haha....usually we use this argument as reductio absurdam. now the left really wants a $22/hr min wage.
Do you liberals on here agree with her?
Here is a link that might be useful: Liz Warren
"Elizabeth Warren wants a $22/hr min wage"
False, and because I give you credit for actually having read the article you linked, you posted that knowing it was false. From the article you referenced:
"It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage"
This is interesting. Can you explain your thinking in knowingly posting a falsehood presumably to advance a position you hold? Do you believe that it is fair or right to employ false statements to attempt to advance your agenda? I ask because I see many conservatives employ this profoundly dishonest argument technique.
she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.
Speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."
Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.
BIG DIFFERENCE. Get your facts right before you rant.
Looks like Ms. Warren was pessimistic. What ever it should be, it shouldn't be $7.25/hour
Here is a link that might be useful: Link
"What ever it should be, it shouldn't be $7.25/hour"
I would concur most emphatically!
knowingly posting a falsehood
Reality aka factual information: Just a minor speed bump when engaging in hyper-partisan palaver.
just another rant from the right wing GOP supporters.
To heck with facts, that stuff isn't important, it's just extrapolate what one can to form a new idea that would slam the opposition and attempt to make them look like fools and at the same time play the same old game over and over and over again.
Say it loud enough and long enough and they get, what they think will be, "the masses" believing what they say, even it it's nothing but a pack of out right lies.
It appears that the GOP like their supporters, dumb lemmings that will be gullible enough to believe anything and everything they have to say, and of course, have no ability, no intelligence and not thought process to think on their own, question anything that is said and most importantly be capable of spouting the right wing mantra and fact, even when it is proven to be lies or twisted truths or anything in between.
Alas the OP, fits the description of the typical GOP supporter, at least in my opinion and those that I personally know.
Either Corn has a reading comprehension problem or he's just another right winger trying to stir up the lemmings. I suspect the latter. And she's Elizabeth to you, not Liz, or better yet Senior Senator Warren.
She made no such claim, just saying it would be close to $33 if it kept up with productivity.
Can you explain your thinking in knowingly posting a falsehood presumably to advance a position you hold?
Srsly. Look who you are addressing here.
Didn't brightonborn post some silliness about something Elizabeth Warren said, or some answer she gave, a bit ago? Can't recall the details because it was so easily debunked.
However, that ridiculous attack and now this one, does make me think that the conservatives are scared of her.... SMILE!
does make me think that the conservatives are scared of her.... SMILE!
This is different than when the GOP base claimed the sane portion of society was all a-skeered of the former half-term Governor when her ridiculous statements were ridiculed.
Believe brightonborn had some problem with MS. Warren not defining exactly what the middle class income bracket was.
The Senate could use 20 or 30 more with her skills scattered around all the committees.
This post was edited by duluthinbloomz4 on Tue, Mar 26, 13 at 18:08
actually, Brightonborn has a problem with Elizabeth Warren period.
The fact that Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat, a liberal and stands for nothing that Brightonborn believes in, IE. conservative republican/TeaParty ideology.
She gloated in a perceived incident that Senator Warren couldn't answer a reporters question and started a thread in early Jan that was very degrading to the newly elected Senator.
Here is a link that might be useful: Middle Class thread from Jan
22 bucks min wage, thats about 75 for a welder or dozer operator then. That would be around 14 bucks per burger. Oh well, this administration is printing some 40 billion a month and the dollar is worth so much less now, whats it all matter anyhow.
his administration is printing some 40 billion a month and the dollar is worth so much less now, whats it all matter anyhow.
i would love to make $22 an hr. it is impossible to pay bills and live happily on minimum wage. im trying to do it and it isnt working and i am miserable every day in life and at my job. and yes i have a college degree and am paying on over $70k of student loans.
For our conservatives the entire point is that the 1% got all the difference between the two amounts-it is not that the money isnt already out there(no need to print more), it is that it is not going into the pockets of the producers but instead is going into the pockets of the owners and that is how the 1% are getting so much richer so fast. Forcing the owners to quit robbing their employees of their justly earned dues is what liberals are all about.
Forcing the owners to quit robbing their employees of their justly earned dues is what liberals are all about.
Exactly who determines what is "their justly earned dues" that the owners of businesses should pay?
Seems to me that is determined by supply and demand and people accepting a job with an agreed amount of compensation.
