Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Naw... eggs are for lunch or dinner.  Beans in the morning allow the "sharing" with co-workers during the day.   :thumbsup:  :yes:

Throw it all in a burrito but don't you dare try to take my eggs from said burrito. 

Repeal minimum wage.

Quote:Repeal minimum wage.

 

Agree.  And replace it with basic income.  $2600/month to every citizen, regardless of job status.  


Oh wait, that's not what you want.  You want unskilled workers to just work for slave wages.  Nevermind then.

Quote:Agree.  And replace it with basic income.  $2600/month to every citizen, regardless of job status.  


Oh wait, that's not what you want.  You want unskilled workers to just work for slave wages.  Nevermind then.

 

 

Yes.

 

Basic income can come post-scarcity. Actually I take that back, once most jobs are automated.

Quote:Agree.  And replace it with basic income.  $2600/month to every citizen, regardless of job status.  


Oh wait, that's not what you want.  You want unskilled workers to just work for slave wages.  Nevermind then.

 

You're not serious are you? An automatic welfare check of $2600 for every citizen? Would that replace all welfare or would that be in addition to food stamps, housing allowance, cash assistance, medicare, medicaid, social security and  healthcare payments? Would the rich get the same $2600 welfare check as the homeless? 

 

Why would anyone work, a married couple getting $5,200 a month that's more than most people I know make in income. How the heck would we pay that if everyone sits at home collecting over 60k a year just for living?

Quote:You're not serious are you? An automatic welfare check of $2600 for every citizen? Would that replace all welfare or would that be in addition to food stamps, housing allowance, cash assistance, medicare, medicaid, social security and  healthcare payments? Would the rich get the same $2600 welfare check as the homeless? 

 

Why would anyone work, a married couple getting $5,200 a month that's more than most people I know make in income. How the heck would we pay that if everyone sits at home collecting over 60k a year just for living?

 

Because we would simply tax the "evil rich" silly.  After all, the "evil rich" didn't actually earn their wealth.

Quote:You're not serious are you? An automatic welfare check of $2600 for every citizen? Would that replace all welfare or would that be in addition to food stamps, housing allowance, cash assistance, medicare, medicaid, social security and  healthcare payments? Would the rich get the same $2600 welfare check as the homeless? 

 

Why would anyone work, a married couple getting $5,200 a month that's more than most people I know make in income. How the heck would we pay that if everyone sits at home collecting over 60k a year just for living?

You're asking a progressive how we're going to pay for that?  They don't care.  It comes from some magical printing press that only rich people have access to.  It's right next to their silos of magic fairy dust. 

 

Proggies on this board who advocate what you're arguing about above should move to Greece.  It's going great over there. 

Quote:Because we would simply tax the "evil rich" silly.  After all, the "evil rich" didn't actually earn their wealth.

 

So you'd just get rid of the minimum wage and let the "evil poor" starve, because they don't earn their money.  They may work 40 hours a week, and put in more work than most CEO's ever do, and never make close to the same amount.  But obviously they didn't know the right people to move up the ladder, and thus deserve less than minimum wage.  Sounds about right from a conservative.

Quote:You're not serious are you? An automatic welfare check of $2600 for every citizen? Would that replace all welfare or would that be in addition to food stamps, housing allowance, cash assistance, medicare, medicaid, social security and  healthcare payments? Would the rich get the same $2600 welfare check as the homeless? 

 

Why would anyone work, a married couple getting $5,200 a month that's more than most people I know make in income. How the heck would we pay that if everyone sits at home collecting over 60k a year just for living?

Don't worry. Unsustainable inflation would fix that problem right up for us.

Quote:So you'd just get rid of the minimum wage and let the "evil poor" starve, because they don't earn their money.  They may work 40 hours a week, and put in more work than most CEO's ever do, and never make close to the same amount.  But obviously they didn't know the right people to move up the ladder, and thus deserve less than minimum wage.  Sounds about right from a conservative.

 

Come on TED.  I would expect a better argument from you than that.

 

If minimum wage was eliminated, then perhaps the TRUE value of minimum wage jobs would be revealed.

 

There is no way to justify someone working in a fast food restaurant making $15 per hour when someone with actual skill, say an electrician or apprentice actually had to do something to EARN that kind of wage.

