Push for $15 minimum wage

[Orignal Earl]

Model Rx-79856 flips 10,000 burgers an hour. Michal was told to attend trade school so he can take care of the automation in the stores. He f*** around and doesn't get his degree. Charlie on the other hand hates computers and cries in his pillow that automation is destroying America. People come in droves to see the computer.

Because of automation...

The food is cheaper.
The burgers come out good every time.
Computers aren't rude.

Charlie isn't a whiner, he sells an app so you can watch the computer make burgers from the comfort of your home

 

[MagickMan]

U a simple bitch.

You Bern victims are such ignorant twats.

People would go to college to enrich their lives not learn how to be a cog.

To learn how to be a different kind of cog. Just what the world needs, more social "science" majors, too stupid to cut it in STEM. Yeeeah, that's greeeeat. D: We need more trade schools and apprentice programs, not Safe Spaces.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm talking about far beyond all of that retard. Try to keep up.

 

[Spungo]

To learn how to be a different kind of cog. Just what the world needs, more social "science" majors, too stupid to cut it in STEM. Yeeeah, that's greeeeat. D: We need more trade schools and apprentice programs, not Safe Spaces.

Yeah but women don't want to work those dirty jobs that pay all that dirty money plus benefits. Directing money to study things that lead to jobs for men would be sexist.

Living in today's gynocentric society is frustrating. I know I'm not alone here, but I don't want to date a guy who earns significantly less money than me. It would be nice if the government did something to get men into fields that pay well such as engineering, plumbing, welding, or any other trade. Instead, we see the exact opposite. Women-only scholarships exist, but men-only scholarships are sexist. Giving any amount of funding into anything dominated by men is called sexist and is shut down immediately. What is the result? The dating pool is horrendous. Women are earning more than ever, but men are earning less and dropping out of the labor force because the government (aka feminists) fight tooth and nail to keep men down.

That turned into a bit of a rant, but it's something that always bothers me. Society does everything possible to create the most pathetic and unemployable men on the planet, and then we wonder why marriage rates and birth rates are falling. What self respecting woman would marry any of these losers who major in communications and work at starbucks? We don't want to date losers. We want real men with real jobs that pay real income and are capable of supporting a family. I'm not expecting a free ride. I just want a man capable of contributing something. A husband should be an asset rather than a liability.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah but women don't want to work those dirty jobs that pay all that dirty money plus benefits. Directing money to study things that lead to jobs for men would be sexist.

We spend tons of money to study things that disproportionately employ men. Can you back this statement up?

Living in today's gynocentric society is frustrating. I know I'm not alone here, but I don't want to date a guy who earns significantly less money than me.

I'm sure you aren't alone, but making life align with your preferred dating pool isn't society's problem.

It would be nice if the government did something to get men into fields that pay well such as engineering, plumbing, welding, or any other trade. Instead, we see the exact opposite. Women-only scholarships exist, but men-only scholarships are sexist. Giving any amount of funding into anything dominated by men is called sexist and is shut down immediately. What is the result? The dating pool is horrendous. Women are earning more than ever, but men are earning less and dropping out of the labor force because the government (aka feminists) fight tooth and nail to keep men down.

Again, please show evidence that the government doesn't back or find things dominated by men. The finance industry will be shocked at this information, as will the defense and oil industries, haha.

That turned into a bit of a rant, but it's something that always bothers me. Society does everything possible to create the most pathetic and unemployable men on the planet, and then we wonder why marriage rates and birth rates are falling. What self respecting woman would marry any of these losers who major in communications and work at starbucks? We don't want to date losers. We want real men with real jobs that pay real income and are capable of supporting a family. I'm not expecting a free ride. I just want a man capable of contributing something. A husband should be an asset rather than a liability.

Well good news then! Unemployment rates for men and women over 16 are equal right now and average hourly earnings are significantly higher for men than for women. This is all available in last month's BLS data.