Seems to me that is determined by supply and demand...
There you have it folks: history was made today. No more lawsuits in the workplace. Rejoice!
It costs me $10 in materials to make shoes. I used to pay you $20 an hour to make shoes that I sell for $200, making a profit of $170.
I'll now pay you $2 an hour to make shoes, so I'm making a profit of $188.
Take it, or I'll move the factory to China.
See? Thats how supply and demand works.
Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Wed, Mar 27, 13 at 10:16
If you don't want to be a poor person making shoes for someone else, cobble them and start your own company.
Wasn't there another fable like that about a nation of cobblers?
How many manufacturers of footwear remain primarily in this country; not just corporate offices and distribution centers handling foreign-made products? Damn few because supply and demand and movement of capital investments have been globalized, leaving workers here and elsewhere scrambling for a decreasing number of poorer paying jobs.
Tough titttieee, right demi?
You've got to be kidding. What universe do you live in, anyway? Clearly not the one most of us here inhabit.
If that comment wasn't so pathetic, I'd laugh.
What company did you start up? Please tell us how you did it, what product you make and how successful you are.
I'm sure you aren't a poor person making __________ for someone else.
Marshall--a global economy has left the barn.
We have to stop lamenting what used to be or what could be "if only" this or that would happen, when we know it will not.
We have to be smart and adapt.
Whining doesn't solve anything.
Pointing fingers doesn't solve anything.
Resentment doesn't solve anything.
Work and actually doing something does.
When confronted, throw out a string of meaningless cliches.
/works every time.
Our lifestyle demands a menial labour class. We could not survive without a it . As long as we require these services for own well being then we have a social obligation to ensure that they are paid a living wage and have access to good education and accessible healthcare.
Those that demand the quality of life provided, in large part by those in menial jobs, yet refuse to compensate them for the value that they contribute both to their individual well being and society at large are the true takers.
I'd say you are naive, but you aren't. But I can't tell if you want to be clueless or actually are clueless about the American economy.
The reality is that there are millions of Americans who want desperately to work, but can't find jobs because there are no jobs to be had. People live in cities and towns that have no jobs left, and no opportunities to get work.
Moving is expensive, and is a real crapshoot if you don't already have a job offer. If you don't have any money, moving is out of the question.
It seems that the American dream, now, is to feed your family and keep a roof over their head for as long as possible.
If you don't have any money, you can't start a business, either.
What, exactly, do you expect American's to do. You are full of tired old platitudes and insincere comments, but don't offer anything that could even be remotely useful.
And then there are the billions of people around the world who want to work, too. They are the competition we American's face now, people who will work for $2 a day, when we ask for $7.25/hour ($15,080 gross annual income).
They have taken millions of jobs that used to be done by good, hardworking Americans. Americans who can't find any jobs now, not even at $7.25/hour.
And don't say "if they only tried harder" - because it's not true, and you know it.
Genius - even though you don't have the head for business, you can go from 40 hrs/week to 60-80 hrs/week working. With a lot more stress and pressure!
No, I'm sad to admit, most of us. 90%+
We may support a much higher minimum wage, but we are always looking for a bargain, whether it's in the price we pay for goods, but especially in the price we are willing to pay for services - mowing the lawn, taking care of grandmother, fixing the car, painting the house, serving our food, on and on......
So if you don't want to work for $2 an hour instead of your previous $20 an hour wage then somehow you have the resources to start your own shoe company?
That sounds like something Mitt Romney would have said.
Speaking of shoes, one of my apartment buildings used to be a footwear manufacturer. They used to make shoes, boots, moccasins, slippers, wallets, belts etc.
Most of the manufacturing jobs used to pay piece rate, so pay was based on worker performance, supply of materials and customer orders. Workers that worked with speed and precision could make really good money.
Due to rules, regulations, automation, offshoring, inflation, unionization etc, the jobs disappeared fast.
Before they went out of business they were mostly handling imports. Some operations were performed locally so they could slap a Made In USA tag on the imported products.
Eventually more and more middle men were eliminated, so even businesses that handled imports went out of business.
Once consumers were accustomed to cheap goods via automation and offshoring, there was no turning back.
Even workers themselves were buying cheap imports instead of the more expensive products they were producing, even with employee discounts.
Yesterday I performed 2 complex electronics, control systems and combustion troubleshooting jobs several others failed to diagnose correctly for about $30 per hour (after expenses).
