safety net options, someone, somewhere, will be able to work for $5. In some other countries, that may be a livable wage. Sometimes, maybe they are learning something or building something for themselves that they consider "nonmonetary payment" and that makes it worth the (temporary) pain. But when a majority of the country's population spends at least a year below poverty line, while the top 1% makes so much money off of it that it owns more than the first 90% of people combined, that is not good for economy, crime rates, or political stability.

When someone is so desperate for money that they would murder someone else for a pair of shoes, when people lose their home when if they miss one paycheck, when people have to work two or three jobs and they still struggle to feed, shelter, and educate their kids, government should step in and not allow this to happen. That's what the good ole' government is there for.

I don't know what kind of shitty places you lived in where "some people just want to work" but I never met a person that wanted to work for $5 but refused to work for even a cent more than that. Maybe slaves were doing just fine, you know they had a roof over their head, they were fed, and they were the kind of people that just wanted to work? Oh, they didn't have their freedom, you say? Then what about serfs? They were "free to go" any minute, right?

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM. Reason : I'm done with this]

10/8/2013 2:26:29 PM

So I don't take any huge issues with the argument you've presented, but I do question the level of the minimium wage increase. $15 is a substantial increase to the current minimium wage. Don't you think that more than doubling the minimium wage could have some unexpected effects? Why not just raise the federal min. wage to $10 and see how that goes for a few years before going up to $12 and then to $15?

10/8/2013 2:58:15 PM

^^ The safety net should exist completely independently of minimum wage. Your comment about people desperate for money shows that you are still completely missing my point. Minimum wage is a terrible way to provide a safety net, all it does it keep some people from working. People should be allowed to work for whatever wage they want, and a seperate safety net should exist to make sure that they are not that desperate for money. We should ensure that everyone has a certain standard of living, but a minimum wage is not an effective or efficient way to do that.

and again, you still haven't explained why its the employers responsibility to ensure that a worker can meet a certain standard of living and not society's. if you don't want to explain that, you should acknowledge to yourself that you can't and then go back and read my proposal again. Maybe you think I am saying they should be left on their own? They should not, but a minimum wage is not helping them effectively.

[Edited on October 8, 2013 at 4:11 PM. Reason : 's]

10/8/2013 4:04:41 PM

dtownralI'm done arguing about this anymore, as I'm pretty sure i'm just wasting time. Glad to have learned about the tax approach of fixing the issue, but still not convinced it's better than raising the minimum wage. I came back to post this relevant image, which just came across my FB news feed



Kris, "living wage" varies from area to area along with the cost of living. I did't make up that $15/hr number, it was just a number that was floating around. I know that DC was asking Walmart for a minimum of $12.50 in combined wage+benefits, so $15/hr is not that far off the mark in certain areas.

10/8/2013 9:43:16 PM

Quote :

"To be eligible for WIC, one's income must be below 185 percent of the US Poverty Income. A near majority of American households now meet this criterion, despite the unemployment rate hovering at 7.3 percent. The reason for this is that jobs have stopped paying. Homeless people are working two jobs. Walmart and McDonalds employees frequently receive federal assistance. Military wives survive on food stamps, and their husbands survive on them when they come home. The number of Americans on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has risen 70 percent since 2008 and shows no sign of stopping. "

Happy Halloween...


http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201310491015764779

10/8/2013 10:04:03 PM

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services officials said Tuesday that because of the federal government shutdown, they will have to stop issuing benefits under the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program, also known as WIC. DHHS said federal WIC funds available to the state will be sufficient to cover WIC vouchers already issued for the month of October, but not sufficient to issue additional vouchers."

10/9/2013 4:22:43 PM

Quote :

""

Slavery requires a master or owner. In this case, the master is the universe which says you need food and shelter to survive.

10/9/2013 7:20:35 PM

That is a really stupid fucking image. Retarded even.

And in no way applies to the minimum wage discussion. You can have someone who makes 80k per year go out and buy a 700k home (for which I'm sure that person would be approved) and then he's only left with enough money for food, after paying for his shelter. So is he a slave (to who? The man??) as well?

10/9/2013 9:04:14 PM

Yeah poor people need to stop buying PPV Wrestlemania and shit.

10/9/2013 9:09:58 PM

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/10/23/mcdonalds-recommends-federal-assistance-help-low-wages-and-benefits

10/24/2013 11:25:01 AM

Quote :

"That is a really stupid fucking image. Retarded even. And in no way applies to the minimum wage discussion. You can have someone who makes 80k per year go out and buy a 700k home (for which I'm sure that person would be approved) and then he's only left with enough money for food, after paying for his shelter. So is he a slave (to who? The man??) as well?"

Yes.

Always leave yourself an out.

10/24/2013 11:40:36 AM

Folks need to learn what the word "slave" means. You can walk away from a mortgage. You can walk away from a job. You couldn't walk away from a plantation as a slave.

10/24/2013 1:47:22 PM

IN ORDER TO BE A SLAVE YOU HAVE TO LITERALLY BE OWNED BY ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION

10/24/2013 1:56:02 PM

There is, but it's not called slavery, it's called systematic oppression.

10/24/2013 3:15:07 PM

Which are two completely different and unrelated things.

10/24/2013 3:18:35 PM

you should spend your time responding to the point and not that he should have used another word, you are turning it into a semantics argument

(especially since by saying he should have used another word, you clearly still understood the point he was communicating)

10/24/2013 3:51:17 PM

Yes. Since $7.25/hour isn't enough to afford everything richer people believe you should have, we should force them to earn $0.00.

10/24/2013 3:58:09 PM

Quote :

"you should spend your time responding to the point and not that he should have used another word, you are turning it into a semantics argument"

I already responded to the point in the picture. Scarcity is a fact of nature, not a result of capitalism. The fact that someone has to work to achieve a certain standard of living doesn't warrant any sympathy from me.

10/24/2013 4:31:28 PM

Everyone realizes that the fast food workers weren't trying to get a higher minimum wage right? They just wanted to negotiate higher wages with their employer, you know, how capitalism is allegedly supposed to work

10/24/2013 4:47:08 PM

wait...so they can afford a fridge and bottled (not tap) water? here's a tip...unscrew the light bulb. it wastes electricity (read: money).

also, what's that on the bottom? butter or sausages?

[Edited on October 24, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : also, slavery means you get no earnings.]

10/24/2013 4:59:38 PM

Quote :

"Everyone realizes that the fast food workers weren't trying to get a higher minimum wage right? They just wanted to negotiate higher wages with their employer, you know, how capitalism is allegedly supposed to work"

Is it? If the government has granted the union a closed shop, or worse, if the entire industry is being represented by a government protected union, then the difference between what is happening and a raise in the minimum wage is irrelevant, as the result will be the same: government granted rents for some of society (unionized workers), unemployment for some, and higher prices for everyone.

10/24/2013 5:50:55 PM

Did any of the franchises or restaurants even officially unionize?

I know SEIU was involved, but did they actually vote anywhere?

10/24/2013 6:26:43 PM