Have the Rich Gone to War Against the Poor and Middle Class in America?

[justbehappy]

I.E. Not your job.

Both, equally. That is not what a "government" is designed to do. A government is designed to protect it's citizens rights, not control every aspect of it.
If somehow money grew on trees and the government could provide welfare without it coming out of my pocket, I still would not afford it, for the reason above.

 

[justbehappy]

This is most disgusting paragraph I've ever read. Do you know how many American's died trying to get the minimum wage? I guess you don't believe anyone should be restricted to hire people more than 40 hours a week because, "No one will work over 40 hours a week." Your company should be forced to provide a living wage and benefits; if they can't afford all of it, they should be forced to provide as much as the company can. The average CEO makes 450 times the average page of his workers. He could be forced to AT LEAST provide a wage one can actually live off of and benefits. People will be forced to work to survive either way.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Again, this is the same exact thing as minimum wage. To attract workers, companies will offer shorter working hours. Workers will be drawn to these companies, and the rest will have to keep up if they want to keep their employees.
And the CEO can do whatever the hell he wants. Why? He owns the business. Kudos to him for making his way up there. If people thought it was darn bad that he's crapping money left and right than they wouldn't want to work for him. Go to a corporation with a good CEO and stay out of private compaines businesses.

 

[McBell]

It is such an ignorant assumption to say that people that don't agree with welfare are some kind of selfish evil being or something. It's really ridiculous actually. Could it not just be that we don't think it is the GOVERNMENT'S JOB?

No more ignorant than to say that those who are poor are only poor because they are lazy.

 

[justbehappy]

No more ignorant than to say that those who are poor are only poor because they are lazy.

I absolutely do not think that all poor people are lazy. But does that mean that the government should change it's role? No. The government is not a charity

 

[McBell]

It may take a little bit of time to find a job, but there are people that have been unemployed for over a year saying that they've been doing "absolutely everything they can" to find a job, and it is just bull. If you really want/need a job, you'll find one. If you really want to try to get unemployment benefits, you'll complain.

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in the really real world.
I do not recieve any unemployment benefits.
Yet I have been seven months looking for a job, any job and guess what?
There aren't any jobs out there.

My apologies for not being related to the high ups or the staff members who do the hiring.
Guess my lazy arse should be out there sucking up so that someone can use their power to slip me into a job.

Actually, that has not been working out so well either.

So anyway, when you decide to come back to the really real world....

 

[dust1n]

Both, equally. That is not what a "government" is designed to do. A government is designed to protect it's citizens rights, not control every aspect of it.
If somehow money grew on trees and the government could provide welfare without it coming out of my pocket, I still would not afford it, for the reason above.

The government is not designed to protect corporate rights. If private interest (financial) is infraction citizen's rights, it's the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens rights.

 

[justbehappy]

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in the really real world.
I do not recieve any unemployment benefits.
Yet I have been seven months looking for a job, any job and guess what?
There aren't any jobs out there.

My apologies for not being related to the high ups or the staff members who do the hiring.
Guess my lazy arse should be out there sucking up so that someone can use their power to slip me into a job.

Actually, that has not been working out so well either.

So anyway, when you decide to come back to the really real world....

May I ask,

What exactly do you do to look for a job? How long do you spend looking per day/week?

Do you have a family?

What are your living conditions?

 

[McBell]

And make owners go out of business? Then will where the jobs be? Add to worker's salary, you add to the price of products, and then workers complain again that they need more money because prices on everything are raising. This is why the reason why the economy needs to be let alone and let it work itself out on its own. If you try to control one thing, you'll effect another which effects another.
Also, the problem with minimum wage is that it is simply not necessary. People are not going to work for $2 an hour, and if they want to, let them. But everyone else will go to jobs that pay more, and the rest of the businesses will have to raise theirs to keep up and get workers. A natural minimum wage will be formed on its own.

The problem with minimum wage is that it screws everyone who is on minimum wage.
To bad those on minimum wage just cannot seem to grasp the fact that every time they up minimum wage, the price of every thing also goes up.

