Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
190
Views

Re: Which Future?

190 Views
Message 81 of 146

@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
190
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
192
Views

Re: Which Future?

192 Views
Message 82 of 146

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
192
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
206
Views

Re: Which Future?

206 Views
Message 83 of 146

@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
206
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
195
Views

Re: Which Future?

195 Views
Message 84 of 146

@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?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
195
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Which Future?

200 Views
Message 85 of 146

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??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
200
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
212
Views

Re: Which Future?

212 Views
Message 86 of 146

@easyed598 wrote:

 

Chasky wrote-But in the late 1960's and early 1970's one could have a minimum wage job and afford rent, utilities and food, even car insurance and transportation. Without a COLA formula to increase the minimum wage over the decades, it's impossible to live on minimum wage without assistance. by the way, with the COLA formula in place, the minimum wage would be far higher than $15.00 per hour.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I disagree -Minimum wage in the 60`s  and 70`s wasn`t   a  livable wage but was what it is now - A starting point for future employment that leads to a higher paying job. Minimum wage today is mainly for teenagers ,college students or non skill workers with limited education.


The BLS begs to differ in a 2017 Report on Minimum Wage workers: Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.3 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.8 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
212
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
208
Views

Re: Which Future?

208 Views
Message 87 of 146

@rk9152 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

I am unwilling to go to work today...  I still get paid though, right?

 

So I posted this before on another thread, but I'll do it again.

 

Single no dependents as per Quickbooks Payroll with 2019 tax updates.

 

Current average work week is 34.5 hours as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 

Current Federal Minimum wage is $ 7.25 per hour 

 

34.5 x 7.25                        =     250.13

Fed withholding                   =    - 52.00

SS employee                     =     -15.51

MC employee                    =    -   3.63

State witholding                 =    - 65.99

 

Net pay for one week        =     113.01

 

Twenty gallons gas                 -  43.00

or buss fare

 

Total                                       $   73.00

 

If you live at home with your parents, if they buy your food, if they babysit for you if you have a child, if you can use their car and just buy the gas, if you don't have to chip in for rent or utilities, if you can be on your parents health insurance or just not have health insurance,  you can probably pay for the phone and phone service you need for work and have enough left over to buy one cup of coffee a day working 34.5 hours a week at minimum wage.

 

If they just didn't waste that money they spent of coffee every day.

 

No wonder they're poor.

 

 


Yes, having a child while living as a single mother and qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success.


If you know that, how can you support the GOP that works diligently to deprive women of the control of their own reproductive health? Republicans appear to just enjoy destroying the economic well being of poor people who have sex - why is that?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
208
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
207
Views

Re: Which Future?

207 Views
Message 88 of 146

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

-In spite of automation the United states has added 500,000 new factory jobs since Trump was elected,thanks to thriving economy and bringing  back jobs from foreign countries that left over the last 20 years.

 

Manufacturing jobs haven't recovered from the Great Recession on 2008 yet, we're in the tail end of an exceptionally long economic expansion, and we already have exceptionally low interest rates.

 

What are we going to do what the next recession comes, in a year, maybe two?

 

Lower interest rates to less then zero, print money, both?

 

Maybe the FED should raise rates so they can lower them again in a year, otherwise they're out of bullets.


What Cadet Bonespurs and his peanut gallery do NOT want anyone to notice is those manufacturing jobs come with significantly reduced pay AND benefits - part of the "claw back" strategy of Republican Corporate Oligarchs to erase all the gains Unions made for the American Worker just as elected GOPers constantly strive to destroy all the legislation Democratic administrations passed for the benefit of all Americans.

 

Maybe the Congress should pass laws protecting the American Worker instead of encouraging the Corporate Oligarchs to continue their assault on what's left of the Middle Class.


When we signed on to NAFTA without worker protections included like Germany had, manufacturing jobs left the country to take advantage of poverty wages over seas. American workers over time and through desperation became willing to accept lower wages and some manufacturing jobs have returned as a result of that. Many of those workers today qualify for food stamps because of the low wages, prominent in my community where our state has a hedge fund millionaire Tea Party Republican as governor. The Corporate Oligarchs got their way to the detriment of the American worker and the well being of our Country.