I couldn't imagine starting an unskilled, low skilled or inexperienced worker out @ $22 per hour, plus other expenses.
Mom by definition if one truly supports a decent minimum wage, education and healthcare as part of a just social contract then one accepts the fact that the price we pay for goods and services will rise. Mind you that's where the free market system kicks in ...on price and margin, not at the cost of living standards for our fellow citizens.
That will not preclude us from looking for a bargain. I shop wisely and have no intention of paying more than I have to for something BUT I am willing to pay a small percentage more to ensure a decent wage for those who provide me the goods and services that contribute to my well being.
People who work under the table provided a different dilemma. Quite frankly if they have chosen not to be part of the labour pool who contribute to the social contract I speak of..... then I'm not inclined to hire them just becasue they are cheaper.
Borrowed the start up capital from mom and dad.
(per he of no knitted mittens for these uncalloused hands from the Ich bin ein Oberliner speech)
The problem I'm seeing now is that firms want to reduce the pay of a skilled worker with a dozen years experience from $20 an hour down to $17, make him contribute more for his health and retirement benefits, and expect him to work weekends.
But if you did pay the worker $22, or probably even $15/hour ($31,100 gross income), markjames you would have a loyal, competent, long term employee. Then maybe you wouldn't have to go out and do those two complex jobs yourself. There would be another person, in this world, who could also do that.
If the two of you can do it, you'd get twice as much work, and twice the income. And you'd get $30+/hour ($62,400) for your work, and a profit from the fully billed work your lower paid employee did, even though you are paying him less than half of what you bill. That's not a bad thing.
This post was edited by momj47 on Wed, Mar 27, 13 at 12:02
$22 is not what is being proposed Mark but the issue is everyone cannot start a business, everyone is not college material.
Because a worker is not college educated or have a Mom or Dad to pay for them to start a business does that make them not worthy of a living wage is the issue.
If a child is born with learning disability is it ethical to pay that person less than a living wage?
If all the service people in the US walked out today what would happen?
But if you did pay the worker $22, or possibly even $15/hour ($31,100 gross income), markjames you would have a loyal, competent, long term employee. Then maybe you wouldn't have to go out and do those two complex jobs yourself. There would be another person, in this world, who could also do that.
The issues I troubleshot and solved were originally handled by other businesses, their owners and techs, most of which bill out at $100 plus per hour.
Money can't make a good troubleshooter of complex, intermittent or compound issues, so they're handled by me, my brother, a few techs and a few retired owners/techs with decades of experience.
Really good troubleshooters of complex, intermittent or compound issues are incredibly rare, likely less than 1% of existing owners, service managers and techs, hence why I get so much of this work.
Others would soon take their place as long as steady demand existed and the work was profitable.
We've seen this happen on a small scale numerous times when our competitors in some regions have retired, sold out or gone belly up.
Over time the slack is picked up by one or more competitors and/or people opt out, or provide their own services.
We have numerous freebies and subsidies to provide for those unwilling to, or incapable of providing for themselves - private/public subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, foodbank supplements, free school breakfasts/lunches, Medicaid, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, daycare, free furnace/boiler/water heater maintenance/repair/replacement, winterization/weatherization, TANF, $X,000.00 Tax Credits, free cellular phones/minutes, STAR property tax relief, local/private support - too much to list.
All these personal anecdotes having little to do with the topic are cute and gosh oh-so-interesting, but of course they are designed to dissemble away from the topic that wages haven't kept up with productivity gains. Workers are falling further and further behind while FIRE - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate are taking all the gains.
In 2011 the average income of the bottom 90 percent was just $59 more than in 1966 in real terms, depicted here as one inch. This graphic shows the comparable income growth of those within the top 10 percent.
So lets not let ourselves lose focus on the issue here.
It's very discouraging, especially being part of that bottom 90%.
If employers aren't careful, unions may come back because, it appears, that as wages fall, occupational health and safety concerns become less important, they "cost too much."
Are you willing to die for $7.50/hour
This post was edited by momj47 on Wed, Mar 27, 13 at 13:26
Gosh, I didn't realize this thread was so interesting!
"I shop wisely and have no intention of paying more than I have to for something BUT I am willing to pay a small percentage more to ensure a decent wage for those who provide me the goods and services that contribute to my well being."