 

[McBell]

I absolutely do not think that all poor people are lazy. But does that mean that the government should change it's role? No. The government is not a charity

Who claimed that the government should be a charity?
I sure as hell didn't.

I said that the welfare system needs to be fixed so that it stops punishing people who try to get off welfare.

 

[justbehappy]

The government is not designed to protect corporate rights. If private interest (financial) is infraction citizen's rights, it's the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens rights.

Where is the Constituion does it say that the government must protect financial rights? I may be wrong, but I'm not aware there is such a thing mentioned

 

[dust1n]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Again, this is the same exact thing as minimum wage. To attract workers, companies will offer shorter working hours. Workers will be drawn to these companies, and the rest will have to keep up if they want to keep their employees.

And the CEO can do whatever the hell he wants. Why? He owns the business. Kudos to him for making his way up there. If people thought it was darn bad that he's crapping money left and right than they wouldn't want to work for him. Go to a corporation with a good CEO and stay out of private compaines businesses.

This ideology reflects one who has no understanding of labor issues.

There are more workers than jobs available. If someone was hiring 2 dollars an hour, people would show up. If someone was hiring a 16 hour a shift, people would show up.
This is called exploitation.

 

[justbehappy]

Who claimed that the government should be a charity?
I sure as hell didn't.

I said that the welfare system needs to be fixed so that it stops punishing people who try to get off welfare.

Why should people try to get off welfare? What is the incentive?

For example, I live in New Orleans. They are currently building new BEAUTIFUL projects because many were flooded by Katrina and the rest were basically trashed (not suprisingly). Now, housing in New Orleans is quite expensive. Most people currently on welfare would never be able to afford a house like that on their own means. So, why should they get a job when they can sit around and do nothing in their nice home? Heck, I don't blame them.

 

[dust1n]

Where is the Constituion does it say that the government must protect financial rights? I may be wrong, but I'm not aware there is such a thing mentioned

It does protect financial rights. Stealing is against the law is it not? Money laundering? Tax evasion? If you strip government of all responsibilities, than the corporations and monopolies that would serve would have absolutely no interest in protecting a citizen's rights.

Tell me libertarian, how much do you think should be privatized? When does the line stop?

 

[McBell]

What exactly do you do to look for a job? How long do you spend looking per day/week?

I have spent tons of time applying for jobs at www.indianacareerconnect.com (the new and "improved" unemployment office of the state of Indiana).
I have applied in person to every place that would accept my application and/or resume in a 50 mile radius.

Of course, I had to restart with the 50 mile radius after moving from Auburn to Lagrange. But I have managed it in the five weeks we have been here.

I also do follow ups on the applications and resumes that I have put in, not to mention following up on the internet applications and the apps through the unemployment office...Excuse me...unemployment website.

I know, just to damn lazy to get a job....

Do you have a family?

relevance?

What are your living conditions?

relevance?

 

[justbehappy]

This ideology reflects one who has no understanding of labor issues.

There are more workers than jobs available. If someone was hiring 2 dollars an hour, people would show up. If someone was hiring a 16 hour a shift, people would show up.
This is called exploitation.

This is a good point, but I believe it probably has a lot to do training/education as well. In some fields, there are more workers than jobs, and in some fields, there are more jobs than workers. I would guess this changes over time and with where the economy stands as well.
Where do you think more people would show up, though? The 16 dollars an hour shift workplace or the 2 dollars an hour shift workplace? And as soon as the person working for $2 found an opening for a place that paid higher, they'd be out the door in a heartbeat.
But like I said, minimum wage just raises prices and decreases the amount of jobs

 

[dust1n]

This is a good point, but I believe it probably has a lot to do training/education as well. In some fields, there are more workers than jobs, and in some fields, there are more jobs than workers. I would guess this changes over time and with where the economy stands as well.

Well since education isn't free, and they don't have jobs, and can't even get welfare, it would seem very unlikely they will be getting an education.

Where do you think more people would show up, though? The 16 dollars an hour shift workplace or the 2 dollars an hour shift workplace? And as soon as the person working for $2 found an opening for a place that paid higher, they'd be out the door in a heartbeat.
But like I said, minimum wage just raises prices and decreases the amount of jobs

Everyone would show up for 16 dollars an hour a job, but unless they have enough to provide everyone a job, then people will still take the 2 dollars an hour job. In fact, if there are only two hiring companies, the former isn't going to pay 16 dollars an hour, because they can get workers for cheaper, they would pay 3 dollars an hour and would still fill all the positions.