So despite society's massive conspiracy against the male dating pool you have exactly what you want. Have you considered that maybe you don't have a very rational or evidence based perspective? This just seems like unhinged, factless ranting.

 

[techie81]

$15 an hour? No, I think we should increase the minimum wage to $25 an hour. I mean everyone should make huge amounts of money with no education, no skills, and basic english skills. I don't think we should stop at the minimum wage either. We need to give everyone at least a month of vacation time do they have time to spend their new raise.

 

[JSt0rm]

$15 an hour? No, I think we should increase the minimum wage to $25 an hour. I mean everyone should make huge amounts of money with no education, no skills, and basic english skills. I don't think we should stop at the minimum wage either. We need to give everyone at least a month of vacation time do they have time to spend their new raise.

Look at this poor who thinks $25 a hour is a huge amount of money. Lol.

 

[Mai72]

$15 an hour? No, I think we should increase the minimum wage to $25 an hour. I mean everyone should make huge amounts of money with no education, no skills, and basic english skills. I don't think we should stop at the minimum wage either. We need to give everyone at least a month of vacation time do they have time to spend their new raise.

Lol, I wipe my butt with $25 bills. Everyone should get a free mansion, lambo and a million dollars!

AMERIKA....

 

[cubby1223]

Look at this poor who thinks $25 a hour is a huge amount of money. Lol.

says the guy who doesn't understand what the word "free" means

 

[mu11et]

Free = someone else is paying for it.

 

[soundforbjt]

says the guy who doesn't understand what the word "free" means

Just like all the repub contenders all crowing about re-building the military, that money grows on trees as well amirite?

 

[JSt0rm]

These guys keep thinking I'm talking about the next election cycle. I'm not. I'm talking about after capitalism. Once we reach that point where 90% won't be working.

 

[1prophet]

Is it wrong to design an economy where everyone has a minimum that meets basic needs?

It is wrong to bullshit people when trying to sell them such an economy where everyone has a minimum that meets basic needs,

by then subverting that very economy through illegal immigration, outsourcing, abuse of h1b visas, etc.,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU


we even have people on this very forum who advocate a high minimum wage and then tell us how to subvert that system by telling us to claim
employees as contractors (highly illegal in most circumstances) so they don't have to pay all the associated costs in hiring an employee, including THE TAXES that help society function.

 

[Spungo]

We spend tons of money to study things that disproportionately employ men. Can you back this statement up?

Can you even name 1? Every field of study strongly favors women over men. Any time men are at a disadvantage, the "equality" argument is thrown out in favor of female supremacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE_FSzJUlW0 (16 minutes, audio only)
You will very rarely find a case of affirmative action benefiting men. If Psychology is 80% female, it's because women are better than men at psychology, so that ratio is justified. If engineering is 80% male, it's because of sexism, and women are still better than men at everything, so affirmative action is needed to get men out of engineering and women into engineering.
Upon graduation, employers favor women by a stunning rate of 100% more likely to get hired.

For any 1 program benefiting men, I can probably find 10 similar programs that are exclusively for women. There is no social pressure to get men into STEM. We don't have advertisements on TV and the internet saying more men should take engineering or learn a trade. The only guy who seems interested in getting men back to work is that Dirty Jobs guy. All other media attention is about getting women into trades, women into medicine, women into businesses, women into government offices. The way media portrays it, the job of men is to make women successful; example: that feminist He For She campaign. There is a very real war on masculinity. We overhauled our entire education system to benefit girls over boys. Anything masculine was thrown out. Playing tag is not allowed, playing sports is not allowed, games like Red Rover are not allowed, dodgeball is not allowed. Simply put, being a boy is not allowed. Boys are treated like girls that have some kind of mental illness. When boys show any boy-like traits, such as not wanting to sit in a desk for 3 hours straight, we put them on drugs so they act more like girls. Boys are twice as likely to be put on mind altering drugs.

