Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah... The discussion isn't *if* they *could possibly* make a profit, it is that they have chosen to refrain from doing business in DC because they want control of their own business and not be expected to play by different rules due to some over-reaching, arbitrary law.

If DC wants to make minimum wage 12$ then so be it, they can destroy themselves... But forcing iron a particular retailer because they figure they can afford it is not something which most store owners would want to deal with.

Why bother? They said they will cut their losses and bail out along with a bunch of the stores already in the district. Maybe they should pass a law forcing Walmart to build there and then forcing them to be run the way the district government chooses too? Almost as if it was a government owned store...

So it is not made up. I live here. It is real... This law = no Walmart jobs period and the loss of thousands of others.

 cincydooley wrote:
I just can't imagine this will go over well with employees of merely hundred million dollar industries.

So give them a decent minimum wage as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Walmart is the one who makes the decision to build. If they decide they don't want to, it doesn't matter how high DC makes the minimum wage. There will still be zero Walmart jobs. So how is that made up?

Walmart, like all companies, are assumed to base their decision on basic profit seeking. ie if there's a dollar to be made, they will go there and make it. Without one that expectation, the whole basis of capitalism as a means to maximise overall utility just doesn't work any more.

Just accepting that a major company can threaten to leave, not because it is no longer profitable but because they don't like the idea of a change reducing the profit they can make in the area, is basically just bending over, and telling that company that it's their choice whether they use lube or not.

And given you seem to be happy about that state of affairs... well... I know the US has developed a pretty strange relationship with companies lately, with all that job creator idiocy, but this is something new. 'Oh yes, tell me how our minimum wage can be no higher than $7.25. Tell me! Tell me harder!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Yeah... The discussion isn't *if* they *could possibly* make a profit, it is that they have chosen to refrain from doing business in DC because they want control of their own business and not be expected to play by different rules due to some over-reaching, arbitrary law.

Same as my answer to djones520.

What really weirds me out is how you guys seem keen for this.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I just can't imagine this will go over well with employees of merely hundred million dollar industries.

So give them a decent minimum wage as well.

Minimum wage is decent, and is aptly named. You get it for doing minimal work. Want to make more? Earn It.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, Wal Mart not wanting to go into DC has nothing to do with their profit. Of course they can afford it. It has to do with refusing to let the government dictate to them how to run their business.

 cincydooley wrote:
Minimum wage is decent, and is aptly named. You get it for doing minimal work. Want to make more? Earn It.

And, to repeat your own question back to you, "so what makes $7.25 the magical line that means you're earning a decent, living wage?" Full time, that's about $15k a year, and that is a grim, miserable existance.

So when the rest of the developed world pays so much more, more than double that in a lot of cases, how in the hell can you just sit there and say nope, $7.25, that's it.

And quite frankly, Wal Mart not wanting to go into DC has nothing to do with their profit. Of course they can afford it. It has to do with refusing to let the government dictate to them how to run their business.

Okay, so there's another threshold crossed on the steady trip down in to the complete lunacy of the US right wing. I mean, we've all known for a while that you guys pretty much adored Wealth of Nations mostly through never having read it, and so you pretty much forgot that it was 'maximum utility through the agents seeking personal profit' and you just worried about the 'seeking personal profit part'... but now even the profit part has been abandoned, and you're basically advocating that they can do whatever they want, including moving away from profitable stores just to spite government.

That's largely because they can move away from profitable stores if they choose to, simply to spite the government. That's how non-nationalized businesses work. They can make their own decisions based on whatever factors they want, and as long as they're within the law, they're only beholden to their owners. "Advocating" that position is simply acknowledging reality.

I really wish they'd build in DC, though. The fewer DC residents that come out to Alexandria to shop, the better.

Who is "right wing"? I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012.

I mean, it's cool and all if you want to make all these awesome claims about America from your island 10k miles away, but laying out your blanket staments about "wings" of people based on some perceived ideology you've got in your head doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Walmart is the one who makes the decision to build. If they decide they don't want to, it doesn't matter how high DC makes the minimum wage. There will still be zero Walmart jobs. So how is that made up?

