Random Politics & Religion #14

Media continuing their assault on trumps legitimacy today with the specter of nothingness that is "the voting machines could have been hacked"!

Get over it! You lost!

then talk about politics or STFU!!!


Let's blame Putin!!!

anything so that we don't have to admit hillary was a shitty candidate.

Remember when everyone got their panties in a bunch because trump didn't immediately commit to accepting the election results?

Good times!

Hillary Clinton conceded the same night.

Keep spreading those lies you read on HotAir.

Then why are we talking about contesting the results today?

I have no idea where these claims are coming from and whether they are legitimate. But if they are they certainly shouldn't be dismissed cause it would be very serious.

For what it's worth, Hillary herself already conceded.

How much do we want to bet that half the people trying to get her to fight the results didn't even want her as their candidate?

Lots of issues right now with the whole situation.

Elsewhere in the world.

Samsung office raided in South Korea corruption probe
Media reports that group's alleged links with under-fire South Korea President Park's confidante reason behind raid.

If it's "greed and vileness" that keeps the business open, who's really to blame, especially when it's government regulations and law that creates the need to adjust due to "greed and vileness."

In other words, is it really greedy to keep doors open, or should the employer just shut down for good because they can't afford additional costs such as health insurance payments that they couldn't afford before the law was in place. The choice given to businesses were: Pay people less and have them work less hours, or go out of business. Which would you choose?

Most franchises are small businesses. It is more likely to come to a McDonald's franchise than it is to come to a McDonald's corporate restaurant. And the way the franchise agreement is set up between McDonald's and the franchisee is made in a way that you couldn't tell the difference between the two.

There are exceptions to the case (all Wal-Mart stores are corporate owned, for example), but that's generally the way things are.

Purchasing power and inflation are tied, correct. However, nominal increases in wages are not tied to purchasing power. Purchasing power is basically dictated by real wage increases, such as higher wages due to increased productivity or higher wages due to better skillsets/skilled labor. None of this has anything to do with minimum wage increases, or forced wage increases due to government intervention.

Ok then, let's look at it from your perspective.

Why?

Sure, if you only listen to liberal sources. Never mind the fact that wage disparity between the rich and the poor grows more with liberal policies than they do with conservative ones.

You can thank hope and change for that.

That "study" has been debunked for months. For one, it assumes greatly and a lot of assumptions are based by guesswork.

For another, there's a whole lot more to wage increases than just a flat increase in wage rates. For example: payroll taxes were not taken into consideration. Another example is the training hours paid were also not taken into consideration. A third example is that it was using a 34 hour/week baseline, which Walmart doesn't do thanks to Obamacare. A fourth example is that it only assumes that people working at or near minimum wage will get a price increase, but doesn't take into consideration those who work between $8.00 to $15.00 and their auto-increases to $15.00. It also doesn't take into consideration those who work slightly over $15.00, as they will demand a pay increase or walk (warehouse workers, truck drivers, middle management, so on).

That "study" has a lot of flaws to it, and the additional labor costs taking all considerations into factor will be greater than the purported $10.18 billion they claimed.

Also, they read the financial statements wrong. Which isn't a huge surprise either. Walmart's net income was just over $10 billion, not just under $15 billion, as shown here. Which is 2.1290%, again not a huge margin.

Actually, even going by their own supposed incorrect analysis, they would barely break even. Going by real numbers, paying $15/hr. would create losses, and a lot of them.

Nope, not even close

Let me ask you this then: Should a carpenter be paid the same rate as a burger flipper?

Should a CPA be paid the same as a janitor?

Should a lawyer be paid the same as a cashier?

I'm glad you do.

And I counter your evidence showing where they are wrong.

Ethics aside, we have to face reality. When faced with a tough situation, do you fire 2 employees/reduce 40 people's hours or have to close down the entire business and end up firing 50?

It's not a matter of what people do to make themselves feel good. It's about survival for most of these businesses. Hell, even Walmart needs to survive against other stores (Target, Costco, local varieties to name a few) and cannot afford to pay people $15/hr and expect to stay in business. Which, if they go out of business, you are looking at 1.5 million people unemployed. Is that really worth it to make some people feel good for a couple of years?