I'm sure you aren't alone, but making life align with your preferred dating pool isn't society's problem.

Propagation of the species is not society's problem? Hmm, ok then. We'll just agree to disagree on that.
I would also like to mention that the lack of high quality marriageable men leads to a surging rate of single motherhood. This is bad for society because there is a very clear correlation between single mothers and crime.
I'm not sure why men find this difficult to understand, but there is a difference between good enough to sleep with and good enough to marry. Don't guys have the same mentality? It's ok to sleep with a fat girl, but you would never date or marry one? The same rule applies to men. A guy with no job might be good for a lay, but he's not husband material. When the overwhelming majority of men are good enough for sex but not good enough to marry, we get a situation where having accidental children with shit quality men happens all the time, but having accidental children with high quality men doesn't happen very often. It's just a game of numbers. If most men suck, most accidental pregnancies will be with sucky men. This is bad for society.

Well good news then! Unemployment rates for men and women over 16 are equal right now and average hourly earnings are significantly higher for men than for women. This is all available in last month's BLS data.

I'm guessing you didn't actually check the data before writing this.
women are paid more than men until age 30 (when women quit their jobs to raise families).

So let's summarize what we've learned:
-Women in STEM are twice as likely to be hired as men.
-Women working full time are paid more than men.
-Title IX affirmative action is only applied if it benefits women, but feminists, even male feminists, argue that Title IX should be exempted if it starts to benefit the wrong gender.
-Boys are treated like defective girls, and prescription drugs are applied to correct this perceived defect.

As usual, the best explanation for male-female relationships and pair bonding comes from a comedian. He's a guy who can't be fired and have his life ruined by angry lesbian feminists.
Patrice O'Neal philosophy on men and women (more than 2 hours, audio only)

But they sure tried.

 

[JSt0rm]

It is wrong to bullshit people when trying to sell them such an economy where everyone has a minimum that meets basic needs,

by then subverting that very economy through illegal immigration, outsourcing, abuse of h1b visas, etc.,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU


we even have people on this very forum who advocate a high minimum wage and then tell us how to subvert that system by telling us to claim
employees as contractors (highly illegal in most circumstances) so they don't have to pay all the associated costs in hiring an employee, including THE TAXES that help society function.

Oh shut up. People were talking about some kid cleaning a shop once a month. Lemonade stand level shit.

 

[elitejp]

I thought that was pretty rich myself. First advocate businesses must pay 15 an hr because it will be good for the economy and then tell businesses how they should hire people under the table to save money on paid salary.

Jstorm...when America turns into never never land you can champion your ideals of rainbows and unicorns
Till then lets try to solve the problems of here and now.

 

[alcoholbob]

These guys keep thinking I'm talking about the next election cycle. I'm not. I'm talking about after capitalism. Once we reach that point where 90% won't be working.

People were talking about what agricultural workers would do for work in the 1960s because think tanks were predicting America would have a fully mechanized work force by 1970. The truth is the Democrats have an insatiable need for more votes and the Republicans have an insatiable need for cheap labor.

If anything wages will continue to go down and full automation will occur in Asia first, and will unlikely, if ever, occur in the Unites States due to the extreme downward pressure in wages of 2+ million immigrants annually (we get about as much or more immigrants than jobs created annually. 74% of America's immigrants (59 of 80 million) have come in since 1965 and the flood is only starting.

 

[elitejp]

Spungo,
I hear ya. I didn't think my sister would ever find a decent man, way too many lazy and emotionally unstable men in the market.

If your a man act like one. That doesn't give me a right to act like a jerk but when life hits you a hard one you better be ready to suck it up and hit back harder.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you even name 1? Every field of study strongly favors women over men. Any time men are at a disadvantage, the "equality" argument is thrown out in favor of female supremacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE_FSzJUlW0 (16 minutes, audio only)
You will very rarely find a case of affirmative action benefiting men. If Psychology is 80% female, it's because women are better than men at psychology, so that ratio is justified. If engineering is 80% male, it's because of sexism, and women are still better than men at everything, so affirmative action is needed to get men out of engineering and women into engineering.
Upon graduation, employers favor women by a stunning rate of 100% more likely to get hired.

