EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[NLXSK1]

You made the claim, back it up.

You are hilarious... Padwan throws a graph up on the screen that is somehow proof of something and now I have to disprove it?

Fuck that... You are worth what you are worth. If you are unhappy at how little you are getting paid then demand more from your boss. If you are worth more he will pay you, if you are not worth more he will tell you to quit and find another job.

For myself I am yet again starting another company because I am not going to sit around and wait for the government to legislate higher income for me.

You guys sit around here and continue to complain on a pot website and see how far that gets you....

 

[UncleBuck]

You are hilarious... Padwan throws a graph up on the screen that is somehow proof of something and now I have to disprove it?

no.

you made a positive claim, namely that increased productivity was due to certain factors. now you get to prove it, or have it be dismissed.

you are dense.

I am yet again starting another company because I am not going to sit around and wait for the government to legislate higher income for me.

who cares if you are going to scrub shit off of pools or house sit poodles for $20 a pop?

that has nothing to do with your claim.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How else do you explain it?

Pretty simple really...

Those at the top devised a way to steal the economic gains in the early 1970s that normally went to the workers, as evident from the graph I just posted that shows economic gains mirroring wages

Your assumption depends on technological advancements across all industries advancing around 1970-75, which simply isn't possible

The only way the top 1% of earners could have collectively redistributed wealth beginning from the early 1970s is through legislation - through the tax code. And what do we see when we view the tax code?

91% in 1950, down to 77% in 1964, down to 70% in 1965, down to 50% in 1982, down to 38.5% in 1987..

We see the tax burden being shifted from the rich - to the poor and middle-class

Through these supreme court decisions;

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

1976 "The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

1978 "defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

2010 "the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

2014 "allowed biennial aggregate on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees"

So would you care to tackle any of those four decisions? Or do you have another reason, outside all industries advancing simultaneously, why all wages across the board stagnated beginning in the mid-1970s?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You are worth what you are worth. If you are unhappy at how little you are getting paid then demand more from your boss. If you are worth more he will pay you, if you are not worth more he will tell you to quit and find another job.

Your worth is determined by your current boss?

I thought you said your worth depended on your skills and education? You said in order to improve your worth, improve your skills through education and training, yet here you are applying worth to whatever your boss says it is.. So what if your boss is a gambling degenerate and can't pay the bills, even though you're producing more? Your raise is denied based on his ability to pay..

Interesting.. are we beginning to understand why basing individual worth on subjective worth might be flawed?

Perhaps your worth is independent of your boss' worth? Perhaps it might be wiser to measure it based upon individual needs?

What a shocking concept!

 

[NLXSK1]

Your worth is determined by your current boss?

I thought you said your worth depended on your skills and education? You said in order to improve your worth, improve your skills through education and training, yet here you are applying worth to whatever your boss says it is.. So what if your boss is a gambling degenerate and can't pay the bills, even though you're producing more? Your raise is denied based on his ability to pay..

Interesting.. are we beginning to understand why basing individual worth on subjective worth might be flawed?

Perhaps your worth is independent of your boss' worth? Perhaps it might be wiser to measure it based upon individual needs?

What a shocking concept!

Who is going to pay for those individual needs? Are you saying the government needs to step in and FORCE my boss to pay me more money based on my subjective view of the situation?

I am saying that my needs exceed what my boss is offering. We have two different views about what should happen next. I either seek other employment at better compensation or start my own business. You want a government authority to come and intervene.

What if my needs exceed what my boss can afford to pay? What if he has to lose money to keep me at my desired salary? Will the government force him to keep paying until he declares bankruptcy?

 

[UncleBuck]

What if my needs exceed what my boss can afford to pay?

if your boss can't afford to pay you a basic living wage, around $10-12 an hour for full time work in most areas of the nation, then maybe he should look into a different business model.

or you can go scrub shit off of pools for $20 a pop while living in the trashiest, meth-iest, most racist nook of the phoenix metro area.

 

[ttystikk]

Pretty simple really...

Those at the top devised a way to steal the economic gains in the early 1970s that normally went to the workers, as evident from the graph I just posted that shows economic gains mirroring wages

Your assumption depends on technological advancements across all industries advancing around 1970-75, which simply isn't possible

The only way the top 1% of earners could have collectively redistributed wealth beginning from the early 1970s is through legislation - through the tax code. And what do we see when we view the tax code?

91% in 1950, down to 77% in 1964, down to 70% in 1965, down to 50% in 1982, down to 38.5% in 1987..

