Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/6/13 12:46 AM, Nor wrote: But 5$ doesnt make sense and I do not know why you were mentioning that number at all.

I didn't

This is why we have at least a 7-8 buck limit because otherwise it would be considered abuse.

$7.25

No one can live on that.

Tens of thousands of people do it every day

At 12/5/13 08:34 PM, Nor wrote: I think minimum wage should be increased, maybe not as high as they are protesting though..

I just wat to say that Nor is the only user here who can talk about politics and economics and sound adorable doing it.

At 12/6/13 12:50 AM, Xenomit wrote: Tens of thousands of people do it every day

They shouldn't have to.

At 12/6/13 12:50 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:46 AM, Nor wrote: But 5$ doesnt make sense and I do not know why you were mentioning that number at all.

I didn't

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1356195/3#bbspost24897345_post_text

How in the fucking world does a person that does that deserve $5 an our, let a fucking lone $15.

You did though

Tens of thousands of people do it every day

I was saying the 5$, no one can. Even with minimum wage jobs people usually have mutiple jobs so no, not really.

At 12/6/13 12:54 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:50 AM, Xenomit wrote: Tens of thousands of people do it every day

They shouldn't have to.

What, make the best with the least?

At 12/6/13 12:55 AM, Xenomit wrote: What, make the best with the least?

Their unjust suffering due to artificially low wages.

Oh it would occur in New York, wouldn't it. Christ, when will people learn that raising the minimum wage would badly fuck over everybody, hours would be cut, people would be let go and it would become ridiculously hard to jump from Part time to full time. As if Obamacare isn't enough, what the hell do you think firms are made out of anyways that they can keep pushing the cost of their labor up? They can't eat that kind of debt, they would pass that on to people like me you fuck nuts.

It's a hard life to live off of minimum wage, no doubt. At about and around 1k a month, finding the right housing, filing for federal aid and being able to budget correctly are very hard but if its done right. It can be done, you just have to pool all your resources, file for your aid and hope for the best. Then again, being minimum wage means you essentially have no skills whatsoever and could technically be replaced by just about anybody. They must not understand they have VERY little leverage outside of harming their PR by branding them as the "big bad conglomerate".

As a side note, OP, you knew this was a very political topic: Why is this in General?

At 12/5/13 12:54 PM, EJR wrote: I mean, it's not.

Yeah, it's pretty shit-tacular.

Most of the states in the US are still running minimum wages comparable to those established in the seventies when money was worth %150-300 as much as it is now.

At 12/6/13 12:56 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:55 AM, Xenomit wrote: What, make the best with the least?

Their unjust suffering due to artificially low wages.

Still doesn't change the fact that the minimum wage shouldn't change.

I wouldn't be against an individual company raising its wages a bit, you'd have to be a cold hearted bastard to be against that, but the government should have no say in private companies.

If the striking workers really wanted to have a chance of making a change, they should strike in the name of getting their companies (most of them being Mcdonalds and Burger king) to raise their wages, not strike in the name of raising the minimum wage.

At 12/6/13 12:55 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:54 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:50 AM, Xenomit wrote: Tens of thousands of people do it every day

They shouldn't have to.

What, make the best with the least?

The fact is, the minimum wage needs to go up at least a little. Now by no means should they be getting paid $15/hr. But I do think that $10/hr is a fair wage.

Xenomit, your argument about their low wage revolves around the fact that they do a relatively simple job. And you're right, they do. But consider this. Hollywood actors do a simple job, essentially look into a camera and be convincing (no disrespect to any actors, I know it's not as easy as that, I'm just breaking it down to it's basic level). Yet Hollywood actors get paid MILLIONS in advance for movies they haven't even been in yet and society doesn't bat an eye. But someone who flips a burger, about as hard as looking into a camera, wants a little bit more money and society has a problem with that? They're both relatively simple jobs.

Now I'm not saying fast food workers should be paid millions nor am I saying that more complicated and skilled jobs shouldn't pay more. But fast food jobs should at least pay enough to get their employees through college so they can get a better job like what Zachary would tell them to do.

...or at the very least, support themselves if not their family.

US Taxpayers are subsidizing the incredibly wealthy by allowing the minimum wage to be below a living wage and not tying worker's pay to manager and executive pay scales. For instance, Walmart has 80% of it's workers on government assistance to the taxpayer's tune of 2.66 billion every year. For comparison, Walmart makes pure profits of 15 billion every year. If Walmart were to pay its workers a livable wage and provide healthcare for all those workers (we'll assume that it costs them 5 billion a year), the company will still have a 10 billion dollar profit left over every year.

