The AARP Movies for Grownups Awards premieres tonight on many PBS stations. Watch at 9 p.m. ET.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
14
Views

Re: Which Future?

14 Views
Message 1 of 73

AlfredPacker....touche' you got me on the T. Roosevelt speech!  

 


@alferdpacker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:



Sounds like you want 90% of the people working for the government paid by the taxation of the other 10%.

 

The only way that would work is if everyone worked for the government and the government controled all the money and economy. Is that your vision???


Far better in all respects than greedy, dishonest oligarchs and an unstable and menally unbalanced obese malignantly narcissistic and subservient puppet controlled by the ruler of a hostile foreign power.

 

What Teddy Roosevelt said about Indians(native Americans) in a January 1886 speech in New York now fully applies to republicans and trump cultists.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
14
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
21
Views

Re: Which Future?

21 Views
Message 2 of 73

@rk9152 wrote:



Sounds like you want 90% of the people working for the government paid by the taxation of the other 10%.

 

The only way that would work is if everyone worked for the government and the government controled all the money and economy. Is that your vision???


Far better in all respects than greedy, dishonest oligarchs and an unstable and menally unbalanced obese malignantly narcissistic and subservient puppet controlled by the ruler of a hostile foreign power.

 

What Teddy Roosevelt said about Indians(native Americans) in a January 1886 speech in New York now fully applies to republicans and trump cultists.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
21
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
24
Views

Re: Which Future?

24 Views
Message 3 of 73

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. In short, it has ALWAYS been intended to provide a standard of living that would protect the health and well-being of workers, in short, it has always been to provide a LIVING WAGE.

 

Republican resent not being able to drive wages to the level seen in 3d world dictatorships and want to end the whole idea of a minimum wage, let alone allow it return to its ORIGINAL purpose, so once again the only solution is to remove the Republicans who prevent the Minimum Wage to return to at least where it was in real terms in 1964, which would be $15/hour.

 

So the claims about a minimum wage providing a LIVING WAGE in the 60's and 70's are totally TRUE. As is the fact we can return it to a living wage by removing the Republicans who have prevented it from being anything but a race to the bottom.


And the single mother and the kid living with his parents (both in a minimum wage job) - how does your minimum wage theory deal with that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
24
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
28
Views

Re: Which Future?

28 Views
Message 4 of 73

@Controlled42010 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

There have been all sorts of diversions and vague generalities such as how Germany supposedly does it, Commie slave labor and denigration of women, but the basic point has not been dealt with - "having a child and living as a single mother while qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success."

 

Does anyone disagree??


And if minimum wage has kept up with inflation through using a basic COLA formula, what you state would be a non-issue. Does anyone Agree?


Raising a family on one minimum wage salary was never the intention of the minimum wage. So, let's get back to the basics on this. How about a kid working after school living with Mom And Dad, do you think the intention was to pay him the same as the woman with the child? If they are both minimum wag, that's what would happen.


Well, I still do not understand why "she" didn't get all the opportunity given to a "him" and be compensated the exact same way as a "he'?


They are both getting miniimum wage.

 

But, yes, he is living with his parents - do you want her and her child to also live with his parents?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
28
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
34
Views

Re: Which Future?

34 Views
Message 5 of 73

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Back to the topic:  Automation is on the verge of producing the society where 10% of the workforce can produce 100% of the goods we consume. What are we going to do about the 90% who will become displaced by technology?

 

One alternative is to replace the consumer economy with one designed to build and support a fantastic infrastructure which can offer our citizens "free" education, health care, retirement, travel and recreation.

 

The money would come from the same place our grandparents got the resources to build the World class infrastructure the last 32 years of Republican "beneign neglect" has turned to rubble.

 

Repealing the Reagan taxscam would double current federal income tax revenues, finance the total rebuilding of our infrastructure, education k thru PhD/MD, add high speed rail to rival what already exists in Europe and is being built in China, and provide affordable health insurance for all. Raising the cap on Social Security to $250,000 will make the system solvent, and restoring revenue sharing will reduce the State and Local tax burden.

 

The other option is the Republican Plan to give all the income to the 10% and let "natural selection" cull the rest of the population down to numbers our existing system can support, provided the Corporate Oligarchs feel obliged to offer such support.