We see the tax burden being shifted from the rich - to the poor and middle-class

Through these supreme court decisions;

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

1976 "The most prominent portions of the case struck down limits on spending in campaigns"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

1978 "defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

2010 "the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation"

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC

2014 "allowed biennial aggregate on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees"

So would you care to tackle any of those four decisions? Or do you have another reason, outside all industries advancing simultaneously, why all wages across the board stagnated beginning in the mid-1970s?

Once again; clearly laid out, easy step by step progression of cause and effect, complete with citations.

I DO wish the right wingers would follow this all the way down the rabbit hole... until they discover for themselves that their party orbits the black hole of greed...

Hear now the great slurping sound of the entire Republican political party kneeling and sucking the Koch!

Democracy for dollars. I shake my head every day at those who don't see this as a threat.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Who is going to pay for those individual needs? Are you saying the government needs to step in and FORCE my boss to pay me more money based on my subjective view of the situation?

I am saying that my needs exceed what my boss is offering. We have two different views about what should happen next. I either seek other employment at better compensation or start my own business. You want a government authority to come and intervene.
What if my needs exceed what my boss can afford to pay? What if he has to lose money to keep me at my desired salary? Will the government force him to keep paying until he declares bankruptcy?

You are conflating individual worth with monetary value. How much someone earns or has isn't applicable to individual worth

I'm saying if a job isn't worth paying someone a living wage to perform full time, then it isn't worth having at all, regardless of... anything. Full-time jobs should pay a living wage, if you can't afford it as an employer, then you shouldn't offer it at all because it then becomes a burden on American taxpayers who fund social welfare programs. In turn, if you oppose employers paying their fair share for their own employees, you don't then also get to complain that your taxes are financing "leeches" who abuse the system. You get to pick one or the other, but not both. "Gawdamn it, you get paid wut ur worth!" OR "Gawdamnit! Dem leeches takin' all mah Foodstamps!".. NOT both..

Not sure why any conservative would support establishment business over the middle-class working man, but OK..

 

[UncleBuck]

Full-time jobs should pay a living wage, if you can't afford it as an employer, then you shouldn't offer it at all because it then becomes a burden on American taxpayers who fund social welfare programs.

5 penises out of 5.

 

[m4s73r]

If you work 35 hours a week and dont make enough to be off welfare that is a Labor issue. One that was solved by unions. Thats why i applaud this fight for $15. Business is always about the money and not the people. We as consumers need to learn to not support that. Even in little areas. Dont shop at walmart. Shop at Costco. Ask employees if they make more then what a living wage in your area is. If not STOP SHOPPING THERE.
For instance tipping. Everyone knows servers make shit and live on tips. IF you spend 1 hour at a table your minimum tip should be 10 bucks. Period. But thats imo. Thats how I tip. There is a lot of power in "the masses" and now we have the technology to mobilize as one people. And its happening. Slowly but surely. Protest marches, Blacklivesmatter, occupy wallstreet, Ferguson. The list goes on. If we can channel that in how people spend money we can change the world. Or im a fucking optimist and were all going to die to a supervirus. lol

 

[Corso312]

Let's be real here, you can't be paying people in Mississippi or bama 15$ an hour to work at Wendy's. I do think 12$ hourly nationwide should be the floor but higher in areas where the cost of living is higher.

 

[ttystikk]

Let's be real here, you can't be paying people in Mississippi or bama 15$ an hour to work at Wendy's. I do think 12$ hourly nationwide should be the floor but higher in areas where the cost of living is higher.

That's just a hidden tax on poor zipcodes, which does absolutely nothing to create the kind of growth true living wages would support. I think it should definitely be $15/hr, to start, cost of living increases should be figured in and a new minimum wage issued yearly.

Those areas with low cost of living will finally have an advantage. Their residents, who are more likely to be earning minimum wages anyway, will enjoy a relatively higher standard of living. This would provide the engine for accelerating economic growth in the very places it's needed most.

 

[m4s73r]

Why not? Cost of living in New Orleans is a lot higher then rural areas. So you have more spendable income living in a rural area. How is that a bad thing. Seems more crime and poverty comes from living in congested areas. Where as with some room to breath we live more peacefully.
Besides, its not like wendys cant afford it. So the CEO only makes 15 million in profit rather then 18 million. Is that 3 million so important to keep uneducated single mothers with 3 kids living off welfare.
Have to face that Retail, Fastfood, service are where the most jobs are at. Manufacturing has left the US. We are service country now. Our pay needs to reflect that.

the number is irreverent. tie the number to inflation. Make companies share profits with ALL employees.

 

[NLXSK1]

Your worth is determined by your current boss?