Walmart, like all companies, are assumed to base their decision on basic profit seeking. ie if there's a dollar to be made, they will go there and make it. Without one that expectation, the whole basis of capitalism as a means to maximise overall utility just doesn't work any more.

Just accepting that a major company can threaten to leave, not because it is no longer profitable but because they don't like the idea of a change reducing the profit they can make in the area, is basically just bending over, and telling that company that it's their choice whether they use lube or not.

And given you seem to be happy about that state of affairs... well... I know the US has developed a pretty strange relationship with companies lately, with all that job creator idiocy, but this is something new. 'Oh yes, tell me how our minimum wage can be no higher than $7.25. Tell me! Tell me harder!'

What's even more bizare is thinking that Walmart leaving would suddenly equal no jobs at all.

In a free market economy, if there's a buck to be made and a commercial hole to fill, people will usually fill it. If Walmart suddenly decided to close their store because now they can only make $1000 a week profit instead of $1500, somebody else will come along and open up an equivalent store for that $1000 profit.

And let's be honest, a state' economy rarely revolves around the wages of a supermarket employee. If that means that there's a three month period whilst a Wal-mart closes and a K-mart opens in its exact location selling the the same products, such is life. It won't really hurt the state.

Of course, the reality is that Walmart will either accept the cost of doing business in this state and earn the $1000 profit, or risk raising prices overall by 2% or something to maintain the same level of profit.

Because that's how capitalism tends to work.

Or they'll simply maintain stores in the surrounding area and force people that want to shop at Walmart for bargain prices and blue light specials to come to them.

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Walmart is the one who makes the decision to build. If they decide they don't want to, it doesn't matter how high DC makes the minimum wage. There will still be zero Walmart jobs. So how is that made up?

Walmart, like all companies, are assumed to base their decision on basic profit seeking. ie if there's a dollar to be made, they will go there and make it. Without one that expectation, the whole basis of capitalism as a means to maximise overall utility just doesn't work any more.

Just accepting that a major company can threaten to leave, not because it is no longer profitable but because they don't like the idea of a change reducing the profit they can make in the area, is basically just bending over, and telling that company that it's their choice whether they use lube or not.

And given you seem to be happy about that state of affairs... well... I know the US has developed a pretty strange relationship with companies lately, with all that job creator idiocy, but this is something new. 'Oh yes, tell me how our minimum wage can be no higher than $7.25. Tell me! Tell me harder!'

What's even more bizare is thinking that Walmart leaving would suddenly equal no jobs at all.

In a free market economy, if there's a buck to be made and a commercial hole to fill, people will usually fill it. If Walmart suddenly decided to close their store because now they can only make $1000 a week profit instead of $1500, somebody else will come along and open up an equivalent store for that $1000 profit.

And let's be honest, a state' economy rarely revolves around the wages of a supermarket employee. If that means that there's a three month period whilst a Wal-mart closes and a K-mart opens in its exact location selling the the same products, such is life. It won't really hurt the state.

Of course, the reality is that Walmart will either accept the cost of doing business in this state and earn the $1000 profit, or risk raising prices overall by 2% or something to maintain the same level of profit.

Because that's how capitalism tends to work.

Considering you know nothing about what is actually going on in DC... these places Walmart is building are literally wrecked, abandon, dead apartment buildings and strip malls. *NO ONE* is going to build there, it has been available for years and no one has. This is not a nice happy pre-built store ready for anyone to move in. It is a huge undertaking. No one but walmart is willing to attempt to renew these urban areas. If Walmart doesn't, they stay dumpy wrecks. Walmart is literally rebuilding DC with this initiative and the counsel took a huge gak on them. If another company wants to build their stores and pay 12$ an hour, more power to them. No one is going to do it. This is walmart literally stopping construction and walking away. No other company is going to 'fill the void in the market'. That is the whole point. None of these businesses would come to the craphole which is DC and Walmart said "we will build 6 stores and help revitalize DC."

