St. Louis minimum wage will drop from $10 to $7.70

[Younigue]

I think we need a maximum wage of 1 cent an hour for Retardicans and Conservaterrorists. Lets see how you survive on that.

It would be Obama's and Hillary's fault so they'd resist learning anything from the experience/struggle.

 

[bshole]

Of course you can't live on $7.70/hr. Nobody ever claimed it was a livable wage. Not all jobs are worth paying a livable wage. Some unskilled jobs are only worth $7.70/hr

Some are only worth $4.55/hr, some are worth $1.44/hr, some are worth $0.12/hr... There is no bottom with conservatives. Stomp on that accelerator pedal.... lets see how fast we can get to third world.

 

[xthetenth]

You sound like a real level headed guy

It's only fair that someone treat you with the contempt you show to everyone else.

 

[Sea Ray]

It's only fair that someone treat you with the contempt you show to everyone else.

Where did I show contempt for someone else here?

 

[agent00f]

Where did I show contempt for someone else here?

People on non-livable wages don't deserve better, same as the millions losing healthcare. In fairness though, people dying off due to the "free market" is just the cost of doing business to total degenerates. What's funny is that all the heros of capitalism like Smith absolutely despised your sort, arguably more than I do.

 

[Sea Ray]

People on non-livable wages don't deserve better, same as the millions losing healthcare. In fairness though, people dying off due to the "free market" is just the cost of doing business to total degenerates. What's funny is that all the heros of capitalism like Smith absolutely despised your sort, arguably more than I do.

It's not about what people deserve. It's what their skills are worth. That's out of my control. I don't set the worth of someone taking your tolls on the turnpike and the guy who surgically places your pacemaker.

What's hilarious is all the trouble liberals are having with this thread. Once I informed you that left wing icon FDR supported a $0.25 min wage, you don't know what to post. So you revert back to your degenerate talk.

BTW, who's this Smith you talk about?

 

[agent00f]

It's not about what people deserve. It's what their skills are worth. That's out of my control. I don't set the worth of someone taking your tolls on the turnpike and the guy who surgically places your pacemaker.

No, normative economics systems are very much controlled by human hands, even those who can't figure out what that means in democratic societies.

What's hilarious is all the trouble liberals are having with this thread. Once I informed you that left wing icon FDR supported a $0.25 min wage, you don't know what to post. So you revert back to your degenerate talk.

First, it's simply a typical degen lie that we ever discussed min wage. Second, seem to me even someone as uneducated as you is aware of how inflation works.

BTW, who's this Smith you talk about?

LOL at Real brain trust.

 

[Subyman]

It's not about what people deserve. It's what their skills are worth. That's out of my control. I don't set the worth of someone taking your tolls on the turnpike and the guy who surgically places your pacemaker.

What's hilarious is all the trouble liberals are having with this thread. Once I informed you that left wing icon FDR supported a $0.25 min wage, you don't know what to post. So you revert back to your degenerate talk.

BTW, who's this Smith you talk about?

Adam Smith, founder of the basis of free market economics. Saying some people do not deserve a "livable wage" means they either die or have to use government handouts. That position is either diabolical or socialist. Strange stance to take especially considering we are talking about people that are working, not "freeloaders."

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's all good, FYGM

 

[Sea Ray]

No, normative economics systems are very much controlled by human hands, even those who can't figure out what that means in democratic societies.



First, it's simply a typical degen lie that we ever discussed min wage. Second, seem to me even someone as uneducated as you is aware of how inflation works

Did you miss my post where I stated that 25 cents=$4.18 today?

 

[Sea Ray]

Adam Smith, founder of the basis of free market economics. Saying some people do not deserve a "livable wage" means they either die or have to use government handouts. That position is either diabolical or socialist. Strange stance to take especially considering we are talking about people that are working, not "freeloaders."

Wow. That's some idiot. He should have known there were other possibilities than dying or use gov't handouts. There's living with someone else like a spouse, parent or a friend. There's working more than one job.

But if one does get gov't handouts that's not the employer's fault. Many not only want the employer to give this unskilled worker $15/hr, they also want the employer to give him health insurance. That makes it awfully pricey to do business

 

[ch33zw1z]

You made to 50+ without hearing of Adam smith, yea...he's the idiot.

 

[agent00f]

Did you miss my post where I stated that 25 cents=$4.18 today?

Sure, what's your point? That ignorant degens like you wouldn't have been whining from the very start there should be none? In the 50's-60's, the country's most economically prosperous rise for the middle class, the min wage rose to >$10 adjusted. And then sure enough the two trends fell in lockstep since then. Leave the knowing and thinking to people who have some capacity for it, it's your role to parrot the same talking points as race realists.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Cost of living was also lower then. Cost of food and housing especially has far outpaced inflation, to the point that this comparison is somewhere between dishonest and almost genocidal.

 

[agent00f]

Cost of living was also lower then. Cost of food and housing especially has far outpaced inflation, to the point that this comparison is somewhere between dishonest and almost genocidal.

