Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a ‘living wage’ starts in her office

[noonereal]

As wildly wrong as you are, this post is very informative. It tells me your posts have nothing of intelligence or interest to add. I will wait for input worthy of debate.

Good luck with that and all!

ROTFLMAO.... If I were you I'd run too. lol

 

[Keridan]

and this answers your quoted post.... WTF, my agitated friend.

Actually, it totally fails to do so, but that seems to be a pattern. Again, good luck with that and all. I have a sanity requirement before continuing to engage.

 

[noonereal]

I have a sanity requirement before continuing to engage.

Good, you continue to work on that. It is important to take care of your mental health and it's wise that you know better than to carry on when you are struggling.

I noticed, your posts do come off as unhinged, I noticed it and mentioned it to you earlier.

Much respect.

Maybe we can talk tomorrow if you are feeling better.

 

[ttwtt78640]

1) Not the same. You are mixing apples and oranges.

2) But I do have to ask you, why do you not want people on the bottom to make a little more?

3) Seems you hate the idea of anyone not suffering.

1) How, exectly, are government labor costs "not the same" as those of private businesses?

2) An increase of over 100% is not "a little more". The idea is not to remain in the bottom 3% of the workforce for any longer than necessary - which can be done by acquiring more skills and/or experience.

3) Nope, but I hate the idea of paying higher wages simply because you can force others to cover that cost by rasiing their taxes or doing more deficit spending. Does it make sense for the 4th largest federal 'budget' item to be interest on the national debt?

The average Social Security (SS) monthly retirement benefit is about $1,400 ($16,800/year) - why should a full-time, MW income be much ($13K/year?) more than that? Those who "demand" that the federal MW be more than doubled don't seem to advocate increasing SS retirement benefts to match that. Is that because they only like to make unfunded mandates or because they feel that HS kids working at McJobs should have more spending money than retired seniors get?

How Big Is the Average Person’s Social Security Check? -- The Motley Fool

 

[Fletch]

I can tell you why. They are greedy and needy by nature. Just like their fear response is greater than a more cerebral liberal.

:lamo

I have found that their are two types of people.

One that struggled to get where they are today and are very resentful of anyone they perceive as having an easier path than they had.

The other is someone who struggled to get where they are today and don't want others to have to struggle like they did.

Obviously the first person ends to be a Trumpet, the second tends to be a Democrat.

I think this second part demonstrates that you are not one of those 'cerebral liberals' you think exist. But then again, the world has more unicorns than 'cerebral liberals.' The left moves and acts out of pure emotion, and it is the left that is motivated by envy, not the right. It is the left that hates the 1%, not the right. Sorry, but your post isnt 'cerebral' its projection.

 

[Keridan]

:lamo




I think this second part demonstrates that you are not one of those 'cerebral liberals' you think exist. But then again, the world has more unicorns than 'cerebral liberals.' The left moves and acts out of pure emotion, and it is the left that is motivated by envy, not the right. It is the left that hates the 1%, not the right. Sorry, but your post isnt 'cerebral' its projection.

Hey bud, I appreciate a lot of your posts. Be fair, though. These posts are not representative of a whole group. I know I've met many (and I suspect you have too) intelligent liberals on here. Many of them are interested in honest debate. Just because there are a lot of things like this on both sides is not a fair reason to discount those who want to discuss. Otherwise, why are we here?

On this thread alone, I had some good talks. I've seen you engage nicely with folks opposing your views, too. Just gotta ignore the crazy and move on.

 

[noonereal]

1) How, exectly, are government labor costs "not the same" as those of private businesses?

You confused two separate situations. One where and employee is staffing withing a budget given her the other when a business owner is setting a budget.

Apples and oranges.

2) An increase of over 100% is not "a little more". The idea is not to remain in the bottom 3% of the workforce for any longer than necessary - which can be done by acquiring more skills and/or experience.

If only life were this simple.

3) Nope, but I hate the idea of paying higher wages simply because you can force others to cover that cost by rasiing their taxes or doing more deficit spending. Does it make sense for the 4th largest federal 'budget' item to be interest on the national debt?

No taxes are being raised. Cortez is choosing to use her budget, which is not increased, as she sees fit.

The average Social Security (SS) monthly retirement benefit is about $1,400 ($16,800/year) - why should a full-time, MW income be much more than that? Those who "demand" that the federal MW be more than doubled don't seem to advoate increasing SS retirement benefts to match that. Is that because they only like to make unfunded mandates or becuase they feel that HS kids working at McJobs should have more spending money than retired seniors get?

SS income has zero to do with MW. Again, Apples and oranges.

You must like fruit.

 

[Master Debator]

The wages have remained stagnant because the opposite of your first sentence is true. Everyone seems to think that because a company does well, everyone working there somehow had a part to play.