And DC is not a state. It is a City with a failed government who relies of heavy federal subsidies to keep the lights on. If DC wants to increase minimum wage, then they should do it. They already have the highest minimum wage in 100 miles. The city knows that if they did it for the whole city, everyone would hop over to MD/VA and abandon DC, they already pretty much are.

I have to agree with the Mayor:
“Instead of creating higher-paying entry-level retail jobs for lower–skilled District residents, at best the bill will create a very small number of higher-paying jobs, many of which will go to higher-skilled Maryland and Virginia residents who will commute into the District,” he contends. “Meanwhile, I am convinced more retailers will open stores just outside the District’s borders, where labor costs would be more than 40% cheaper for large, non-union retailers.”

“Instead of these arbitrary and partial attempts at insisting on living wages for only certain workers and certain sectors, I propose that we raise the minimum wage for all District residents,” writes Vincent.

The bill hurts DC residents, does not help the rebuilding of the areas at all and does nothing to help DC people get paid more due to the way the DC/MD/VA works and the alternative is 'build over the line'. The other issue is unionized 'big box' stores still get to pay their employees minimum wage (which they do). So it is creating an unfair imbalance in the marketplace to have one store arbitrarily forced to pay workers more over their direct competitors.

Even Proponents of the bill think 12.50 is too high. Let's see if they can actually do something about the district-wide minimum wage, it won't be 12.50 but if they want to raise it more than it is now, more power to them, but the risk is losing commerce to the 7.25 neighbors on both sides.

I won't pretend to have an indepth knowledge of the States.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but Walmart sells the essentials, yes? If you go to the most deprived parts of England, if a supermarket there chooses the shut down, it'll be replaced by next week. Because essentials aren't luxury goods, there's always a need for them, and people will always pay for them.

As a result, speculation is reduced to a minimum. You KNOW you'll get a return on your investment, because people HAVE to shop with you to fill the pantry in the cheapest way possible. Which means that if Tesco/Sainsbury's/Asda (UK branch of Walmart) leave, one of the others will be moving in to replace them within days. Because they know they can turn a profit.

If Walmart's store profits are reduced by 30% (from $1500), that still means a decent profit is being made. Walmart choosing to boycott an area imposes no such restrictions on other businesses who will most likely be happy to get that total $1000 profit a week.

If this is not the case in the US, I'd be absolutely fascinated for you to explain to me how people make do without local food shops, and why no more big chain food shops will move in if one leaves.

i work 50 hours a week working nights at a gas station making 8.50 a hour yet i still pay rent on a 5 bedroom house , car payments, bills , food , other things needed to survive. as well as being able to spend about 200-300 a month on war gaming and still put a little in the bank to save. sometimes its not how much you get paid unless making below min. wage. ( unless you are doing some crazy job or really hard work) which walmart is not hard work its how you manage you'r finances. Its not a easy thing to do and can take about 4 months to get it going on a smooth path. the company has every right to fire anyone which would bring harm to its company ( i hate Walmart though).

We want them to change. We want them to start treating their associates fairly and give them the ability to support their families. When you get a full-time job, you get that to be able to have a house or home and support your family," she said. "You can't do that at Walmart."

My brother works full time at Walmart he unloads the trucks and has a house he lives by himself. Again managing finances allows you to do this and not blowing money on crap .

No, Walmart doesn't sell "essentials" they sell everything. Primarily they are *not* supermarkets. Super markets are heavily unionized.

Walmart has super centers which combine a full service supermarket into their "everything else" store which is clothing, electronics, toys, hardware, garden. Supermarkets don't want anyone selling food like a market without being in a union.

The district has supermarkets, they don't have walmarts. They have individual stores.

You keep saying "someone will move in" but 20 years proves you wrong. These are wrecks that are being torn down and rebuilt by Walmart to build more than a store, they build a whole commerce center in coordination with the city. No one else wants to build there. No other business has the resources to build 6 stores all at once in DC.