Nope, that fails. You can't conjoin statements that are opposing with a "but". You have to use "or". Either you seek the best possible deal or you don't (for whatever reason).
MJ, I'm curious, if you are in the top one percent of talent in HVAC electronic performance problem-solving (in the world, presumably), why do you bill out at $30per hour? I detect a deviation from your normal spin here. Stupid people should suffer the consequences, and super-smart talented people should be compensated accordingly. What gives?
Wx is sticking to the point-the GAINS are already there due to the WORK of the worker bees but the biggest part of the gains is going to the owners-Capital as it is called in discussions of socialism.
Some how people in America think that our present lopsided system is somehow a natural law of how resources should be distributed-Demi is positively evangelical fundamentalist in this reguard-but get this-it doesnt have to be that way. This system is self imposed and since there are a whole lot more of us than them we could change it if we werent all too stupid to do it-mostly I think because most of us suffer from the delusion that we could start up our own shoe factory and become Capital with its attendent off shore accounts and million dollar vacation homes. Dream on.
I am frankly interested in the future of manufacture-presently as soon as a country wakes up and stops letting American companies exploit their work force they just move on to a new country but the world is finite-sooner or later you run out of work forces to exploit-plus when you add in the coming shortage of fuel-because it is only possible to do this in a world with cheap fuel to ship crap half way around the world. Will shoe manufacture come back to America?
I do much of the complex troubleshooting for little, free or at a loss as I enjoy the challenge, acquire knowledge and it keeps my skills sharp.
We're constantly looking for training simulator scenarios in the field to better train techs as well.
I do quite a lot of free or reduced cost work as well. In the last week alone I've done 3 computer and 2 furnace related freebies for low income customers.
I'm perfectly happy with the way I expressed how I feel because I don't see my thoughts as being in opposition to each other.
Nevertheless they are opposed.
Manufacture of shoes and clothes will probably start coming back in about 20-30 years. Let's start saving now for our shoe factory so MJ doesn't beat us to it. We don't want to be on the wrong side of the exchange.
I disagree.....the thought being that regardless of the impact on the price of goods and services as a result of an increased minimum wage, I would still shop for the best bargain albeit at the adjusted rate.
What's the forecast for MJ Enterprises down the line?
Among all the ambitionless, brainless, classless, hapless, helpless, jobless, lawless, luckless, shiftless, useless, worthless slobs in his world - is there a daughter, son, niece, or nephew who has managed enough business savvy to carry on?
We have 4 daughters, none of which are interested in running any family businesses other than rentals, property management and "maybe" 1 convenience store, so we've been profit taking, selling and downsizing.
Most of our family works in healthcare, or they're pursuing healthcare careers.
We only had 1 male member of our immediately family to pass many of our skills and knowledge to, however they're making a career in the military.
Well, I asked for it.
Was thinking, however, a simple yes or no would have sufficed.
We could change it, Patriciae... if we were better informed consumers, overall and as a large group, and used the power of our consumerism to make a statement to that fact.
Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that it is epidemic -- and apparently acceptable -- for people in our society to simply make things up to try to get the policies they want, as exemplified by cornopean's original post in this thread? Why is open dishonesty seemingly so quietly tolerated?
Why is open dishonesty seemingly so quietly tolerated?
What are we supposed to do besides point it out, as I personally am unsure whether it is room-temp IQ or mendacity. Should we fly to someone's house and give them a quiz?
$22/hour is unrealistic in some communities. My community couldn't afford it. $7.25 is crazy low, though.
-- for people in our society to simply make things up to try to get the policies they want
See campaign, Mitt Romney. Ã¢ÂÂWeÃ¢ÂÂre not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.Ã¢ÂÂ
It's an obvious absurdity to have a national wage standard when money supply varies by region.
Looks like New York's Minimum Wage increase may help teen employment, plus all taxpayers will have some skin in the game.
"ALBANY, N.Y. Ã¯Â¿Â½" A hike in New York's minimum wage is a big win for Democrats, but a provision buried inside the tentative state budget shows taxpayers will be paying much of the bill.
The "minimum wage reimbursement credit" is spelled out at the bottom of a revenue bill in the budget separate from the minimum wage measure. The credit would reimburse employers for part of the difference in wages from the current $7.25 minimum wage as it rises to $9 an hour by 2016.
Once it reaches $9 an hour, employers would pay 40 cents and taxpayers $1.35 of the extra $1.75 an hour workers are paid.