John's job is to take mail from the mailroom to desks. Jane's job is to come up with a marketing strategy to sell our product (we'll use dildos for the fun of it) to the public. Jane comes up with 5 wonderful strategies, lays out plans for structuring, implementing, and learning from these new strategies. Her "Get that Dildo out!" gameplan was a game changer. Jane brings the company %200 profit increase. John found a quicker way to Jane's desk with the extra 5 envelopes she gets.

Jane got a HUGE raise. Her value added to the company is +%200. John saved $0.35 in labor. His raise wasn't so good. Jane can't be replaced for less than a fortune and a huge talent search. John can be replaced by a pimply high school kid picked off the street at random.

Just because a company does well doesn't mean everyone there has somehow had a part in that or deserves better pay. The job is worth what it brings in after expenses and what it would cost to replace that person.

That's a wonderfully crafted scenario but that's not actually how it works in the real world and it's verified in the factual data of productivity, profits and wages. What actually happens is companies like Walmart who pay their workers nothing, they make huge profits, pay little taxes and the government assistance their workers need to survive ends up being paid by the middle class.

 

[noonereal]

:lamo




I think this second part demonstrates that you are not one of those 'cerebral liberals' you think exist. But then again, the world has more unicorns than 'cerebral liberals.' The left moves and acts out of pure emotion, and it is the left that is motivated by envy, not the right. It is the left that hates the 1%, not the right. Sorry, but your post isnt 'cerebral' its projection.

I am a republican, a fiscal conservative. A social liberal.

I have seen the mentioned patterns in people for decades. You know it's true, you identify with the first person in my presentation and it's shames you so you try to insult me.

It's all good, I get it. Do you?

 

[Keridan]

That's a wonderfully crafted scenario but that's not actually how it works in the real world and it's verified in the factual data of productivity, profits and wages. What actually happens is companies like Walmart who pay their workers nothing, they make huge profits, pay little taxes and the government assistance their workers need to survive ends up being paid by the middle class.

Gotta ask you for some backing on this. I don't like to do the old "source it" argument, but as a person who has been a part of businesses ranging from medical to the home services I currently offer, I haven't seen much to disagree with the scenario where different folks provide different levels of profitability and service to a company.

Walmart's taxes are definitely a different point and I think they should pay more than they do. Gods know the Walton's wouldn't suffer handing over a few more million. But how they pay their employees is based on how much those employees bring in. Janet folding shirts and stamping price tags doesn't bring in what Jason does when he negotiates contracts that bring in products at 75% of the going rate.

Anyway, I appreciate the honest engagement. Let me know what you have to refute my example. I'm not going to nitpick it, I promise.

 

[noonereal]

That's a wonderfully crafted scenario but that's not actually how it works in the real world and it's verified in the factual data of productivity, profits and wages. What actually happens is companies like Walmart who pay their workers nothing, they make huge profits, pay little taxes and the government assistance their workers need to survive ends up being paid by the middle class.

Of course it is straight nonsense. Some folks simple like to keep other down as a way to raise themselves.

Not nice but common.

 

[Fletch]

Hey bud, I appreciate a lot of your posts. Be fair, though. These posts are not representative of a whole group. I know I've met many (and I suspect you have too) intelligent liberals on here. Many of them are interested in honest debate. Just because there are a lot of things like this on both sides is not a fair reason to discount those who want to discuss. Otherwise, why are we here?

On this thread alone, I had some good talks. I've seen you engage nicely with folks opposing your views, too. Just gotta ignore the crazy and move on.

Youre right. I love a good discussion/debate but I love engaging the crazies almost as much. But I probably should waste less of my time on them. Anyway, I appreciate your posts here as well.

 

[Keridan]

Youre right. I love a good discussion/debate but I love engaging the crazies almost as much. But I probably should waste less of my time on them. Anyway, I appreciate your posts here as well.

Fair enough! Gods know I love tweaking 'em a couple times before moving on to the reasonable people. Especially when they just throw themselves into the middle of a conversation. Can't hold that against ya!

 

[Fletch]

I am a republican, a fiscal conservative. A social liberal.

I have seen the mentioned patterns in people for decades. You know it's true, you identify with the first person in my presentation and it's shames you so you try to insult me.

It's all good, I get it. Do you?

I see, so as a conservative, that means you are 'resentful of anyone they perceive as having an easier path than they had.' And because you are that way, you assume everyone else must be that way as well. Like I said, projection.

 

[Fletch]

Fair enough! Gods know I love tweaking 'em a couple times before moving on to the reasonable people. Especially when they just throw themselves into the middle of a conversation. Can't hold that against ya!

It seems you have found more 'reasonable' liberals on here than I have. Honestly, I can only think of one and I heap him with praise whenever possible

 

[Keridan]

It seems you have found more 'reasonable' liberals on here than I have. Honestly, I can only think of one and I heap him with praise whenever possible

Depends on how you approach a subject and how far away from them you are on the scale, I think. You are a bit more right than me (it seems) and that may make them a bit more aggressive towards you or vice versa. Of course, I could also be lumping a few folks in the liberal category that are more moderate, too.

