"Fair Share" and "Living Wage"

[BotanyBoy]

They'd still need money, alcohol wouldn't be covered on EBT cards.

They will get it one way or another, that's where the crime starts.

And people will commit less crime to feed their alcohol addiction than they will their crack addiction.

Arrest the criminals, punish them in prison, and while they are in break them of their vice so that if they are released they will remain clean and sober.

Every bit of research and history shows you're full of shit on both points.

Alcohol caused one of the biggest bloodiest crime waves America still to this day and prison doesn't clean/sober anyone up in fact far more often than not it leads to harder drugs and more violent criminal activities.

Also, buying liquor at the store isn't the same problem for a community as having dealers on street corners and playgrounds.

So quit being tyrants and give them a business licence, problem solved. Plus we save on all the money we spend fighting free enterprise.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

So far the only settings where living wage works are prisons and military barracks. In boot camp all I needed was soap, razor blades, haircut and laundry money.

 

[LeatherChaps]

As a business owner of course.

As a socially responsible citizen no.

The only way base labors value can be used is if all economic safety nets are removed...that includes those protecting the companies from the consequences of not paying their workers enough to take care of themselves.


But as long as the threshold for welfare is lower than what we are requiring companies to pay their employees it's basically subsidizing the workforce's of these mega corps. A large number of whom hand out welfare application packets to all their min wage hires, Douche Mart and McDildoughs for example.

And when mega corp billionaire companies do that, it fucks the middle class small company owners such as myself more than anyone. I shouldn't have to feed WalDouches employees so they can keep low low prices that further damage my ability to conduct bidnizz/employ people. Wal Douches CONSUMERS need to pay that cost.....and if the only way to do that is to raise min wage above the welfare qualifications then so be it.

Why does "social responsibility" require a business owner to pay out more than that labor contributes? And how long would you expect that business owner to stay in business when artificially high labor costs make him lose money?

 

[Real_American12]

They will get it one way or another, that's where the crime starts.

Harder punishments for theft, murder, etc.

Every bit of research and history shows you're full of shit on both points.

You're wrong, addiction to alcohol is less than addiction to crack.

...prison doesn't clean/sober anyone up in fact far more often than not it leads to harder drugs and more violent criminal activities.

That's because there is so much contraband in prison. Eliminate the contraband, and press harder on counseling and therapy, etc. Also, building people to have pride in themselves and learning trades so they can support themselves when released will keep them from going back to criminal behaviors.

So quit being tyrants and give them a business licence, problem solved. Plus we save on all the money we spend fighting free enterprise.

Well maybe if they weren't selling crack at playgrounds...

You don't get to be a gangster/thug and a legitimate businessman, pick one.

If you want to be a gangster than look forward to prison or an early grave.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why does "social responsibility" require a business owner to pay out more than that labor contributes? And how long would you expect that business owner to stay in business when artificially high labor costs make him lose money?

He won't lose money that's your first misconception. The second is your assumption that they are being paid more than they contribute.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why does "social responsibility" require a business owner to pay out more than that labor contributes?

Because conducting business is a social activity, much the same as living in a society a key factor in facilitating business. And if your employees are starving and you treat them like shit you won't be in business for very long.

And how long would you expect that business owner to stay in business when artificially high labor costs make him lose money?

By either charging the consumers more or shaving a few million off his/her 30 billion dollar Christmas bonus.

Like I said, as a small business owner I shouldn't have to feed/house/cloth Wal Mart's work force. Wal Mart's consumers need to cover that cost.

So either get rid of all social nets and give labor collective bargaining power back, or raise min wage to the point that they no longer qualify for welfare. I personally don't care which but I have a sneaking suspicion the latter will be a much easier to sell.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

Paying someone money just for being alive is so counterintuitive if you want to protect the environment.

Admit it's just an excuse to punish the rich.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Paying someone money just for being alive is so counterintuitive if you want to protect the environment.

Admit it's just an excuse to punish the rich.

It's not really counterintuitive but even if it was counterintuitive and wrong are not the same word.

It's not an excuse to punish the rich at all. Long run this mostly benefits the rich like everything else.

 

[Real_American12]

...give labor collective bargaining power back...

This disadvantages the individual worker.