Employers including big-box department stores and fast-food chains will get tax credits for seasonal employees, ages 16 to 19, who are still in school, which some advocates for low-income residents say will hurt adult workers.
The cost of the measure approved in closed-door negotiations between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders won't be known publicly until after the budget gets final legislative approval, which is expected by the end of this week. Early estimates are between $20 million and $40 million, with no cap on the total.
"You are kind of flying blind on this," said Frank Mauro of the progressive Fiscal Policy Institute.
Advocates for the working poor fear the credit will prompt employers to replace adults with students. Mauro said Tuesday the credit also would result in the first maximum wage for many employees because employers would lose the credit if they raise wages over the minimum wage.
The credit "flies in the face of sound tax policy, good labor market practice, or common sense," Mauro said.
The think tank said the credit would "dangle $1,560 to $2,808 out in front of employers for every adult worker they manage to substitute with a student."
"It's a big subsidy for the corporate low-wage economy," said Mark Dunlea of the Hunger Action Network advocacy group.
Employers would be compensated at a rate of 75 cents an hour per employee when the minimum wage rises to $8 beginning next year, an election year. Employers would get $1.31 an hour for workers paid minimum wage when it rises to $8.75 in 2015. When the minimum wage rises to $9 in 2016, employers would be subsidized $1.35 an hour for three years.
Mauro calculates the state will pay over $2,800 a year to an employer beginning in 2016 for paying a teenager minimum wage. And although the measure would prohibit firing an adult solely to hire a teenager and collect a credit, Mauro and Dunlea said that would be hard to enforce.
But Cuomo said the credit was a compromise to raise the lowest wages for millions of New Yorkers."
Here is a link that might be useful: WSJ
Who needs an "invisible hand" when government can help in the race to the bottom for the disenfranchised?
The proposed subsidized wages to hire teens reminds me of a local program we had in the past.
Years ago a local program used to subsidize wages of long term unemployed and never-employed residents as many were unemployable @ minimum wage due to what they believed was a lack of experience and skills.
The subsidies initially paid half of the workers wages during training, then ramped down every 3 months until the subsidies ended at 1 year.
The idea was that the subsidies would help offset the costs of training and lower performance of inexperienced and unskilled workers.
Currently this region has very high unemployment, yet many job openings as much of the population has numerous issues that make them unemployable.
Oh good grief-
America's feckless, lazy, no account, witless, carping, shiftless, useless, slacker work force is considered to be one of the most efficient and productive in the entire world-enhanced productivity having mostly to do with the fact that American workers work longer and harder to make less money while company owners take the big bite out of the the returns on the work of their workforce. Chinese work forces are not as productive because owners arent making that much more than their employees-they are also getting screwed by American capitalists(investors we will call them)
For those of you who still dont get it, again-the money is already in the system-yes, even your area could afford to pay those higher wages if the worker-the producer-got paid a fair share of the returns from their work.
Much of our workforce is more productive as there are fewer workers per unit of work performed.
Much of the work is performed or enhanced via automation, computerization, communications, self service, specialized tools, specialized equipment and other technology.
The average laborer with a shovel decades ago wouldn't be more productive than the average laborer with a shovel today provided they had the same level of strength, skills and fitness.
There are fewer accidents, mistakes and lawsuits due to technology as well.
Technology has also allowed relatively unfit and unskilled workers to perform greater units of work.
Employers are doing a much better job of matching labor with changing hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal and unexpected demand by using more temps, part-timers, on-call workers etc, so there's a much better match of workers to units of work.
"The two great aims of industrialism - replacement of people by technology and concentration of wealth into the hands of a small plutocracy - seem close to fulfillment." -- Wendell Berry
One of my subs said 2 of his helpers were upset with me and him as I gave him one of our old stair climbing handtrucks as payment for a job.
He used to pay a couple helpers to move heavy tanks and boilers, however he doesn't need them anymore.
Patricia: "For those of you who still dont get it, again-the money is already in the system-yes, even your area could afford to pay those higher wages if the worker-the producer-got paid a fair share of the returns from their work."
Really? Great news! I'll tell the County Board of Supervisors, and us county employees will get a share of...what? What would the "fair share of returns" be in the case of a government worker. Believe it or not, unless you're a fed or work for a California or New York county, you may not make much money. Working for the government is just like any other job; it's like a corporation, large or small, depending on where one is located. There are a lot of regional variables, including cost of living. Federal minimum wage doesn't really work.