I didn't just name one, I named several. You conveniently edited them out.

The rest of this is just ranting on random tangents you decided to bring up.

For any 1 program benefiting men, I can probably find 10 similar programs that are exclusively for women. There is no social pressure to get men into STEM. We don't have advertisements on TV and the internet saying more men should take engineering or learn a trade. The only guy who seems interested in getting men back to work is that Dirty Jobs guy. All other media attention is about getting women into trades, women into medicine, women into businesses, women into government offices. The way media portrays it, the job of men is to make women successful; example: that feminist He For She campaign. There is a very real war on masculinity. We overhauled our entire education system to benefit girls over boys. Anything masculine was thrown out. Playing tag is not allowed, playing sports is not allowed, games like Red Rover are not allowed, dodgeball is not allowed. Simply put, being a boy is not allowed. Boys are treated like girls that have some kind of mental illness. When boys show any boy-like traits, such as not wanting to sit in a desk for 3 hours straight, we put them on drugs so they act more like girls. Boys are twice as likely to be put on mind altering drugs.

This is some baffling red pill style crazy. I have no idea what this bizarre conspiracy theorizing has to do with what I wrote.

Propagation of the species is not society's problem? Hmm, ok then. We'll just agree to disagree on that.
I would also like to mention that the lack of high quality marriageable men leads to a surging rate of single motherhood. This is bad for society because there is a very clear correlation between single mothers and crime.
I'm not sure why men find this difficult to understand, but there is a difference between good enough to sleep with and good enough to marry. Don't guys have the same mentality? It's ok to sleep with a fat girl, but you would never date or marry one? The same rule applies to men. A guy with no job might be good for a lay, but he's not husband material. When the overwhelming majority of men are good enough for sex but not good enough to marry, we get a situation where having accidental children with shit quality men happens all the time, but having accidental children with high quality men doesn't happen very often. It's just a game of numbers. If most men suck, most accidental pregnancies will be with sucky men. This is bad for society.

Guess what, there are plenty of people who would make good mates who make less money than you. You've decided to apply your own arbitrary filter and then whine about how society isn't catering to you. That's your problem, so grow up and deal with it.

I'm guessing you didn't actually check the data before writing this.
women are paid more than men until age 30 (when women quit their jobs to raise families).

Oh I most certainly did check the data, but it's pretty obvious you didn't.

Let's count all the fails:

1. Wrong country. You're linking an article talking about the UK. Did you not notice you were linking data from the wrong country or were you hoping nobody else did?

2. Cherry picking age groups.

3. Basically ignoring the article's overall conclusion which is that the employment situation is much worse in the UK for women than for men.

All that aside, since we both (presumably) live in America, let's look at earnings by age group in America: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/womens-earnings-compared-to-mens-earnings-in-2014.htm

(can't link the image because the BLS site is dumb)

Men earn more than women in every age group. Next time check the data before saying something dumb.

So let's summarize what we've learned:
-Women in STEM are twice as likely to be hired as men.
-Women working full time are paid more than men.
-Title IX affirmative action is only applied if it benefits women, but feminists, even male feminists, argue that Title IX should be exempted if it starts to benefit the wrong gender.
-Boys are treated like defective girls, and prescription drugs are applied to correct this perceived defect.

Lol, what we learned from this is that you either can't find and interpret data or you've allowed your ideology to overwhelm you to the extent that you've become irrational. This is just math, and you're indisputably wrong. The rest of your 'conclusions' are mostly just angry ranting without factual basis.