The amount of ignorance here is astounding, too. Suggesting that an entire class of people are ungrateful for the 'opportunity' to perform dead-end, inadequately paid work for not-enough hours each week is something they should be thankful for. I wasn't able to live off $13/hr and benefits when I made that and I'm single. I was able to survive, pay bills, and occasionally do something fun, but I wasn't putting away money for emergencies--the only reason I could afford to exist that way was because I have a social safety network of people that care about me. Not everyone does, and if you're saying people should be grateful for what they have, when they don't have any of the things you take for granted, then I'd suggest you're projecting the fact that you aren't grateful onto them.

At 12/6/13 12:57 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Oh it would occur in New York, wouldn't it.

Yes, it would. New York has the highest cost of living in the country:

"The effective minimum wage in New York City is $4.00, the lowest in the nation. A minimum wage worker living in New York City is poorer than anywhere else in the country. This poverty becomes even clearer if we look at the cost of housing in isolation.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates fair market rents for housing across the country. In the figure below, we take the fair market rents for 1-bedroom apartments in different markets and divide that monthly rent by the minimum wage there to derive the number of hours a minimum wage worker would have to work each month just to pay the rent. Ignoring taxes, a minimum wage worker in New York City would have to work 171 hours per month to pay the rent. This is a recipe for homelessness. As a result, minimum wage workers must depend on government programs, or resort to illegal housing." (see pages 8-9)

At 12/6/13 01:10 AM, Xenomit wrote: I wouldn't be against an individual company raising its wages a bit, you'd have to be a cold hearted bastard to be against that, but the government should have no say in private companies.

Yes, yes it should. Not necessarly the government, but a kind of legislation created either by a government with elected representatives or the population itself should give rules on basic economic rules to protect workers from private corporate interests. I don't see with a few (rich) individuals should have the power to control the whole economy on their own. We keep pretending to be living in a democracy. This should start being true sometime soon. Otherwise we'd be in a plutocracy.

I also assume that you believe that the government shouldn't enforce laws to protect workers and their health in their work environment. Right? It's not like a company would ever let one of his minimum wage workers get injured and not give him any health insurance. We never saw that before...

At 12/6/13 01:30 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: I also assume that you believe that the government shouldn't enforce laws to protect workers and their health in their work environment. Right? It's not like a company would ever let one of his minimum wage workers get injured and not give him any health insurance. We never saw that before...

I'm 100% against any government involvement in anyone's life if they aren't harming another person in some way

At 12/6/13 01:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: I'm 100% against any government involvement in anyone's life if they aren't harming another person in some way

Yeah, because economical harm doesn't exist. And if it exist, it's probably the fault of the one suffering from it. Should have been born in a better family.

At 12/6/13 01:37 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 12/6/13 01:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: I'm 100% against any government involvement in anyone's life if they aren't harming another person in some way

Yeah, because economical harm doesn't exist. And if it exist, it's probably the fault of the one suffering from it. Should have been born in a better family.

It simply makes sense. What's the point of even being alive if the majority of your life is ran by a government?

I'm talking about all government interference, not just this one specific topic. As long as someone isn't harming anyone else, the government should have absolutely zero power over their lives.

At 12/5/13 10:42 PM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 12/5/13 10:35 PM, mothballs wrote: It's the reasons that mean more. Someone having a wife and kids for the sake of having a family is cool, but someone trying to make as many children as possible because they feel like it's godly and good for whatever reason is just fucked up.

I admit motives are important, but to put it bluntly, people lie. How do you know if the couple with half a dozen kids didn't start out with good intentions and just not realize the challenges of raising a family? Where do we draw the line of plausible incompetence? 5 hungry kids? 4?

I'm not talking about what should be legal or illegal. I'm simply talking about what is right or wrong. When someone who has a bunch of kids realizes later how hard it is to raise a family, that's ignorance, and that's not intentional, however in this case ignorance is rarely the case.

At 12/6/13 01:10 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 12/6/13 12:56 AM, Feoric wrote: Their unjust suffering due to artificially low wages.

Still doesn't change the fact that the minimum wage shouldn't change.

You're not even disputing the fact that people are suffering under the current system, so why do you want it to continue?

I wouldn't be against an individual company raising its wages a bit, you'd have to be a cold hearted bastard to be against that, but the government should have no say in private companies.