As far a price raises; you just don't want to pay extra for everyone to have a living wage and benefits; neither through taxes nor through prices. Even if you were willing to through prices, unless government forces company's to supply workers with those benefits, companies will more likely just keep the extra income, not voluntarily provide benefits. There is another labor that people will still show up for work regardless, because if not they will starve.

 

[justbehappy]

It does protect financial rights. Stealing is against the law is it not? Money laundering? Tax evasion? If you strip government of all responsibilities, than the corporations and monopolies that would serve would have absolutely no interest in protecting a citizen's rights.

Tell me libertarian, how much do you think should be privatized? When does the line stop?

I feel these are much different issues, though.
Stealing - this has to do with our right to our property; money just happens to be part of our property
Money laundering - I'm not exactly sure what money laundering is, but I believe it has something to do with hiding extra money you make from the government
Tax evasion - that is simply not follow your responsibilities of being a U.S. citizen

I don't see what these have to do with things like minimum wage and working hours. Explain please

 

[justbehappy]

I have spent tons of time applying for jobs at www.indianacareerconnect.com (the new and "improved" unemployment office of the state of Indiana).
I have applied in person to every place that would accept my application and/or resume in a 50 mile radius.

Of course, I had to restart with the 50 mile radius after moving from Auburn to Lagrange. But I have managed it in the five weeks we have been here.

I also do follow ups on the applications and resumes that I have put in, not to mention following up on the internet applications and the apps through the unemployment office...Excuse me...unemployment website.

I know, just to damn lazy to get a job....


relevance?


relevance?

Relevance is how badly you need a job and/or if you are able to move. Did you move for job reasons?
Also,
- Do you think that you have done everything in your power to find a job?
- If you're financial circumstances were worse, do you feel you would be doing more?
- How did you afford to move?
- What is your education/training?

 

[dust1n]

I feel these are much different issues, though.
Stealing - this has to do with our right to our property; money just happens to be part of our property
Money laundering - I'm not exactly sure what money laundering is, but I believe it has something to do with hiding extra money you make from the government
Tax evasion - that is simply not follow your responsibilities of being a U.S. citizen

I don't see what these have to do with things like minimum wage and working hours. Explain please

You didn't answer my question, which is why this topic is confusing. How far does privatizing go? What's private and what's public justbehappy?

 

[justbehappy]

Well since education isn't free, and they don't have jobs, and can't even get welfare, it would seem very unlikely they will be getting an education.



Everyone would show up for 16 dollars an hour a job, but unless they have enough to provide everyone a job, then people will still take the 2 dollars an hour job. In fact, if there are only two hiring companies, the former isn't going to pay 16 dollars an hour, because they can get workers for cheaper, they would pay 3 dollars an hour and would still fill all the positions.

As far a price raises; you just don't want to pay extra for everyone to have a living wage and benefits; neither through taxes nor through prices. Even if you were willing to through prices, unless government forces company's to supply workers with those benefits, companies will more likely just keep the extra income, not voluntarily provide benefits. There is another labor that people will still show up for work regardless, because if not they will starve.

Public school is free (and I know that welfare provides enough for the minor costs - schools will even help out when students cannot pay most of these minor costs). I find that a lot of families on welfare consist of drop-outs.

You are assuming that I am a selfish person. Much appreciated. I think I can handle the extra taxes and price raises... I wasn't even considering myself in this situation. I was thinking that the people that think they need minimum wage will ultimately not benefit from it because of those things.

Also, personally, if the only place I could get a job was with a $2 per hour pay, I would go set up a fruit stand on the side of the road or dance on a street corner (not like that) and I'm sure I'd be making more. There are very dumb people out there in the world but you're falsely assuming that people will bust their butts off for that pay. They will find another way to make money because they have to. That kind of money cannot support them. And so, the company will have to raise its wages to encourage workers to come back.