 

How many people in this country right now are "starving"?  I would bet that they are "starving" while they surf the internet or play games on their X-Box, or look at the latest on Facebook on their smart phone.

 

So how does one "move up the ladder" to success?  Perhaps it's through hard WORK.

 

In just about every job that I have ever worked at, I always started at the bottom and worked my way up.  It is very much possible for people to do.

 

I personally refuse giving a "hand out" to lazy people.  I don't mind giving a "hand up" to motivated people.

So anyway, getting back to Taco Bell and the minimum wage.  I'll skip the Keynesnian economics discussion for now.

 

In 1996, I could get 3 tacos and a medium drink for 2 bucks.  Same meal runs about 5 bucks now.  It's actually a pretty good indicator of inflation, as everthing is about 2.5x what it was then.

 

Except for the price of house where I'd like to live, which is up ten-fold.  My salary's about 3x what I made then, but my saving rate/year is actually down when adjusted for inflation, because stuff costs so damn much.

 

The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, and it needs a bump.  Maybe not to 15 bucks, but adjusted for inflation, it's now worse than the $3.35/hour I was making back in 1985.

 

 

 

BTW, in my profession, guys work 1 month on, 1 month off.  You know what they all do when they go home?  Collect unemployment.  And they've done this through Republican and Democrat regimes, for decades.  They have steady work, yet game the system.  Some of them even work in the fishing industry on their time off, under the table, and dodge income taxes to boot.

 

And they're ALL gun-toting, redneck Republicans, cheating more tax dollars in a year than these would-be $15/hour deadbeats do in 5.  And they complain about the government full time, too.  Classic hypocrites.

Quote:So anyway, getting back to Taco Bell and the minimum wage.  I'll skip the Keynesnian economics discussion for now.

 

In 1996, I could get 3 tacos and a medium drink for 2 bucks.  Same meal runs about 5 bucks now.  It's actually a pretty good indicator of inflation, as everthing is about 2.5x what it was then.

 

Except for the price of house where I'd like to live, which is up ten-fold.  My salary's about 3x what I made then, but my saving rate/year is actually down when adjusted for inflation, because stuff costs so damn much.

 

The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, and it needs a bump.  Maybe not to 15 bucks, but adjusted for inflation, it's now worse than the $3.35/hour I was making back in 1985.

 

 

 

BTW, in my profession, guys work 1 month on, 1 month off.  You know what they all do when they go home?  Collect unemployment.  And they've done this through Republican and Democrat regimes, for decades.  They have steady work, yet game the system.  Some of them even work in the fishing industry on their time off, under the table, and dodge income taxes to boot.

 

And they're ALL gun-toting, redneck Republicans, cheating more tax dollars in a year than these would-be $15/hour deadbeats do in 5.  And they complain about the government full time, too.  Classic hypocrites.

 

However, there is one distinct difference here.  These guys are actually doing something and working.  I could tell stories of guys that would rather collect unemployment, sit home and smoke pot/play video games rather than take a "non-union" job.

 

I'm not saying that either is correct, but there is always "more to the story" so to speak.

Quote:Come on TED.  I would expect a better argument from you than that.

 

If minimum wage was eliminated, then perhaps the TRUE value of minimum wage jobs would be revealed.

 

There is no way to justify someone working in a fast food restaurant making $15 per hour when someone with actual skill, say an electrician or apprentice actually had to do something to EARN that kind of wage.

 

How many people in this country right now are "starving"?  I would bet that they are "starving" while they surf the internet or play games on their X-Box, or look at the latest on Facebook on their smart phone.

 

So how does one "move up the ladder" to success?  Perhaps it's through hard WORK.

 

In just about every job that I have ever worked at, I always started at the bottom and worked my way up.  It is very much possible for people to do.

 

I personally refuse giving a "hand out" to lazy people.  I don't mind giving a "hand up" to motivated people.

 

And how many of those starving people bought those "X-boxes" before they were starving?  How many of those people have kids who need the internet for school, and can't use the public library because they work past five o'clock when the library close?  

 

 

How does one "move up the ladder?"  By knowing the right people.  It's all about who you know.   Hard work?  Some of the hardest workers never move up.  Is it possible to work your way up?  Maybe.  But unless you know the right people, you're probably never going to move up.  Hard work isn't rewarded.  Nepotism certainly is though.  