Walmart is doing this in DC for political reasons. They have hundreds of stores in every city in America, but not a damn one in our nations capital? Really? They are doing this to break in to DC and politically position in an area which hates them and passes Walmart specific legislation banning them. And the payola is urban renewal. It is a win-win because no one else was willing or able to build these stores.

And some council members thought they would pull a fast one figuring "ah, they mostly done building, they won't pull out." And passed a law forcing only Walmart to pay 12.50 while the unionized supermarkets can continue to pay minimum wage and have an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

What other industry would the government be allowed to come in and say " we don't like you, you have to have a higher overhead while your competitors don't."

Also, considering the district is small, it is no big deal to hop over the line to do all your shopping on the weekend, which is what happens now. Walmart is getting their money... This building was all to make some inroads to the nations capital and contribute to revitalizing some much needed areas.

If you knew the local economics and politics, you would see this is bs, hence why the mayor vetoed it. Even he wants higher minimum wage, but this law was garbage.

nkelsch wrote:
No, Walmart doesn't sell "essentials" they sell everything. Primarily they are *not* supermarkets. Super markets are heavily unionized.

Walmart has super centers which combine a full service supermarket into their "everything else" store which is clothing, electronics, toys, hardware, garden. Supermarkets don't want anyone selling food like a market without being in a union.

Walmart U.S. - 4,092 total units
Discount stores (539)
Supercenters (3,211)
Supermarkets1 (316)

So, you say "primarily" they are not supermarkets, but in fact the overwhelming majority of Walmarts have a supermarket in them.While I agree Walmart is not a supermarket, they are most certainly in the same business.

nkelsch wrote:
What other industry would the government be allowed to come in and say " we don't like you, you have to have a higher overhead while your competitors don't."

What other industry causes a local tax drain via the state benefits paid to such a large percentage of their employees on that scale? That cuts both ways.

 cincydooley wrote:
Who is "right wing"? I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012.

I mean, it's cool and all if you want to make all these awesome claims about America from your island 10k miles away, but laying out your blanket staments about "wings" of people based on some perceived ideology you've got in your head doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

Oh snap!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I won't pretend to have an indepth knowledge of the States.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but Walmart sells the essentials, yes? If you go to the most deprived parts of England, if a supermarket there chooses the shut down, it'll be replaced by next week. Because essentials aren't luxury goods, there's always a need for them, and people will always pay for them.

You are wrong, extremely wrong. Forgetting rural areas for the moement, there are multiple urban areas where if a major shopping center anchor goes away the center dies and it is not replaced. Seriously I can't believe you don't have this situation in lower class areas in the UK.

 Piston Honda wrote:

Racist old ladies, people with ill fitting clothes so you can see the upper half of their butt crack (please shave if you do this)

I do shave my face, no need to worry

nkelsch wrote:Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

That's a myth. The fact is that walmart would still be profitable paying their employees $15/hour, they'd just not be as profitable. Lest you forget, the Waltons are the richest family on earth, and they didn't get that way by thinking about anyone except themselves.

http://gawker.com/the-waltons-are-the-greediest-family-in-the-world-1300311273

I know the areas where Walmart is coming as we'll as the areas where the multiple retailers have said they will bail on the district if this passes.

There's two things going on there. One - yes, it is unrealistic for any single town to make such rules, because a company can go outside the town line, avoiding the rule with minimal impact to their sales.
But, two, there's also posturing. Like the douchebag from Papa John's Pizza (who lives in a castle) saying that he'd have to fire people if Obamacare passed. Meaningless drivel from a self-important windbag.

not sure wrote:
A town in Chicago successfully blocked a Walmart from moving in, because they were afraid it was going to shut down local businesses and the like. Fast forward one year, no Walmart, and all the businesses they were trying to "save" were closed anyways.