As usual, the best explanation for male-female relationships and pair bonding comes from a comedian. He's a guy who can't be fired and have his life ruined by angry lesbian feminists.
Patrice O'Neal philosophy on men and women (more than 2 hours, audio only)

But they sure tried.

If you don't frequent the red pill you definitely should. They are just as allergic to facts and just as aggrieved as you are. You'd probably find a wonderful and welcoming audience and plenty of alpha males who would appeal to you, haha.

 

[JSt0rm]

People were talking about what agricultural workers would do for work in the 1960s because think tanks were predicting America would have a fully mechanized work force by 1970. The truth is the Democrats have an insatiable need for more votes and the Republicans have an insatiable need for cheap labor.

If anything wages will continue to go down and full automation will occur in Asia first, and will unlikely, if ever, occur in the Unites States due to the extreme downward pressure in wages of 2+ million immigrants annually (we get about as much or more immigrants than jobs created annually. 74% of America's immigrants (59 of 80 million) have come in since 1965 and the flood is only starting.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would full automation happen in Asia where wages are already low but not happen in America "because of downward pressure on wage".

Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[elitejp]

So not true. Wages are low in Asia if you compare it to America's salary. That's why there's a thing called parity of money. They actually have a decent wage. I know esl teachers in China making less than 1000 USD a month in China but living like a king. I never understood how college professors talk about underpaid Chinese laborers and use America's standards. That's like buying an overpriced house in the Midwest and saying its a deal because its still cheaper than a same sized house in silicone valley.

 

[JSt0rm]

So not true. Wages are low in Asia if you compare it to America's salary. That's why there's a thing called parity of money. They actually have a decent wage. I know esl teachers in China making less than 1000 USD a month in China but living like a king. I never understood how college professors talk about underpaid Chinese laborers and use America's standards. That's like buying an overpriced house in the Midwest and saying its a deal because its still cheaper than a same sized house in silicone valley.

who are you responding to?

 

[soundforbjt]

who are you responding to?

I think he's trying to say the workers that live on the factory property in barracks of 10-12 a room and have "Jump" prevention nets are living just as good in relation to their American counterparts.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think he's trying to say the workers that live on the factory property in barracks of 10-12 a room and have "Jump" prevention nets are living just as good in relation to their American counterparts.

Thank you for deciphering that nonsense.

 

[nickqt]

Yeah but women don't want to work those dirty jobs that pay all that dirty money plus benefits. Directing money to study things that lead to jobs for men would be sexist.

Living in today's gynocentric society is frustrating. I know I'm not alone here, but I don't want to date a guy who earns significantly less money than me. It would be nice if the government did something to get men into fields that pay well such as engineering, plumbing, welding, or any other trade. Instead, we see the exact opposite. Women-only scholarships exist, but men-only scholarships are sexist. Giving any amount of funding into anything dominated by men is called sexist and is shut down immediately. What is the result? The dating pool is horrendous. Women are earning more than ever, but men are earning less and dropping out of the labor force because the government (aka feminists) fight tooth and nail to keep men down.

That turned into a bit of a rant, but it's something that always bothers me. Society does everything possible to create the most pathetic and unemployable men on the planet, and then we wonder why marriage rates and birth rates are falling. What self respecting woman would marry any of these losers who major in communications and work at starbucks? We don't want to date losers. We want real men with real jobs that pay real income and are capable of supporting a family. I'm not expecting a free ride. I just want a man capable of contributing something. A husband should be an asset rather than a liability.

Marriage rates and birth rates fall as societies get richer and more advanced. It has nothing to do with poor, poor men being made into huge victims who are totally unable to get a job and earn money because the women politicians who outnumber and outmaneuver male politicians (hahahaha) are thumbing the scales against men.

Come on over to observable, objective reality.

I mean, it's definitely true that us white men have had a much tougher time dominating society as thoroughly as we had before 1865 and 1920, but, all-in-all we're still doing OK.

We do thank you for your concern, though!