Which he can only do, if Burger King pays living wages, so he doesn't have to get a second or even third job just to get by.
(US) Do you support a $15 minimum wage?
- Thread starter Robert Maxwell
- Start date
Which he can only do, if Burger King pays living wages, so he doesn't have to get a second or even third job just to get by.
I thought this was a discussion about raising minimum wage (or not), not one about how to help people unable to work effectively.
Don't discount what people can do when they put their mind to it.
---------------
You're right. He could stop sleeping.
Something interesting:
http://thomaspaine.org/paine-on-basic-income-and-human-rights.html
Paine very definitively argues that government should play some very important roles in public life beyond defense of life and private property and the enforcement of contracts....Paine thinks government can do better, and go beyond just paying fair wages to its own representatives. He argues in favor of publicly funded welfare for all citizens, especially at the beginning and at end of life, and he outlines a concrete plan for its implementation. As he sees it, taxation and redistribution of wealth, within certain bounds, are just as essential for liberty as are the franchise, education, free trade, a constitution, and a bill of rights.
A middle-path
There really isn't any difference between Capitalism and Communism. Sovietr War ommunism is when everybody became a robber like Madoff and everyone bcame selfish.
http://thomaspaine.org/paine-on-basic-income-and-human-rights.html
Paine very definitively argues that government should play some very important roles in public life beyond defense of life and private property and the enforcement of contracts....Paine thinks government can do better, and go beyond just paying fair wages to its own representatives. He argues in favor of publicly funded welfare for all citizens, especially at the beginning and at end of life, and he outlines a concrete plan for its implementation. As he sees it, taxation and redistribution of wealth, within certain bounds, are just as essential for liberty as are the franchise, education, free trade, a constitution, and a bill of rights.
A middle-path
There really isn't any difference between Capitalism and Communism. Sovietr War ommunism is when everybody became a robber like Madoff and everyone bcame selfish.
Bingo.
The super rich certainly don't need tax cuts when over the last decade and even longer they've gotten most of all the total growth and when the deficit is still high and the debt becoming yet more outrageous.
We've seen far too much trickle-down economics, which is hardly a necessary or integral part of laissez-faire or liberal capitalism.
Last edited:
Yes. We were discussing a hypothetical "guy working at Burger King".
---------------
So this guy working on a current Burger King salary has to not only come up with money to pay his bills,pay for college or a trade school. Somehow find time to work and go to school and study and also hope he is smart enough to learn how to do a job in a field that pays the most money.
He also has to have almost perfect health and compete with who knows how many people in any new job he might aim for who are just as hard working and equally talented as him and if he is gets chosen start off at the bottom where he might not be paid any better than he was getting at Burger King.
Proably good idea if this guy also doesn't have any familiy or friends who might suck any time from him as well. His entire life should be dedicated to nothing but making money. Something nobody would think about on their death bed someday.
Granted this is also built on the idea that a Burger King employee doesn't have value even though we know the hamburgers are not going to cook themselves and the machines have to be maintained and the store will need to be cleaned. Not to mention someone has to count the money and give it to people higher up.
Were also not even talking about having people all make equal amounts of money. Were talking about everyone having a wage to live on. The more money you get the more luxaries you get. Everyone doesn't need Porsche but I would say almost everyone at least needs to be able to get some kind of car. Everyone doesn't need a mansion but some kind of shelter should be affordable to everyone and so on and so on.
Jason
My, my, aren't we optimistic? You've got him defeated before he even begins. No wonder your "Burger King" guy can't get ahead, he doesn't think it's possible.
---------------
There is a difference between possible and probable. I mean everyone can go to a casino or play the lottery and come out ahead but we all know most people usually aren't going to win in those situations. If it was so easy to be rich and successful everyone would already be that way.
Plus the easier the path you make it for people the more you will see more success stories. Take away day to day issues of having to just survive and you give people more freedom to explore ways to improve their lives if they want to. If they are already happy with just working and living a ordinary life then that should be seen as a good thing as well because they still contribute to society by doing the jobs others don't want to do.
Jason
The problem with this whole "anyone who works hard can become rich" is that people forget the difference between "anyone" and "everyone". Yes, anyone can get rich, but not everyone.
Being rich is only fun if there are poor people you can have power over. If everyone is rich, then nobody's rich, and nobody will jump on your command. That's why the rich want to keep most people in relative poverty, so they can have power over them.
But, of course, with the majority of people not being rich, and democracy making every vote equal, the rich want to keep that majority from voting against their interest. One way is by pretty much buying the politicians through bribary or donations, another is by controlling the media (while using the Fake News debate to go after alternative media like progressive podcasts, I've even come across claims by center-left people that Democracy Now! is Fake News), and by keeping the myth of "Anyone can become rich" alive, because people thinking they will be rich themselves one day are less likely to go against the rich.
This is why even in the Democratic Party there are a lot of politicians against single payer healthcare and against a $15,- minimum wage, even though there is a majority for it among the population, for single payer there's even a majority among Republicans, and there's bipartisan support for tying the setting minimum wage to inflation rates.
Being rich is only fun if there are poor people you can have power over. If everyone is rich, then nobody's rich, and nobody will jump on your command. That's why the rich want to keep most people in relative poverty, so they can have power over them.
But, of course, with the majority of people not being rich, and democracy making every vote equal, the rich want to keep that majority from voting against their interest. One way is by pretty much buying the politicians through bribary or donations, another is by controlling the media (while using the Fake News debate to go after alternative media like progressive podcasts, I've even come across claims by center-left people that Democracy Now! is Fake News), and by keeping the myth of "Anyone can become rich" alive, because people thinking they will be rich themselves one day are less likely to go against the rich.
This is why even in the Democratic Party there are a lot of politicians against single payer healthcare and against a $15,- minimum wage, even though there is a majority for it among the population, for single payer there's even a majority among Republicans, and there's bipartisan support for tying the setting minimum wage to inflation rates.
And not everyone can be off the bottom of the wage scale. And the people at the bottom will always feel deprived and held down.
---------------
In a free and open society, no person employed at a full-time job and working 40 hours a week should have to either get a second job to make ends meet, or rely on government-funded social safety net programs to put food on the table. A minimum wage and a living wage should be the same benchmark.
There are people with very substantial incomes who have trouble "making ends meet", so that's not a very objective criteria.
---------------
A
Amaris
Guest
Agreed. Basic clean shelter, food, and utilities should be within reach of any person working 40 hours a week. Allowances should also be made for providers of families, with each being workable on a case by case basis.
A minimum wage employee working 40 hours a week in many parts of the U.S. is below the poverty line.
This idea seems to go against the idea though that if you give people welfare they will be content to just stay on it and not go look for a job. KInd of like that famous example of the hippie/hipster kid using food stamps to buy lobster or those clips of black men wanting "Obama bucks" even though I remember that those came from a movie I think were they were showing people on both sides saying stuff like that because they also showed clips of old white republicans complaining about welfare but when it was brought up they were on it they didn't seem to mind it and felt they deserved it.
In reality some people will be okay with what they get and others won't. If someone does feel bitter or angry at how much they make that is okay because the fact that they can still pay their bills and get health care is still something they would have no matter how unhappy they are.
Jason
Similar threads