Housing is the big one. In the 50/60's when min wage was ~$10 homes cost a fraction of what they do now in places like CA. It was literally not inconceivable for a family on min wage to get a place if they budgeted.

 

[Sea Ray]

Sure, what's your point? That ignorant degens like you wouldn't have been whining from the very start there should be none? In the 50's-60's, the country's most economically prosperous rise for the middle class, the min wage rose to >$10 adjusted. And then sure enough the two trends fell in lockstep since then. Leave the knowing and thinking to people who have some capacity for it, it's your role to parrot the same talking points as race realists.

You're too slow to get my point? I guess I have to hit you right between the eyes with it:

FDR signed a bill that legalized paying a wage that was by all accounts not "livable" and defended it afterwards showing that he was fully supportive of it.

If you want to pivot to years after his death that's fine but it has nothing to do with FDR

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Where did I show contempt for someone else here?

lol... really?

 

[Sea Ray]

lol... really?

I have nothing personally against anyone here...yeah really. I don't call people degenerate based upon who they vote for

 

[zinfamous]

You made to 50+ without hearing of Adam smith, yea...he's the idiot.

I like how he and hist types enjoy the circle jerk over the wonders of capitalism and how it is almost as great as Jesus, but calls "this Smith guy" an idiot. Can't make this up!

 

[brycejones]

Wow. That's some idiot. He should have known there were other possibilities than dying or use gov't handouts. There's living with someone else like a spouse, parent or a friend. There's working more than one job.

But if one does get gov't handouts that's not the employer's fault. Many not only want the employer to give this unskilled worker $15/hr, they also want the employer to give him health insurance. That makes it awfully pricey to do business

If the survival of your business is dependent on paying your employees so little they have to get government assistance to survive then you should be out of business. Its obvious your business isn't really viable if you depend on tax payer subsidies to be able to keep a labor force and turn a profit.

When a wal-mart employee works full time and still draws benefits its a effectively a transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to Wal-Mart stockholders. Since those earnings should have been used to pay worker salaries instead of dividends.

Moving to single payer healthcare takes businesses out of the health insurance business. Think about that for a second.

 

[Sea Ray]

If the survival of your business is dependent on paying your employees so little they have to get government assistance to survive then you should be out of business. Its obvious your business isn't really viable if you depend on tax payer subsidies to be able to keep a labor force and turn a profit.

When a wal-mart employee works full time and still draws benefits its a effectively a transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to Wal-Mart stockholders. Since those earnings should have been used to pay worker salaries instead of dividends.

Moving to single payer healthcare takes businesses out of the health insurance business. Think about that for a second.

I couldn't disagree more. Walmart has no agreement with an employee that all of his bills will be paid. Walmart's agreement is that you'll do XXX job and we'll pay you $X.XX per hour. There's no agreement to pay for your doctor visits, your rent, your kids...nothing. Those things are not part of the equation. If your salary is not enough to cover your bills then you'd better find a second job or a better job.

As for single payer, it depends on who pays. If the burden does not fall on employers then I think that'd be a great first step but if employers have to contribute greatly to it like social security then I would be against it.

 

[brycejones]

I couldn't disagree more. Walmart has no agreement with an employee that all of his bills will be paid. Walmart's agreement is that you'll do XXX job and we'll pay you $X.XX per hour. There's no agreement to pay for your doctor visits, your rent, your kids...nothing. Those things are not part of the equation. If your salary is not enough to cover your bills then you'd better find a second job or a better job.

As for single payer, it depends on who pays. If the burden does not fall on employers then I think that'd be a great first step but if employers have to contribute greatly to it like social security then I would be against it.

Social security isn't a huge burden for employers, its a cost of doing business and doesn't radically change from year to year like health insurance has for years (including pre-ACA). As such it is easy for a business to account for in their plans. Businesses prefer certainty, knowing how much they have to pay year over year would be better for them than the current system.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're too slow to get my point? I guess I have to hit you right between the eyes with it:

FDR signed a bill that legalized paying a wage that was by all accounts not "livable" and defended it afterwards showing that he was fully supportive of it.

If you want to pivot to years after his death that's fine but it has nothing to do with FDR

Prior to that, there was no minimum wage & people were working for even less'

By all accounts? Link us up.

 

[Sea Ray]

Social security isn't a huge burden for employers, its a cost of doing business and doesn't radically change from year to year like health insurance has for years (including pre-ACA). As such it is easy for a business to account for in their plans. Businesses prefer certainty, knowing how much they have to pay year over year would be better for them than the current system.

It's not about certainty. Under a national health insurance system, why should employers have to pay for the country's health insurance? It should be paid by all of us. Employers only employ about a third of us. That third need not provide health insurance for the other two thirds.

 

[Sea Ray]

Prior to that, there was no minimum wage & people were working for even less'

By all accounts? Link us up.

Sure. It was min wage and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is calling a min wage a livable wage. It was never intended to be that as evidenced by its beginnings of 25 cents/hr.