Tentacruel Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Discuss good ol' minimum wage, which according to [i]some [/i]people, shouldn't exist. Because it's not like people have to eat or anything, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeal Ascendant Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320530677' post='5619787'] which according to [i]some [/i]people, shouldn't exist. [/quote] Well [i]some [/i]people are frickin' idiots >:I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simping For Hina Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 It should be higher, imo But the economy :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shizuku Oikawa Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Lol, Government Class discussing this Thursday. Not sure, since the employer will lose some profit if the minimum wage is increased, so they will have to either have less workers, or increase sale, or something similar. I dunno, I fail at political things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 [quote name='Chihaya Kisaragi' timestamp='1320532244' post='5619846'] Lol, Government Class discussing this Thursday. Not sure, since the employer will lose some profit if the minimum wage is increased, so they will have to either have less workers, or increase sale, or something similar. I dunno, I fail at political things. [/quote] Or less profits for the rich people. Anyway, this is the one thing I disagree with Ron Paul on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 [quote name='Daemon' timestamp='1320531656' post='5619825'] It should be higher, imo But the economy :/ [/quote] Actaully saw something and it turns out the national minimum wage is supposed to increase with inflation, or something like that. State is only supposed to be at or above national though so idk if raising the national would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 Or maybe if the American government need money, they tax the people who can afford to give it away. So, you know, you can give everyone the right to free healthcare instead of, you know, cutting welfare and leaving two million New Yorkers unemployed, most of them being single mothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 [quote name='Dт. Михаи́л Ботви́нник PчD' timestamp='1320535454' post='5619995'] Or maybe if the American government need money, they tax the people who can afford to give it away. So, you know, you can give everyone the right to free healthcare instead of, you know, cutting welfare and leaving two million New Yorkers unemployed, most of them being single mothers. [/quote] Don't be ridiculous, how can the good upstanding citizens afford to keep their yachts that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320535567' post='5620000'] Don't be ridiculous, how can the good upstanding citizens afford to keep their [b]golden [/b]yachts that way? [/quote] fix'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Because Republicans will do anything to make a Christian society. Namely, allowing bullying if it's for morale or religious purpose. But of course, they will also say that the rich are entitled to their money and had worked hard to gain it. I say let's make a dictatorship with me as the leader. So all the moral blame will fall on me when I take money from the rich and use it to fund public works and kill any corrupt officials (Besides me of course) via public execution and then harvesting the bodies. Then proceed to make all the dangerous criminals who have been sentenced to death (With undeniable evidence) to work as government slaves to work in mines. Of course, back on topic. I'd say raise it. Namely cause I'm working. Cause I got s*** to pay for. Namely an education. And sadly we're spending more on the military then education. You think it's easy to get into college now? I'm going to have to f***ing get in debt for half of my life just to have a CHANCE at a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='~Batshit Insane VK~' timestamp='1320546903' post='5620453'] Because Republicans will do anything to make a Christian society. [b]Um, no. Christian Republicans will do that.[/b] Namely, allowing bullying if it's for morale or religious purpose. [b]More like allow greedy corporate slime to get elected because said slime "supports" Christianity and other conservative stuff. [/b] But of course, they will also say that the rich are entitled to their money and had worked hard to gain it. [b]Because said rich people support conservative stances, and for no other reason. [/b] I say let's make a dictatorship with me as the leader. So all the moral blame will fall on me when I take money from the rich and use it to fund public works and kill any corrupt officials (Besides me of course) via public execution and then harvesting the bodies. [b]All hail Britannia! [/b] Then proceed to make all the dangerous criminals who have been sentenced to death (With undeniable evidence) to work as government slaves to work in mines. [b]I'll make the political campaign banners. [/b] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Colonel Remo Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 How did this go from minimum wage to a republican hate shrine? My AP U.S professor justified it this way "If person A goes to school, works hard, get's a good job, invents something [i]by[/i] working hard, and reaps the benefits; is it fair to say that because B didn't work as hard, he gets free money from A? That kind of a deal only benefits B and if B were A or in A's shoes he'd definitively argue against tax increases. It's impossible to say that this scenario of one person taking the easy road won't happen, or that every single person who benefits is a single mother of 5. I'm just justifying their side of it all. