Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?

Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?

  • Yes, I believe employers should provide a living wage to their employees

    Votes: 27 48.2%

  • No, I believe wages should strictly be decided by the employer, at his/her own discretion

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 16 28.6%
  • Total voters
    56
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
People are enslaved to the extent that another entity forcibly confiscates or threatens a given percent of the proceeds of their labor.

Logic insists that is so. Slavery is wrong, even in a lower percent than 100%.
Click to expand...
Then why do you support wage slavery, wherein employers confiscate the product of the labor of employees and compensate only an hourly wage?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You're the one who describes pedophilia as consensual.

However, since you consider wage slavery consensual despite the coercive nature of the relationships, you're the one avoiding the reality, which is:

WORK OR STARVE.
Click to expand...
Why should people get food who haven't earned it?

"Just coz..."?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
See..

When you get right down to the nitty gritty of the argument, this is what it boils down to..

"Conservatives" would let people starve in the streets

I cannot wait until this ideology is dead and buried with the fucktards that hold it!
Click to expand...
I was steering it in that direction, but Robroy is just smart enough to avoid revealing that this is the core of his ideology as well.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I was steering it in that direction, but Robroy is just smart enough to avoid revealing that this is the core of his ideology as well.
Click to expand...
What kind of person would let someone starve, even if that person didn't work?

POOR PEOPLE IN AMERICA DO WANT TO FUCKING WORK, that's the distinction that these idiots never recognize. Some of them have 2, 3 jobs.. how the fuck can these idiots call them lazy?

It's discussions like this thread that are turning the tide of the conversation. I feel like we're at the beginning of something important, dare I say revolutionary. The next 2 decades are going to be very interesting for American politics
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
See..

When you get right down to the nitty gritty of the argument, this is what it boils down to..

"Conservatives" would let people starve in the streets

I cannot wait until this ideology is dead and buried with the fucktards that hold it!
Click to expand...
I've nothing against welfare, and here it is plentiful.

If people starve, it's not my problem, the supports are there.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What kind of person would let someone starve, even if that person didn't work?

POOR PEOPLE IN AMERICA DO WANT TO FUCKING WORK, that's the distinction that these idiots never recognize. Some of them have 2, 3 jobs.. how the fuck can these idiots call them lazy?

It's discussions like this thread that are turning the tide of the conversation. I feel like we're at the beginning of something important, dare I say revolutionary. The next 2 decades are going to be very interesting for American politics
Click to expand...
Yet the same people calling the poor lazy are afraid that the "job creators" won't have incentive to create jobs if we don't give them more.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Well with our welfare structure, if people are hungry it's of their own doing.

Do you guys not have welfare?
Click to expand...
Hunger in the United States

Six years after the onset of the financial and economic crisis, hunger remains high in the United States. The financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2008 caused a significant increase in hunger in the United States. This high level of hunger diminished somewhat in 2013, according to the latest government report (with the most recent statistics) released in September 2014 (Coleman-Jensen 2014a).

In 2013, 14.3 percent of households (17.5 million households, approximately one in seven), were food insecure (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 1). This is down slightly from 14.9 percent food insecure in 2008 and 2009 which was the highest number recorded since these statistics have been kept (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p.1 ).

In 2013, 5.6 percent of U.S. households (6.8 million households) had very low food security. In this more severe range of food insecurity, the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p.1) .

Children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.9 percent of households with children. These 3.8 million households were unable at times during the year to provide adequate, nutritious food for their children While children are usually shielded by their parents, who go hungry themselves, from the disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake that characterize very low food security, both children and adults experienced instances of very low food security in 0.9 percent of households with children (360,000 households) in 2013 (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2).

The median food-secure household spent 30 percent more on food than the median food-insecure household of the same size and household composition including food purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly the Food Stamp Program) (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2).

Rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the Federal poverty line, households with children headed by single women or single men, and Black and Hispanic households (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2).

Background: The United States changed the name of its definitions in 2006 that eliminated references to hunger, keeping various categories of food insecurity. This did not represent a change in what was measured. Very low food insecurity (described as food insecurity with hunger prior to 2006) means that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for food. This means that people were hungry (in the sense of "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food" for days each year.

Poverty in the United States

The official poverty measure is published by the United States Census Bureau and shows that:

In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. This is up from 37.3 million in 2007. The number of poor people is near the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty statistics have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2014, p. 12—also see table there).

The 2013 poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down only slightly from the 2010 poverty rate of 15.1 percent and still up from 12.5 percent in 1997, although the recession has ended officially (DeNavas-Walt 2014, p. 12). (The poverty rate was at 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates.)

The 2013 poverty rate for Blacks was 27.2 percent, for Hispanics 23.5 percent, for Asians 10.5 percent and for non-Hispanic whites 9.6 percent (DeNavas-Walt 2014, p. 12-3).

The poverty rate for children under 18 fell from 21.8 percent in 2012 to 19.9 percent in 2013. The number of children in poverty fell from 16.1 million to 14.7 million. Children represented 23.5 percent of the total population and 32.3 percent of people in poverty (DeNavas-Walt 2014, p. 15).

19.9 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four. They represented 6.3 percent of all people and 43.8 percent of those in poverty(DeNavas-Walt 2014, p. 16).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top