I thought you said your worth depended on your skills and education? You said in order to improve your worth, improve your skills through education and training, yet here you are applying worth to whatever your boss says it is.. So what if your boss is a gambling degenerate and can't pay the bills, even though you're producing more? Your raise is denied based on his ability to pay..

Interesting.. are we beginning to understand why basing individual worth on subjective worth might be flawed?

Perhaps your worth is independent of your boss' worth? Perhaps it might be wiser to measure it based upon individual needs?

What a shocking concept!

Who is going to pay for those individual needs? Are you saying the government needs to step in and FORCE my boss to pay me more money based on my subjective view of the situation?

I am saying that my needs exceed what my boss is offering. We have two different views about what should happen next. I either seek other employment at better compensation or start my own business. You want a government authority to come and intervene.

What if my needs exceed what my boss can afford to pay? What if he has to lose money to keep me at my desired salary? Will the government force him to keep paying until he declares bankruptcy?

You are conflating individual worth with monetary value. How much someone earns or has isn't applicable to individual worth

I'm saying if a job isn't worth paying someone a living wage to perform full time, then it isn't worth having at all, regardless of... anything. Full-time jobs should pay a living wage, if you can't afford it as an employer, then you shouldn't offer it at all because it then becomes a burden on American taxpayers who fund social welfare programs. In turn, if you oppose employers paying their fair share for their own employees, you don't then also get to complain that your taxes are financing "leeches" who abuse the system. You get to pick one or the other, but not both. "Gawdamn it, you get paid wut ur worth!" OR "Gawdamnit! Dem leeches takin' all mah Foodstamps!".. NOT both..

Not sure why any conservative would support establishment business over the middle-class working man, but OK..

So, people who dont know you and never met you should be subject to some law that makes it illegal for them to form a business agreement for less than a certain dollar amount? I want more freedom, you are demanding less freedom.

I am for more freedom, not less. I am for less taxes, not more. I am for less government legislation and less meddling in our lives. You want more of all of it. I dont know why a conservative much less a libertarian would have any basis to agree with you.

 

[Corso312]

You can buy a house for 60 k in the South and 1k miles north its 225k ..different regions can't be made the same in reality.

 

[NLXSK1]

You can buy a house for 60 k in the South and 1k miles north its 225k ..different regions can't be made the same in reality.

Padwan is not going to be satisfied until everyone is equally miserable.

 

[ttystikk]

'The number' is most decidedly NOT irrelevant, the minimum wage requirement is there to set the floor of acceptable pay for work. While this may force some businesses to raise prices slightly, job holder's earning power increases significantly.

Profit sharing can't be mandated by legislation, but taxes sure can. Incentivising profit sharing would be easy. For damned sure taxes on profits, capital gains and investments would exceed taxes paid by wage and salary earners.

Manufacturing can come back to our shores and we can do it better than anyone, anywhere. Again, Incentivise properly through the tax code, rather than just letting it be the upper class's cheat sheet.

If all this sounds like a 'New Deal', welllllll... That's because the mess our country is in needs to address the fundamental inequities of the past 40 years, lest we have another Great Depression. As if the slow motion trainwreck of our current economy hasn't been punishment enough.

 

[ttystikk]

You can buy a house for 60 k in the South and 1k miles north its 225k ..different regions can't be made the same in reality.

No one is assuming they do. In more high priced areas of the country, the minimum wage will affect a much smaller portion of the total employment. That's because the local job market is already supporting higher wages. The whole point of the idea is to specially prop up the poorest of the poor!

Why are you so willing to kick the chair out from under people with the misfortune of living in economically depressed areas?

 

[Corso312]

Lol Ttystikk ... I wish the minimum wage was 40$ an hour..but I'm a realist man. I lived in Chicago my whole life where the cost of living is fairly high.. I was a pipefitter and paid well .. I been living in Michigan the last 3 years and its polar opposites; And its only 2 hours away.

Houses here are 1\2 the cost and sometimes 1\4 ..Cigarettes here are 5.50$ ..11$ in Chicago .. Fuel is 40-50 cents cheaper per gallon.. I could go on but ya get the point.. You can't magically make all things equal, it doesn't work.

 

[ttystikk]

Lol Ttystikk ... I wish the minimum wage was 40$ an hour..but I'm a realist man. I lived in Chicago my whole life where the cost of living is fairly high.. I was a pipefitter and paid well .. I been living in Michigan the last 3 years and its polar opposites; And its only 2 hours away.

Houses here are 1\2 the cost and sometimes 1\4 ..Cigarettes here are 5.50$ ..11$ in Chicago .. Fuel is 40-50 cents cheaper per gallon.. I could go on but ya get the point.. You can't magically make all things equal, it doesn't work.

I just covered this. See above.