That's because Walmart built the next town over. So the town that banned the Walmart, their businesses were still hurt, but that town also didn't get a tax base from the Walmart, while the next town benefitted. You can't get meaningful results from any town-level action. At worst, anything done must be done at a state level, and at best (to avoid the just-over-state-lines trick) at a national level.

sebster wrote:What really weirds me out is how you guys seem keen for this.

Yup, well, that's the big trick that the elite have pulled on this country. I think John Steinbeck summed it up: "“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”. There are a lot of people who would rather look at the colour of Obama's skin than realize that they're the ones being screwed over by so-called Conservative economic policies.

 Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

That's a myth. The fact is that walmart would still be profitable paying their employees $15/hour, they'd just not be as profitable. Lest you forget, the Waltons are the richest family on earth, and they didn't get that way by thinking about anyone except themselves.

http://gawker.com/the-waltons-are-the-greediest-family-in-the-world-1300311273

No one is saying that they wouldn't still be profitable, what people are saying is that they wouldn't be as profitable and that the company apparently thinks that it isn't worth the hassle and expense to make the investment if they are going to get reduced profits as a result...

 cincydooley wrote:
Who is "right wing"? I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012.

I mean, it's cool and all if you want to make all these awesome claims about America from your island 10k miles away, but laying out your blanket staments about "wings" of people based on some perceived ideology you've got in your head doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

Who gives a gak who you voted for? Unless you made your arguments up on the spot (in which case we've got a whole other set of problems to go through), what you typed comes straight out of the 'free market huzzah' camp. And that's a camp that, over a period of 15 to 20 years has steadily drifted away from the sound, basic economic reasons for economic liberty, and more and more towards rationalising every choice made by large companies, for whatever stupid, non-economic reason they can think of.

And that's something I can tell you whether I live here or over there.

And you didn't actually bother to address the economic problems I raised in your arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
That's largely because they can move away from profitable stores if they choose to, simply to spite the government. That's how non-nationalized businesses work. They can make their own decisions based on whatever factors they want, and as long as they're within the law, they're only beholden to their owners. "Advocating" that position is simply acknowledging reality.

That's true, and recognising it is one thing, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretended that was all cincydooley and nkelsch were doing. There was no 'it'd be nice but minimum wage has to be raised federally, otherwise individual states will lose business...'

And if it is recognised, then it should be recognised as a problem, and one that therefore comes with solutions. Refocusing on federal minimum wage, or giving incentives to businesses sensitive to minimum wage increases... stuff like that. Instead we got this;
"it is that they have chosen to refrain from doing business in DC because they want control of their own business and not be expected to play by different rules due to some over-reaching, arbitrary law."
and this;
"Minimum wage is decent, and is aptly named. You get it for doing minimal work."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
What's even more bizare is thinking that Walmart leaving would suddenly equal no jobs at all.

Yeah, really good point.

What's hilarious about this kind of nonsense is how business is assumed to be an amazing force that can conquer all, until someone suggests a policy that might impact business profits, then suddenly business is this tragic flower that will shrivel up and die if its faced with any kind of opposition.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

That's a myth. The fact is that walmart would still be profitable paying their employees $15/hour, they'd just not be as profitable. Lest you forget, the Waltons are the richest family on earth, and they didn't get that way by thinking about anyone except themselves.

http://gawker.com/the-waltons-are-the-greediest-family-in-the-world-1300311273

No one is saying that they wouldn't still be profitable, what people are saying is that they wouldn't be as profitable and that the company apparently thinks that it isn't worth the hassle and expense to make the investment if they are going to get reduced profits as a result...

Right, they will decide whether it is profitable enough.

One thing I see that is really wierd about US Capitalism is that Profitable companies are always getting squeezed and hollered at by Shareholders because they are not profitable enough! Then, the company in response to these demands to constantly make more, and more, and more money and ROI is to lay-off workers, automate, trim the fat, etc Meanshilw, the "business leaders" wonder why Demand has fallen and people can't buy their products anymore. The entire idea is just kind of stupid, nothing can constantly grow forever. (Note: Waiting for examples about the Universe after the Big Bang)

When companies try to meet these unrealistic demands, they start doing things that actually hurt themselves in the long run in favor of the short term buck to shut-up a bunch of Wall Street analysts for the next Quarter. Its just stupid, since the shareholders will literally come and go by the second in our new electronic trading world. They have no interest in the "healthy" of the company.