I'm all about heaping praise, though! If you disagree with someone vehemently and can still engage a proper conversation, that is a sign of real intellect.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's easy to be generous with other people's money. Why not pay them at least the median wage in DC, after all, it is a very high cost of living area?

The DC Area Has the Highest Median Income in the US Again | Washingtonian (DC)

Exactly. If she was mom and pop small business owner, she would be bankrupt before she knew it.

 

[noonereal]

I see, so as a conservative, that means you are 'resentful of anyone they perceive as having an easier path than they had.' And because you are that way, you assume everyone else must be that way as well. Like I said, projection.

I am only a fiscal conservative, as I said.

I am a social liberal as I said. That is one who is compassionate. Not all full of self.

But, of course you knew that.

 

[Master Debator]

Gotta ask you for some backing on this. I don't like to do the old "source it" argument, but as a person who has been a part of businesses ranging from medical to the home services I currently offer, I haven't seen much to disagree with the scenario where different folks provide different levels of profitability and service to a company.

Walmart's taxes are definitely a different point and I think they should pay more than they do. Gods know the Walton's wouldn't suffer handing over a few more million. But how they pay their employees is based on how much those employees bring in. Janet folding shirts and stamping price tags doesn't bring in what Jason does when he negotiates contracts that bring in products at 75% of the going rate.

Anyway, I appreciate the honest engagement. Let me know what you have to refute my example. I'm not going to nitpick it, I promise.

I'm not saying that different positions within a company are not valued more than others, of course that is true, I'm saying that the value you provide to the company is not the sole determination for your pay. That value is also weighed against how little they can get away with paying you since a companies overriding objective, by law, is profit and not fair value for your labor.

 

[Moderate Right]

She's already on your boys' hitlist figurative and literally. I'd imagine why that is why not just anyone is allowed to go knocking on her door at home.

Actually, she's not really on a hit list. Quite the opposite. We want to shine the light on her so that all Americans know and understand how nuts she really is. Of course that won't change anything in her own district where people voted for her but it is important for the average American to know she stands for the direction the Democratic party is now headed - off the end of the cliff.

 

[noonereal]

If you disagree with someone vehemently and can still engage a proper conversation, that is a sign of real intellect.

That speaks to "emotional intelligence" which I was proud to learn you are trying to work on.

 

[Moderate Right]

She's gonna be asking Michael Cohen some tough questions next week too. If you think conservatives hate her now. JUST WAIT!!!!! Each week she is more and more impressive despite her dumb social media. While it may be dumb, and too trollish for my liking, it is a necessary evil that more people in Congress should do to fight the right's propaganda online. She shouldn't have to be the sole attack dog on the left.

Michael Cohen has nothing to do about anything. I mean your own side doesn't believe anything that comes out of the guys mouth, so what are questions in a hearing going to prove? You either believe the guy or you don't. It's ridiculous to think that he lies about everything but if he says something bad about Trump, now that's the truth.

 

[Fletch]

I am only a fiscal conservative, as I said.

I am a social liberal as I said. That is one who is compassionate. Not all full of self.

But, of course you knew that.

I dont 'know' that, nor am I inclined to believe it simply because you claim it. Your mis-characterizations of left and right exist in your head and your head alone.

 

[Keridan]

I'm not saying that different positions within a company are not valued more than others, of course that is true, I'm saying that the value you provide to the company is not the sole determination for your pay. That value is also weighed against how little they can get away with paying you since a companies overriding objective, by law, is profit and not fair value for your labor.

Okay, this is a fair answer. Unfortunately, I hate the word "fair" when we are talking about income and taxes. It's too vague. I hope you don't mind if I skip over that particular statement in your reply.

Sometimes, this is absolutely what happens. That kinda sucks. But then you have a lot of companies like mine. It's not about the minimum I can pay, it's about the minimum I can make a profit from that position. Some jobs absolutely do not bring in enough money to justify a higher pay. Even if the company does well. I don't feel it's my obligation to pay someone beyond their worth just because the guys who earned it did better than expected.

If I only make $2/hr more by replacing you, I'm gonna keep you because the $2 isn't worth taking a job away that you've worked at. If it's $9/hr, I'm seriously gonna consider how much my family benefits from finding someone who gets more out of the same rate than you do. I could pay three other guys who produce more $2/hr and replace you and still do better.

Of course, when you get to larger companies, the decision is less personal, but a lot of the same formula applies.

 

[Fletch]

That speaks to "emotional intelligence" which I was proud to learn you are trying to work on.

And as soon as you go to work on emotional maturity you can get started on the emotional intelligence part. No sign that you are interested in that, however.