But no, those people who are working to support their families shouldn't have any 'minimum wage'.  Companies profits are far more important.  After all it's the CEO making millions of dollars who REALLY does the hard work.  Typical conservative.  The poor are 'evil'  and 'greedy' wanting things like internet and an "xbox" and the rich are 'honest hard working people who earned every penny they have'.

Quote:However, there is one distinct difference here.  These guys are actually doing something and working.  I could tell stories of guys that would rather collect unemployment, sit home and smoke pot/play video games rather than take a "non-union" job.

 

I'm not saying that either is correct, but there is always "more to the story" so to speak.

The posted story discussed $15/hour workers trying to cut their hours so that they could keep their welfare checks.

 

My co-workers "don't work" just enough to keep their unemployment checks coming.

 

I fail to see the difference.  Both game the system by not working more than the bare minimum, except my boys get 80k/year and still pick up a check on their time off for not working.

Quote:So you'd just get rid of the minimum wage and let the "evil poor" starve, because they don't earn their money.  They may work 40 hours a week, and put in more work than most CEO's ever do, and never make close to the same amount.  But obviously they didn't know the right people to move up the ladder, and thus deserve less than minimum wage.  Sounds about right from a conservative.

"You didn't build that." Sounds about right from the Left.

Quote:The posted story discussed $15/hour workers trying to cut their hours so that they could keep their welfare checks.

 

My co-workers "don't work" just enough to keep their unemployment checks coming.

 

I fail to see the difference.  Both game the system by not working more than the bare minimum, except my boys get 80k/year and still pick up a check on their time off for not working.

 

And your point is that there is another way to be a leech? There are probably dozens of other ways too. That doesn't make it right.

Quote:And your point is that there is another way to be a leech? There are probably dozens of other ways too. That doesn't make it right.

I agree.

 

My point is that being a leech isn't merely a problem of the "welfare class".

 

 

Edit:  and that leeches aren't a reason to skip raising the minimum wage.

Quote:And how many of those starving people bought those "X-boxes" before they were starving?  How many of those people have kids who need the internet for school, and can't use the public library because they work past five o'clock when the library close?  

 

 

How does one "move up the ladder?"  By knowing the right people.  It's all about who you know.   Hard work?  Some of the hardest workers never move up.  Is it possible to work your way up?  Maybe.  But unless you know the right people, you're probably never going to move up.  Hard work isn't rewarded.  Nepotism certainly is though.  


But no, those people who are working to support their families shouldn't have any 'minimum wage'.  Companies profits are far more important.  After all it's the CEO making millions of dollars who REALLY does the hard work.  Typical conservative.  The poor are 'evil'  and 'greedy' wanting things like internet and an "xbox" and the rich are 'honest hard working people who earned every penny they have'.

 

Wow, I can't believe how much you are so...  determined to get your point across and blame "evil corporations".

 

People bought Xboxes before they are starving?  Perhaps they should sell the XBox so that they have some money to buy food.  It's pretty simple.  Some things in life are "luxuries" and some are "necessities".  An XBox, high speed interenet, a flat screen tv, etc are NOT "necessities".

 

Going up the ladder of success might include "having to know someone" but for the most part it doesn't.  My earliest experience regarding this was a job that I took at Burger King as a teenager.  It was a short period of time when I EARNED the title of a "lead person" because of my ability to grasp how the operation worked.  It wasn't long after that when I EARNED the job and title of "assistant manager".  It had nothing to do with "who I knew" and everything to do with "what I know".

 

Fast-forward to my military life.  I started as an E-1 (the lowest paygrade in the military) and EARNED my way up to E-6 by the time that I left the military.  I climbed that ladder not because of "who I knew" but because of "what I knew/know".

 

I personally recently left a job at a "green" company to take a job as a government contractor entering at the lowest level.  At my personal job, I really have no desire to "climb the ladder" again.  At my age, I'm done "climbing ladders" and just want to do what I do.

 

My point is, the vast majority of those that are in "poverty" and those that are supposedly "starving" put themselves in that position.  They can make a good life for themselves if the really wanted to, but it's not going to be given to them.  They actually have to WORK to get it for themselves.