Federal minimum wage doesn't really work.
As has been explained before - higher wages at the lower levels is an almost direct injection of cash into the economy as those with lower levels of income tend to spend all their money on consumables: food, rent, gas, clothing, restaurants. This direct injection then lifts the next level which lifts the next level and the economy rises and then tax revenues increase and there is more money coming into the county to spend on county/state/federal salaries ... which in turn injects more into the economy and so on.
But which region sets the standard? What amounts to a direct injection of cash in a depressed rural region doesn't come close to covering half of real living costs in a more developed region.
In a rural region of florida I am familiar with a person can rent an apartment for $600 a month, and make minimum wage at all sorts of available jobs. It's just possible for a frugal person to get by (in part because there is next to no heating cost). If anything whatsoever goes wrong then the welfare net has to be there.
Here, minimum wage would not pay half of bare living costs even if two people were sharing the apartment.
Thank you Patricia ... a living wage is a win win for everyone, which is why we once had a thriving middle class.
And we need that middle class in order to have a nation that's prosperous and thriving.
"As has been explained before - higher wages at the lower levels is an almost direct injection of cash into the economy as those with lower levels of income tend to spend all their money on consumables: food, rent, gas, clothing, restaurants. This direct injection then lifts the next level which lifts the next level and the economy rises and then tax revenues increase and there is more money coming into the county to spend on county/state/federal salaries ... which in turn injects more into the economy and so on."
Sounds like one of those "Perpetual Motion Machines" that somehow never seem to work.
Drop a few dollars over in deepest Africa and soon we'll all be speaking Congolese?
Where's that Math Stupidity thread?
The only thing left is to decide just how well off we want to be. That'll determine just how high we set the minimum wage.
It is very simple. If everyone stopped buying. There is less need for what you think you built.
Lets try the thing we hear at HT our Food Stamp President.
No food stamps.
-No food purchased who needs food delivery,
-no delivery no need for a driver,
-No driver no need for the truck,
-No truck no need for gas,
-No need for what you built. Your gas well....
Like the trickle down theory of reducing taxes on the wealthy?
"Like the trickle down theory of reducing taxes on the wealthy?"
Maybe. We'll get Marquest to analyze it for us.
"It is very simple"
People can't balance their checkbooks, but national macroeconomics is very simple.
If Marquest gets stuck, Jodi can help her out.
What makes you think I can't balance a checkbook, Hay? Have you been digging through my purse?
And what makes you think people don't see what's going on within the bigger picture of national, or even global economics?
Don't take it personally, Jodi.
I haven't even tried balancing my checkbook for years now.
And, if it's any consolation, our political representatives can recite the Magna Carta forward and backward, but they can't balance our Federal Budget.
Our political representatives are a big stinking pile of poop!
'Our political representatives are a big stinking pile of poop!"
Yes, and that's exactly why I'm always advocating for more government control over my life.
Especially my economic life. It makes so much sense. It really is so simple: Give them my money and let them decide how it gets spent on my behalf.
Now I need to go find some work to do so I can give them even more. (I hope they spend it right away. I love that Multiplier Effect!!!)
Oh, I need some money for beer, too!!
Bye, gotta run.
The reason workers unionized was to get that fair share of productivity. When workers stick together scabs cant come in and work for less-foolishly cutting their own throats-out of desparation of course-a nice thing for Demi's owners to depend on, taking advantage of people. When union workers started making real money people in jobs that werent unionized started having dead cows-instead of unionizing themselves-because for some dumb reason or other they seem to think if someone else is making more money it is the fault of the someone else and not their owners-so these benighted people started voting for people who would undermine the salaries of unionized workers. The recent demonizing of school teachers and fire fighters are a perfect case in point.
By the way-many other countries have laws about off shoring jobs because as a news flash, the right of any company owner to make the maximum amount of profit for themselves is not some sort of edict from god nor is it an eternal right but something societies made up-and can change if we value the work of workers. They could actually make the most money if we chose.
Over our recorded history we have tried out many systems of exhcange-some working better than others. time for a change.
The government can balance the budget. We can even have a surplus. It has been done. The problem is every time we get ahead the GOP come on the scene, spend like a drunken sailor on leave, and it takes the Liberals years to clean up the mess.