Just like white controlled unions disadvantaged individual black workers.

If there is a union wage, and an individual wants to be competitive by working for less than a union worker it is now not possible.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're wrong, addiction to alcohol is less than addiction to crack.

The 1920's say otherwise.

That's because there is so much contraband in prison. Eliminate the contraband, and press harder on counseling and therapy, etc. Also, building people to have pride in themselves and learning trades so they can support themselves when released will keep them from going back to criminal behaviors.

You can't eliminate it....you're kind have been trying for centuries and even in the most ultra mega supermax slammer you can get whatever the fuck you want.

Rehabilitation is quite effective for a decent number of folks who aren't really bad but just in bad situations.

But the prohibitionist policy/ideology is a proven failure.

Well maybe if they weren't selling crack at playgrounds...

You don't get to be a gangster/thug and a legitimate businessman, pick one.

They wouldn't be selling on the street if they could sell from a counter.

Only difference between an OG thug and a legitimate businessman is a licence or a seat as an elected official.

Biggest gangster thugs in the world work in Washington D.C.

If you want to be a gangster than look forward to prison or an early grave.

Or incumbency as whatever......seat on a board/committee.....

 

[Sean Renaud]

This disadvantages the individual worker.

Just like white controlled unions disadvantaged individual black workers.

If there is a union wage, and an individual wants to be competitive by working for less than a union worker it is now not possible.

This is true. But it's because ultimately we are all in this together and we can't let a few people fuck it up for the rest of us.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

It's not really counterintuitive but even if it was counterintuitive and wrong are not the same word.

It's not an excuse to punish the rich at all. Long run this mostly benefits the rich like everything else.

I understand the need for taxation. A government requires funds to perform its basic functions properly, and that has to come from somewhere.

However paying every single person money just for being alive is more than a step too far. We need less social welfare not more.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This disadvantages the individual worker.
.

Only when the government sets it up that way.

Free unions (free of government manipulations) that are allowed to negotiate with what are essentially unions on the capital side of the equation called corporations, do no such thing.

 

[Real_American12]

The 1920's say otherwise.

If you're going to say that addiction to alcohol is stronger than addiction to crack, you're simply wromg.

You can't eliminate it....

Yes you can.

you're kind

What kind would that be?

have been trying for centuries and even in the most ultra mega supermax slammer you can get whatever the fuck you want.

That's because they aren't trying. Guards are bribed.

Better surveillance, better screen of people and objects entering the facility, random drug tests, monitoring the staff's bank statements and financial records, and increased sentences for any inmate found with contraband. Also, prison time for any guard caught bringing it in or allowing it to be sold.

Rehabilitation is quite effective for a decent number of folks who aren't really bad but just in bad situations.

And for those that won't be rehabilitated and continue their lives of crime, put them in prison for life or execute them. Or exile them from the country.

But the prohibitionist policy/ideology is a proven failure.

It could work in a controlled environment like a prison.

But drugs should be legal outside of prison.

They wouldn't be selling on the street if they could sell from a counter.

Sure they would, you think these guys are going to pay taxes and follow rules? They'd still be selling it on the streets.

Only difference between an OG thug and a legitimate businessman is a licence or a seat as an elected official.

So personal behavior and ethics have nothing to do with the difference?

Biggest gangster thugs in the world work in Washington D.C.

There's plenty of filth in D.C. and Wall Street that should be executed and their assets seized and redistributed to the People.

That doesn't make the ghetto hoods any better, let's not act like they are Robin Hood.

Or incumbency as whatever......seat on a board/committee.....

Again, most of them should be executed and have their property taken and given to the People.

This is true. But it's because ultimately we are all in this together and we can't let a few people fuck it up for the rest of us.

So you want the man willing to work a dollar cheaper to starve so that you can make a dollar more?

Typical progressive.

Only when the government sets it up that way.

Free unions (free of government manipulations) that are allowed to negotiate with what are essentially unions on the capital side of the equation called corporations, do no such thing.

Wages should be between the employee (singular) and the employer.

All unions do is push out individuals willing to undercut them.

If a union pushes for a $12/hour wage for a skill, and I decide that to compete for work I'll do it for $11/hour, the unions won't want that.