Does fiduciary responsibility apply only for the next quarter/reporting period? Somewhere along the line our view on what Capitalism means got really, really, really warped. That or I never really understood it, which is possible too.

 Redbeard wrote:
Yup, well, that's the big trick that the elite have pulled on this country. I think John Steinbeck summed it up: "“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”. There are a lot of people who would rather look at the colour of Obama's skin than realize that they're the ones being screwed over by so-called Conservative economic policies.

That's a great quote. Thanks.

Well. You seem to, as you're the one tossing around "right wing" whenever it suits your fancy.

Quite frankly, there shouldn't be a federal wage, and for two major reasons.

1. A competitive free market will dictate what your work is worth.

2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities. Why? Because a blanket minimum wage for the entire nation doesn't consider cost of living at all. Hell, according MITs living wage calculator, minimum wage pretty much coveres a living wage for a single adult AND a traditional family unit of 2 adults and a child where I live.

Does Libertarianism go so far to the right side fo the political spectrum that it reaches back to the left and touch Anarchists?

 cincydooley wrote:
2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities.

There were 9 guys who disagreed with you on this in 1941.

 Lovechunks wrote:
i work 50 hours a week working nights at a gas station making 8.50 a hour yet i still pay rent on a 5 bedroom house , car payments, bills , food , other things needed to survive. as well as being able to spend about 200-300 a month on war gaming and still put a little in the bank to save. sometimes its not how much you get paid unless making below min. wage. ( unless you are doing some crazy job or really hard work) which walmart is not hard work its how you manage you'r finances. Its not a easy thing to do and can take about 4 months to get it going on a smooth path. the company has every right to fire anyone which would bring harm to its company ( i hate Walmart though).

We want them to change. We want them to start treating their associates fairly and give them the ability to support their families. When you get a full-time job, you get that to be able to have a house or home and support your family," she said. "You can't do that at Walmart."

My brother works full time at Walmart he unloads the trucks and has a house he lives by himself. Again managing finances allows you to do this and not blowing money on crap .

yeah exactly, but the unfortunetly all the socialists who cant see how pink they are in the mirror, still want to tell other people, what to do with their money/company.

its 100% as you said, its all budgeting, and even on minimum wage you can LIVE (it IS a living wage) and save and have enough for some wants on top of your needs.

Its all the people who live beyond their means, or simply want more then their job provides, that seem to have a huge issue with this.

No one is stopping anyone from getting a better job except themselves, if you, and I, and plenty of other people in this thread who have ACTUALLY worked our way up from minimum wage (or still earn it) can ENJOY life and have what we need, and some of what we want, then that is in fact a living wage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So funny to hear people say its ok for workers to want more $, but not ok for walmart to want more $...

why on earth would investors invest a lot of money, and operate at a loss for a while till the investment is recouped (if it is, its not guaranteed) for less then they feel it is worth?

some people just dont seem to get that someone, be it a board of investors, shareholders, or whatever, who invests a large amount of money in a business, is taking a risk with a large amount of money, and creating jobs... they SHOULD be rewarded, and if they dont like the reward, they dont have to take the risk.

meanwhile, min wage workers take no rish, have no real skills, and do a very easy job, so their reward is proportional.

dont like min wage?

dont work for it.

but plenty of people are happy to make it/have made it and do just fine, and can afford all they need and SOME of what they want with proper budgeting.

 easysauce wrote:

yeah exactly, but the unfortunetly all the socialists who cant see how pink they are in the mirror, still want to tell other people, what to do with their money/company.

.

Yeah exactly. It's all the Social Darwinists who can't see the black shirts they are wearing in the mirror, still want to tell other people what to do with their money/company.

 Easy E wrote:
Does Libertarianism go so far to the right side fo the political spectrum that it reaches back to the left and touch Anarchists?