It's not open-mindedness you are doing. You are just as set with your opinions as mine. We are basically going back to the basic argument of "feels vs. reality."

Sweet Cheesus, man. Are you paid by the word?

I'm paid by the keystroke.

Get good sucka!

Only problem is, I'm paid by FFXIAH Gems.

TRIGGERED.

Stop it! You're triggering my Rupee addiction!

The problem is KN, that you won't admit this is an ethical argument and not simply an economic one.



Considering I was in agreement with you on this very matter not but a few weeks ago, you are probably the one out of touch with reality here.

I completely understand the ethical implications associated with this.

But we are not in a position to consider ethical implications with such a bad economy. $15/hr. minimum wage rate can be discussed more realistically when we are at a point when it's possible to do so.

But when businesses are at the point where it's either cut hours or go out of business, asking to double the pay rate of employees is out of the question.

I'm speaking realistically. We can debate the ethical implications all we want, but it's still not going to change the fact that businesses just cannot afford it.

How do you know that your new viewpoint is the right one and not the old one?

Let me ask you this then: Did you take multiple factors into consideration? Did you ask yourself "What is keeping this from happening, what factors will be affected if this was to happen?"

Better question: Are you fighting for $15/hr. because of emotion or logic?

The answer is logic and emotion. I'm not necessarily fighting for it either, but I see and understand its benefits. $15/hr isn't what I would be fighting for anyway but rather a living wage - Which vastly differs from area to area.

There are also other ways to lower the living wage but currently neither party is making a serious effort at addressing these issues.


There may also be ways to protect Small businesses during this transition, it could be something as simple as Tax breaks or maybe something far more complicated than what I can understand.


Regardless of our perception of the economic impact, we should still strive and find ways to ensure that 40 hours a week will always translate into a living wage for at the very least one individual and one dependent.

Can you define it?

Please take into consideration that any and all wage hikes will cause prices to increase, which basically nulls any wage increases you suggest.

Better question: How do you achieve a "living wage" for all?


I would like to hear your ideas. I already have many myself, I just need to put them into words.

Sure, but how can we ensure that a person works 40 hours per week? Shouldn't we solve that problem first, before we can define what a living wage is?

This should be the bottom-line, and the answer will honestly involve government involvement in some capacity.


Tax breaks, Single-payer insurance instead of requiring them to cover their employees. I really don't know why people don't advocate Single-payer. The only losers are insurance companies. Their may be others but essentially we can follow the ideal behind Trickle-down economics but force the hand of the business owners with minimum wage increases rather than giving them money back and hoping they make the right choice.








That is another issue, you are correct. How do we ensure that? Which I, personally, am led to believe that Obamacare helped contribute to this as Companies have more incentives not to give Employees full time work.

I personally think they both need to be addressed. Either way 15k a year is not a livable wage.



Furthering this point, the more people that are paid a living wage the less we are dependent on welfare which will in return reduce taxes.

There may be*

Again, their purchasing power will not change. Why bother with $15/hr if we can enforce $300/hr and make prices match that? It wouldn't matter in the long run if everything is 400-500 times more expensive after the price hikes.

With the US government wasting it? Are you kidding?

Do you honestly think that small businesses will see a 1:1 ratio of "assistance" of whatever you think the government will do to assist them?

You still haven't answered the question. You just somewhat defined what you think a "living wage" is. You haven't said how it would be achieved.

To who? For what?

A completely bad idea. But that's another topic other than minimum wage/living wage.

A job working at Wendy's is not supposed to support a family of four either.

Either way, you need to tell us how to achieve a living wage.

I think if we keep going we will start break some forum rule, so I'm going to stop with this:


It truly is hard to determine what is a "living wage" but my assumption is you can pull out a yearly salary based on the average bottom-line living. Which includes minimum food, shelter, healthcare and transportation. I can assure you that 15k a year is not the number for that, but maybe 31k isn't the number for that either.

It is something that we should strive for though and not constantly argue against, if you are arguing against a living wage then you are essentially arguing against the right to live for anyone in the work force.

Let's leave it at though, We need fonewear to come and post some simpson memes or something.

I don't agree to that!