The law protecting German workers from the "race to the bottom" forced on American workers is amazingly simple: If a German company relocates their operations, they either pay to move the workers, or continue to pay the workers until they find a better job (if the new job pays less, the company must make up the difference). The time this pay continues depends on how long the worker was with the company before the relocation- a year of so, 2 months, 15 years, it continues until the worker retires. So instead of replacing a German worker earning $30/hr with a Commie slave for $5/day, the company will wind up paying for both, and they have no incentive to move the job. Because they can't screw over their workers, they invest in the best possible equipment and training so the German Worker remains cost-competative and the German Economy gets the additional investment, not the Commies.

 

Perhaps AOC and her fellow freshmen will look into this.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
207
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
235
Views

Re: Which Future?

235 Views
Message 89 of 146

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

 

Chasky wrote-But in the late 1960's and early 1970's one could have a minimum wage job and afford rent, utilities and food, even car insurance and transportation. Without a COLA formula to increase the minimum wage over the decades, it's impossible to live on minimum wage without assistance. by the way, with the COLA formula in place, the minimum wage would be far higher than $15.00 per hour.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I disagree -Minimum wage in the 60`s  and 70`s wasn`t   a  livable wage but was what it is now - A starting point for future employment that leads to a higher paying job. Minimum wage today is mainly for teenagers ,college students or non skill workers with limited education.


Not unusual for a trump supporter to disagree with reality. I lived on minimum wage for a while in the early 70's.

 

Read Here:

 

READ HERE:        https://inequality.org/research/minimum-wage/


Do you really think that minimum wage is intended to support a single parent??


If the minimum wage had always had a basic COLA formula it wouldn't matter, would it?  Why do you seem to have something against single parents, more especially women?


It's nothing to do with having something against, it is a basic issue - Do you really think that the  minimum wage is intended to support a single parent??


If a basic COLA had been attached to the minimum wage, the minimum would be over $20.00 an hour today. Do you really think that wouldn't support a single parent and child?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
235
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
236
Views

Re: Which Future?

236 Views
Message 90 of 146

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

I am unwilling to go to work today...  I still get paid though, right?

 

So I posted this before on another thread, but I'll do it again.

 

Single no dependents as per Quickbooks Payroll with 2019 tax updates.

 

Current average work week is 34.5 hours as per the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 

Current Federal Minimum wage is $ 7.25 per hour 

 

34.5 x 7.25                        =     250.13

Fed withholding                   =    - 52.00

SS employee                     =     -15.51

MC employee                    =    -   3.63

State witholding                 =    - 65.99

 

Net pay for one week        =     113.01

 

Twenty gallons gas                 -  43.00

or buss fare

 

Total                                       $   73.00

 

If you live at home with your parents, if they buy your food, if they babysit for you if you have a child, if you can use their car and just buy the gas, if you don't have to chip in for rent or utilities, if you can be on your parents health insurance or just not have health insurance,  you can probably pay for the phone and phone service you need for work and have enough left over to buy one cup of coffee a day working 34.5 hours a week at minimum wage.

 

If they just didn't waste that money they spent of coffee every day.

 

No wonder they're poor.

 

 


Yes, having a child while living as a single mother and qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success.


But then of course if the minimum wage had been raised with a COLA formula throughout the decades (as it should have) she wouldn't be in this situation.

 

READ HERE:        https://inequality.org/research/minimum-wage/


My words were, "Yes, having a child while living as a single mother and qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success." do you disagree??


But then of course if the minimum wage had been raised with a COLA formula throughout the decades (as it should have) she wouldn't be in this situation,  and her having a child and living as a single mother wouldn't matter.

 

Amazing how the right continues to try and denigrate single women with children.


It is amazing how the left is incapable of dealing with a basic point without insulting - "having a child while living as a single mother and qualified for only minimum wage is probably not a formula for success." do you disagree??


I will not denigrate women by giving you the answer that you want. What do you not understand about:

But then of course if the minimum wage had been raised with a COLA formula throughout the decades (as it should have) she wouldn't be in this situation,  and her having a child and living as a single mother wouldn't matter.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
236
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Now until February 11, play this classic game online at AARP. Get in the game and play now.


jeopardy for aarp logo

Top Authors