Actually it can, and quite easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities.

There were 9 guys who disagreed with you on this in 1941.

Was this before or after Roosevlet threatened to pack the SCOTUS with fifteen members in the Midnight Massacre as my old prof used to call it?

 Easy E wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

yeah exactly, but the unfortunetly all the socialists who cant see how pink they are in the mirror, still want to tell other people, what to do with their money/company.

.

Yeah exactly. It's all the Social Darwinists who can't see the black shirts they are wearing in the mirror, still want to tell other people what to do with their money/company.

There is always someone telling people what to do with their money. This debate isn't about whether there should be a minimum wage - that's long passed. It isn't about whether there should be an income tax - that's long passed too.

The question is, instead, what these values should be. Over the last 30 years, the wealthy elite in the US have lobbied, hard, to change these values (or, in the case of minimum wage, to not change it to keep pace with inflation) in their favour. Then, they've managed to convince you that it's natural for it to be this way, and that any change to the current settings would break the world. That's complete BS, and you guys (who, I'm assuming are not part of the 1%) have fallen for it. You've been convinced that a system designed to move the wealth of the country into the pockets of people who are already wealthy is natural, and that the enemy is the guy who is making minimum wage, not the CEO making 400 times the amount of the guys he's laying off.

Look at the historical data. This country was at its strongest when there was a strong middle class. When minimum wage was not below the poverty line, and when the wealthiest citizens paid a substantially higher portion in taxes. Whenever wealth distribution is as skewed as it is today, bad things have happened. Saying it isn't government's place to address this is simple ignorance that it was government's actions that caused this.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities.

There were 9 guys who disagreed with you on this in 1941.

And that's fine. There are a bunch of people that agreed to title 9 as well in the name of fairness. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Plus, it was in 1941, or 100 million people ago. I mean, there are plenty of people that advocate against the 2nd ammendment and use that argument. And those that say the lessons in the bible are too antiquated for today because they were written so long ago.

Do you honestly not think that the state knows its constituency better than the fed? Because I don't. Give that power back to the state, and then stipulate that, I don't know, it has to be the median county living wage for your particular state for a single adult based on the MIT calculator. Not some arbitrary number.

I mean, I still have a huge problem with what we're calling a living wage. How many people are we expecting this "living wage" and in this scenario minimum wage, to support?

 cincydooley wrote:
Do you honestly not think that the state knows its constituency better than the fed?

Judging by how many states are holding onto their dwindling elected positions by making sure not too many of the wrong kind of people vote; I definitely agree that states know their constituents well while similarly feeling they often need a strong federal government to curb their excesses.

Of course, as the DC story shows, states are totally free to come up with their own minimum wages in excess of the current wage.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

yeah exactly, but the unfortunetly all the socialists who cant see how pink they are in the mirror, still want to tell other people, what to do with their money/company.

.

Yeah exactly. It's all the Social Darwinists who can't see the black shirts they are wearing in the mirror, still want to tell other people what to do with their money/company.

There is always someone telling people what to do with their money. This debate isn't about whether there should be a minimum wage - that's long passed. It isn't about whether there should be an income tax - that's long passed too.

The question is, instead, what these values should be. Over the last 30 years, the wealthy elite in the US have lobbied, hard, to change these values (or, in the case of minimum wage, to not change it to keep pace with inflation) in their favour. Then, they've managed to convince you that it's natural for it to be this way, and that any change to the current settings would break the world. That's complete BS, and you guys (who, I'm assuming are not part of the 1%) have fallen for it.

there is far more brainwashing sucessfully being implemented on the "we are the 99%" crowd who seems to think that rich people are evil... cause they are rich...

far more brainwashing to make your 99% crowd keep on blaming other people for your situation in life....

if the "1%" were to brainwash people to keep em down, making em believe in all this 99% BS is how they would do it, cause then the "99%" will just complain about things and expect others to avance them, instead of using sucessful methods to advance themselves.