 

There really isn't a "middle ground".


Sounds like you want 90% of the people working for the government paid by the taxation of the other 10%.

 

Hardly rational. The only way that would work is if everyone worked for the government and the government controled all the money and economy. Is that your vision???

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
34
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
45
Views

Re: Which Future?

45 Views
Message 6 of 73

 

Olderscout wrote-So the claims about a minimum wage providing a LIVING WAGE in the 60's and 70's are totally TRUE. As is the fact we can return it to a living wage by removing the Republicans who have prevented it from being anything but a race to the bottom.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My children ,who worked as teenagers during the 1970`s, didn`t  have a  living wage while going to school even though they were working at minimum wage. In the summer they worked almost full time hours and it still wouldn`t have been possible to live on their own during that time . Democrats who think differently should be removed from office because they are void of realistic  thinking.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
45
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
51
Views

Re: Which Future?

51 Views
Message 7 of 73

The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. In short, it has ALWAYS been intended to provide a standard of living that would protect the health and well-being of workers, in short, it has always been to provide a LIVING WAGE.

 

Republican resent not being able to drive wages to the level seen in 3d world dictatorships and want to end the whole idea of a minimum wage, let alone allow it return to its ORIGINAL purpose, so once again the only solution is to remove the Republicans who prevent the Minimum Wage to return to at least where it was in real terms in 1964, which would be $15/hour.

 

So the claims about a minimum wage providing a LIVING WAGE in the 60's and 70's are totally TRUE. As is the fact we can return it to a living wage by removing the Republicans who have prevented it from being anything but a race to the bottom.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
51
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
57
Views

Re: Which Future?

57 Views
Message 8 of 73

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

There have been all sorts of diversions and vague generalities such as how Germany supposedly does it, Commie slave labor and denigration of women, but the basic point has not been dealt with - "having a child and living as a single mother while qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success."

 

Does anyone disagree??


And if minimum wage has kept up with inflation through using a basic COLA formula, what you state would be a non-issue. Does anyone Agree?


Raising a family on one minimum wage salary was never the intention of the minimum wage. So, let's get back to the basics on this. How about a kid working after school living with Mom And Dad, do you think the intention was to pay him the same as the woman with the child? If they are both minimum wag, that's what would happen.


Well, I still do not understand why "she" didn't get all the opportunity given to a "him" and be compensated the exact same way as a "he'?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
57
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
67
Views

Re: Which Future?

67 Views
Message 9 of 73

Back to the topic:  Automation is on the verge of producing the society where 10% of the workforce can produce 100% of the goods we consume. What are we going to do about the 90% who will become displaced by technology?

 

One alternative is to replace the consumer economy with one designed to build and support a fantastic infrastructure which can offer our citizens "free" education, health care, retirement, travel and recreation.

 

The money would come from the same place our grandparents got the resources to build the World class infrastructure the last 32 years of Republican "beneign neglect" has turned to rubble.

 

Repealing the Reagan taxscam would double current federal income tax revenues, finance the total rebuilding of our infrastructure, education k thru PhD/MD, add high speed rail to rival what already exists in Europe and is being built in China, and provide affordable health insurance for all. Raising the cap on Social Security to $250,000 will make the system solvent, and restoring revenue sharing will reduce the State and Local tax burden.

 

The other option is the Republican Plan to give all the income to the 10% and let "natural selection" cull the rest of the population down to numbers our existing system can support, provided the Corporate Oligarchs feel obliged to offer such support.

 

There really isn't a "middle ground".

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
67
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
88
Views

Re: Which Future?

88 Views
Message 10 of 73

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

There have been all sorts of diversions and vague generalities such as how Germany supposedly does it, Commie slave labor and denigration of women, but the basic point has not been dealt with - "having a child and living as a single mother while qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success."

 

Does anyone disagree??


And if minimum wage has kept up with inflation through using a basic COLA formula, what you state would be a non-issue. Does anyone Agree?


Raising a family on one minimum wage salary was never the intention of the minimum wage. So, let's get back to the basics on this. How about a kid working after school living with Mom And Dad, do you think the intention was to pay him the same as the woman with the child? If they are both minimum wag, that's what would happen.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
88
Views