Quote:Wow, I can't believe how much you are so...  determined to get your point across and blame "evil corporations".

 

People bought Xboxes before they are starving?  Perhaps they should sell the XBox so that they have some money to buy food.  It's pretty simple.  Some things in life are "luxuries" and some are "necessities".  An XBox, high speed interenet, a flat screen tv, etc are NOT "necessities".

 

Going up the ladder of success might include "having to know someone" but for the most part it doesn't.  My earliest experience regarding this was a job that I took at Burger King as a teenager.  It was a short period of time when I EARNED the title of a "lead person" because of my ability to grasp how the operation worked.  It wasn't long after that when I EARNED the job and title of "assistant manager".  It had nothing to do with "who I knew" and everything to do with "what I know".

 

Fast-forward to my military life.  I started as an E-1 (the lowest paygrade in the military) and EARNED my way up to E-6 by the time that I left the military.  I climbed that ladder not because of "who I knew" but because of "what I knew/know".

 

I personally recently left a job at a "green" company to take a job as a government contractor entering at the lowest level.  At my personal job, I really have no desire to "climb the ladder" again.  At my age, I'm done "climbing ladders" and just want to do what I do.

 

My point is, the vast majority of those that are in "poverty" and those that are supposedly "starving" put themselves in that position.  They can make a good life for themselves if the really wanted to, but it's not going to be given to them.  They actually have to WORK to get it for themselves.

 

Yes, because we all know selling an Xbox is going to fetch enough money to feed a family.  Same goes for the flat screen tv!  Nope, poor people should have to live as poor as possible and sell their possessions (which will only be a limited source of money for a limited period of time).  Poor people aren't allowed to have luxuries according to you.  They should just sell everything they've got.  That'll solve everything.

 

So going by your standards... those who are starving DESERVE to be starving, because they don't work hard enough (even though some of them work multiple jobs just to try to put food on the table, and get the bills paid).  They don't "earn"  their paychecks because they aren't climbing the ladder like you did.  Cause you know, there's not limited positions in management or assistant management or anything.  

Quote:People bought Xboxes before they are starving?  Perhaps they should sell the XBox so that they have some money to buy food.  It's pretty simple.  Some things in life are "luxuries" and some are "necessities".  An XBox, high speed interenet, a flat screen tv, etc are NOT "necessities".

You're losing me here. I'm right there with you that the process of getting onto unemployment or welfare should be much harder, and the process of staying on welfare harder yet, but it's hardly fair to tell someone that they can't have their unemployment check this week because they didn't sell the Xbox that their kids love so much. I could get a used Xbox One in good condition off of Craigslist for $150. That's not going to go very far, and I'd argue that you'd actually be doing more harm than good by taking away the kids' favorite toy. Same goes for TVs. Does someone on unemployment need a 55" flat screen? No, but they'd be lucky to get $100 for it at a pawn shop, and not a whole lot more on Craigslist.

 

But why stop there? What about their smartphone that they're using to search for work? Those can fetch a pretty decent price, especially if they're newer iPhone or Galaxy models. What about the second car that the wife uses to take the kids to school? Surely you don't need two cars now that one family member is unemployed, right? Dogs and cats are hardly necessities, and if you've ever taken one to the vet or bought it halfway-decent food, you know how expensive they are. Should people be forced to sell or give away their pets to qualify for welfare or unemployment? I'll tell you this right now; I'd sooner spend my last penny on my legal defense after I deal with anyone who tries to take my dogs than give them away.

 

Point being, I don't think it's even remotely close to fair to say that someone on unemployment or welfare should be required, or even expected to sell off what they owned before landing there. If someone is using welfare or unemployment dollars to go out and buy new phones, consoles, TVs or computers, then I'd consider that to be misuse of funds bordering on fraud, and that should be a reason to disqualify someone from receiving government assistance. I'm actually not entirely opposed to people on welfare being required to submit receipts, bank statements and a simple reconciliation form every month that proves that they're spending their welfare money on food, shelter and utilities, not cell phones, TVs and manicures. I don't think it's wrong to ask someone who's been living on the government's dime for an extended period of time to forfeit privacy in exchange for receiving further assistance. Asking someone to sell off items they'd earned with their own money as a condition of receiving government money, though, crosses a few lines for me.