The government absolutely should have a say, otherwise there would be zero labor laws that you yourself have come to know and enjoy. Who else is there to enforce contracts if companies do not?

If the striking workers really wanted to have a chance of making a change, they should strike in the name of getting their companies (most of them being Mcdonalds and Burger king) to raise their wages, not strike in the name of raising the minimum wage.

If America embraced labor unions instead of trying to smash them 24/7 this would be the norm.

At 12/6/13 01:34 AM, Xenomit wrote: I'm 100% against any government involvement in anyone's life if they aren't harming another person in some way

CEOs choosing to maximize their profits at the expense of their workers absolutely has harmful effects, as you yourself didn't even attempt to deny above. Your logic is self defeating.

At 12/6/13 01:47 AM, Feoric wrote: If America embraced labor unions instead of trying to smash them 24/7 this would be the norm.

You just put a horrifying image in my head

Stop scaring me with stuff like that

At 12/6/13 01:50 AM, Xenomit wrote: You just put a horrifying image in my head

Stop scaring me with stuff like that

Shouldn't there be a dialogue between labor and capital, and a state that enforces private contracts between the two?

At 12/6/13 01:54 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/6/13 01:50 AM, Xenomit wrote: You just put a horrifying image in my head

Stop scaring me with stuff like that

Shouldn't there be a dialogue between labor and capital, and a state that enforces private contracts between the two?

I was referring to the thought of the nation embracing labor unions entirely, it's like poison to the economy

A bunch of workers get together and say "Hey we don't like how much money we're getting so pay us 10 more dollars an hour" and we just give it to them

It's a terrifying thought

nobody replied to my post about labor :((

At 12/6/13 01:59 AM, Xenomit wrote: I was referring to the thought of the nation embracing labor unions entirely, it's like poison to the economy

Shareholders =/= the economy.

A bunch of workers get together and say "Hey we don't like how much money we're getting so pay us 10 more dollars an hour" and we just give it to them

Yeah, this totally happened.

At 12/5/13 10:35 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: post about labor

Working hard is different from working smart. Anyone can work hard, but to work smart you need to have special skills. That's why the skilled jobs are more high paying, because not everyone can do them. We look at that as more important than idiot work.

At 12/6/13 02:02 AM, Feoric wrote:

A bunch of workers get together and say "Hey we don't like how much money we're getting so pay us 10 more dollars an hour" and we just give it to them

Yeah, this totally happened.

Never said it did

Just describing the world you created by implying that we should embrace labor unions

At 12/6/13 01:40 AM, Xenomit wrote: It simply makes sense. What's the point of even being alive if the majority of your life is ran by a government?

No it doesn't. You see an unbreakable link between legislation and governement, and that link just isn't there. Countless laws were adopted because of social movements such as worker movements fighting to obtain them. Plus, a government doesn't need to be centralized to be a government.

At 12/6/13 02:05 AM, Xenomit wrote: Never said it did

Just describing the world you created by implying that we should embrace labor unions

You do not know what you are talking about. Embracing labor unions does not entail unlimited free money to workers at the expense of those poor helpless CEOs. Embracing labor unions entails regarding collective bargaining as a basic fundamental part of an economic system. All this means is that there is a dialogue between labor and capital. Workers should have the fundamental right to have open and fair negotiations with their employers with a state that enforces the contracts the two bodies agree upon.

Started from the bottom now we.... here?

At 12/6/13 02:45 AM, DarkMatter wrote: Started from the bottom now we.... here?

pls stahp

First off, my posts may make it seem like I'm anti-American. I'm not. America gave the world jazz, hiphop, blues, stood with us in WW2 and was originally one of the world's freest and most peaceful nations.

At 12/6/13 12:05 AM, Zachary wrote:

At 12/5/13 11:20 PM, AxTekk wrote: I'm not saying no-one who works in fast food will ever get another job, but who will supply the manpower for McDonalds if these people go?

The thing is, there will always be people willing to work there. Teenagers will fill the positions no matter what. It's an easy job that can be done while still in school.

If teenagers could fill the position for less, tell me, why DON'T they fill the positions? I'm not going to go off on one, it's actually a really common misconception about fast food workers.

"Your state education's a joke", uhh there are 50 states, which one? Also, people don't hate people on welfare, they hate people who game the system.

State education = government funded education. Nationally, your government funded education is appalling, even compared to my own country's (which is no great shakes). And American rhetoric is incredibly anti-welfare. I'm actually impressed that you're ashamed enough to deny it.