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Working hard doesn't make you rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320550761' post='5620564'] Working hard doesn't make you rich. [/quote] But being lazy ensures you won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Not all poor people are lazy, some are sure, but it's horrible to dismiss any unemployed or lower class citizen as being lazy and leeching off others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320551134' post='5620572'] Not all poor people are lazy, some are sure, but it's horrible to dismiss any unemployed or lower class citizen as being lazy and leeching off others. [/quote] this also minimum wage should be removed or lowered if you ask me. people who need more money should simply look for higher paying jobs. the way i look at it, if companies want to pay less than minimum wage, they outsource to countries that don't have one. at least if we didn't have one, we'd likely have more jobs. People who need the money will take the jobs- people who need -more- money won't, is what I'm saying. Nobody would be desperate enough to take a $0.01 an hour job, and wages above the minimum wage wouldn't suddenly drop just due to a lack of said restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320532724' post='5619868'] Or less profits for the rich people. Anyway, this is the one thing I disagree with Ron Paul on. [/quote] It has taken me so long to realize how much of a fool Ron Paul is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tentacruel' timestamp='1320551134' post='5620572'] Not all poor people are lazy, some are sure, but it's horrible to dismiss any unemployed or lower class citizen as being lazy and leeching off others. [/quote] This. My dad works 3 jobs and does his damn best to try to get me and his other sons a education so we would be able to get good paying jobs. Sadly, he hopes my older bro would be willing to work hard. He's wrong. He instead went to college, ain't taking it seriously, got a job as a busboy at a pancake house, spends his money on his 16 year old gf, cheats on her, asks my dad for more money (1k) when he's working himself to death, and steals from me and my lil bro. Yeah, clearly all poor people don't work hard. @ Zark: Yes, because war refugees can easily get good paying jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 they wouldn't get the good-paying jobs regardless. they'd hardly get minimum wage jobs. a lack of a minimum wage would just mean less competition so they could at least get some money in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cin Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 I would disagree about getting rid of it, that would allow people to get away with paying people next to nothing. Even in the UK I had an interview for a job where for the first week they would pay me £3 (£48 a week..excluding bus fair £36) an hour...not the £5.93 (at the time) by law they should of given me. Would have left me worse off than on Jobseekers for the first week (and you weren't even guaranteed a job after the week training). Job should always pay more than benefits and not so little people need to work their asses of on several jobs to make ends meet. What's the point of having money if you can't spend it. I've worked out I need to get atleast 12 hours work to be better off than on benefits. (£53 a week on JSA, £66.46 (taking off megarider fair) on job). Basically if you get rid of the NMW you would need to reduce benefits, so it'd pay more to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Blood Rose' timestamp='1320581908' post='5620994'] I would disagree about getting rid of it, that would allow people to get away with paying people next to nothing. [/quote] I doubt it. Do you really think somebody's gonna take a $2 an hour job when they probably need more? If they do they probably deserve that job. You were offered crappy pay, did you take it? No. That's kind of how it works. If you don't like the pay, take get the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smesh Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 I live in a town where almost everyone is rich (I myself being middle class) and everyone complains about paying taxes. Best thing I've heard since I started living here, "If we take money from the rich and less from the poor, we'd be a communism." ....>.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Remo S. Valentine' timestamp='1320549476' post='5620536'] How did this go from minimum wage to a republican hate shrine? My AP U.S professor justified it this way "If person A goes to school, works hard, get's a good job, invents something [i]by[/i] working hard, and reaps the benefits; is it fair to say that because B didn't work as hard, he gets free money from A? That kind of a deal only benefits B [u][b]and if B were A or in A's shoes he'd definitively argue against tax increases.[/b][/u]It's impossible to say that this scenario of one person taking the easy road won't happen, or that every single person who benefits is a single mother of 5. I'm just justifying their side of it all. " [/quote] [url="http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/"]http://blogs.wsj.com...ax-on-the-rich/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Twilight Sparkle' timestamp='1320550817' post='5620565'] But being lazy ensures you won't be. [/quote] What about the children of the rich who inherit huge fortunes? Tamara Ecclestone, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Zero Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 ^Or marrying for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.