And then they make you join and pay dues or you can't work

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes you can.

It could work in a controlled environment like a prison.

No you can't..


In theory it could....looks great on paper.

But it's NEVER worked anywhere ever, because human element doesn't allow it to work in the real world.

Prohibition = fail....

 

[PoisonedChalice]

No you can't..


In theory it could....looks great on paper.

But it's NEVER worked anywhere ever, because human element doesn't allow it to work in the real world.

Prohibition = fail....

Alcohol is not a good example. If you look at the chemistry alcohols are basically a reduced form of sugar, an aldehyde, and they're all over the body (think cholesterol, cortisol) and ethanol is a simple alcohol which can be an energy-dense source of calories. If you're interested, our primate ancestors consumed it from overripe, yeast infected fruit millions of years ago and came to like the smell and taste. We actually have enzymes in our bodies specifically designed to metabolise ethanol.

So you can't effectively ban alcohol just like you couldn't ban sugar, it's created in the body anyway. Cocaine, however, is totally different. If you make it illegal most people won't touch it - and as far as I'm aware that's the situation today.

 

[Real_American12]

No you can't.

It could if they tried harder.

I already listed several changes that would be needed, you just ignored then.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Alcohol is not a good example. If you look at the chemistry alcohols are basically a reduced form of sugar, they're all over the body and ethanol is an energy-dense source of calories. Thus we are actually hard-wired to enjoy it. If you're interested, our primate ancestors consumed it from overripe, yeast infected fruit millions of years ago and came to like the smell and taste. We actually have enzymes in our bodies specifically designed to metabolise ethanol.

You can't ban alcohol just like you couldn't ban sugar. Cocaine, however, is totally different. If you make it illegal most people won't touch it - and as far as I'm aware that's the situation today.

And it hasn't stopped people for the same reasons.

And while your correct that our ancestors consumed overripe fruit it was because we were sucky animals by that point and evolved to deal with it not the other way around.

 

[PoisonedChalice]

And it hasn't stopped people for the same reasons.

What reasons?

You have deigned to compare an important part of life on earth to your crack because you want to snort without a conviction. That is lazy, self-interested and intellectually dishonest. Now I'm calling you out on it.

And while your correct that our ancestors consumed overripe fruit it was because we were sucky animals by that point and evolved to deal with it not the other way around.

"sucky animals" "evolved to deal with it"

Incoherent as usual.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, who's alt are you?

And you can't ban coke and expect it to hold for the exact same reasons. People are "wired" (your term not mine) to chase it.

And it's not incoherent. You're simply stupid.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Alcohol is not a good example.

It's the perfect example and it's repeatable with every single desired commodity that has been prohibited ever.

So you can't effectively ban alcohol just like you couldn't ban sugar, it's created in the body anyway. Cocaine, however, is totally different. If you make it illegal most people won't touch it - and as far as I'm aware that's the situation today.

You can't effectively ban anything there is a market for.....it doesn't work.

It could if they tried harder.

That's always been said yet never accomplished.

I already listed several changes that would be needed, you just ignored then.

Unrealistic and still doesn't work.

Prohibition is like communism, works great on paper but in the real world it never quite pans out.

Because Freedom ...
http://www.michaeluvanni.com/eagle_flag.JPG

 

[DawnODay]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit. No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean. This is the equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it.

Hear! Hear!

I read yesterday that ~45% of USA households pay no federal tax. I think it's time for that 45% of the population to pay their fair share!

 

[Liar]

In every modern, civilized society, someone will pick up the tab for the cost of living.

Either employers are forced to do it, or the tax payers are.

Or the modern, civilized society will have to admit that they're not so modern and civilized, and accept a lower cost, and standard, of living.

Welcome to shanty town.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Hear! Hear!

I read yesterday that ~45% of USA households pay no federal tax. I think it's time for that 45% of the population to pay their fair share!

They pay in sweat.

 

[Real_American12]

Prohibition is like communism, works great on paper but in the real world it never quite pans out.

It works in a controlled environment. It won't work in the world, but it could work in prison.

I read yesterday that ~45% of USA households pay no federal tax. I think it's time for that 45% of the population to pay their fair share!

Yeah most of those not paying taxes are the ones being paid by taxes.