The line for the wall starts right behind her......
Replies
-
Yeah, I don't know about that... Because I'm pretty sure Democrats are pretty happy giving back to their big donors on Wall Street as well... And I'm pretty sure the new health care law is going to help big health companies WAY more than it's going to help all us little people... It's just a way to buy votes from the likes of us.
Yup, and that wouldn't have happened if we went to a single-payer system, which was squashed across the board. Though I disagree that the new health care law will help big companies more than it is going to help little people. Health is pretty darn important. If it means that people won't die from curable diseases, I'd argue that it is indeed helping them more than Big Health.
I don't think anyone will disagree that health is important... but I have a really hard time thinking that a healthcare law that was praised by Big Health is going to do anything other than line the pockets of the corporations.... Big Health could regulate their profits on their own... yet they don't.... Big Pharma could either reduce their profit margins or refuse the massive government subsidies on their own (but right now they see both, large profits AND government subsidies).... but they don't... these companies could do more to help people without the regulations of the government, but they don't... And yet they are praising a healthcare law that is supposedly going to regulate them? How does that work?
And there is one thing that I do agree with Azdak on... we are not true captalist market and we haven't been for a while...0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.
The last analysis I read was that a $2000 per year fine per employee for refusing to cover employees was much less expensive than the cost of covering them.0 -
So right now let's say McCorp offers insurance. They pay $100 a month to cover you, and you pay $100. Now McCorp drops your insurance and a government plan picks it up. Now who is paying that $100 that McCorp used to pay? Taxpayers. At least that's how I understand it will work.
McCorp will be taxed at a higher rate for not covering their employees, so it ends up a wash, which makes corporations less likely to drop insured employees.
From what I read, the amount is less than the amount to cover those employees for most companies, which if you think about it is pretty much begging them to drop coverage.
I haven't researched it recently, but I wrote a paper on the topic in 2011, and at that time, the plan called for any company who employed 50 people or more to cover their employees, or lose tax benefits that would cover the cost, so it would be a wash. It may have changed since then, but it was a provision previously.
The last analysis I read was that a $2000 per year fine per employee for refusing to cover employees was much less expensive than the cost of covering them.
That's what I have read as well... Where I work it seems like it would be cheaper to be fined the $2000... I have super duper value plan... the one that qualifies to sign up with an FSA and HSA.... and my company pays $146 a pay period for just me... which is two weeks.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.0
-
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
eta: My mom was the epitome of the working poor back in the early 80's and yet both of us kids got all our innoculations and yearly check ups... and we did this without state aid... because my mom, like many other single mom's... made too much money for state aid. How did we ever survive... since supposedly we shouldn't have?0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.
More, of course. I'm thinking we need to look back at a time when one breadwinner could support a spouse and several kids and find out what happened between then and now with wages and corporate policy. My guess is, outsourcing has done us a lot of harm. But it could be other factors, too.0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.
More, of course. I'm thinking we need to look back at a time when one breadwinner could support a spouse and several kids and find out what happened between then and now with wages and corporate policy. My guess is, outsourcing has done us a lot of harm. But it could be other factors, too.
Then what would be the difference than between paying a McDonald's worker $15 per hour versus $7.25 an hour and paying an educated worker $15 an hour versus $30? Would we still not be subsidizing their wages?0 -
So right there is one thing they need to revise. It should cost more to drop coverage, not save companies money. Also, the coverage should have to meet a certain standard. No shoddy cutrate coverage allowed.
That's actually a lot of what got us into this insurance mess in the first place... the government (in this instance the States) telling insurance companies what is the minimum amount they were allowed to cover... Personally, I would rather see health insurance go back to medical insurance (and it only cover the major stuff like broken limbs or cancer or something) and people be able to find cheap affordable preventative and consistant care.... How did we all ever survive going to the family doctor for things before insurance was mandated to cover nearly every sniffle?
The problem with that is, yearly checkups and going to the doctor before something becomes major saves everyone a lot of money over waiting until it's a big deal to go. And people who don't make a living wage are going to wait because they don't have the money to spend. Which goes right back to the horrible wrong of a country that allows any company to pay employees less than a living wage for their labor.
So then we should pay a McDonald's fry cook $15 an hour? I guess that's one way of getting this country off the fast food train. So then what should we pay an entry level, college educated technician?
Yes we should. If that's what it takes to live, we must. If we don't, your tax dollars cover it anyway. Who do you think makes up for the difference between a wage and a living wage? Taxpayers.
Except then what do we pay the educated workers? The ones that spent money on college? On apprenticeships to learn a trade? If we pay McDonald's workers the same as we do an educated worker (be it a trade or college) then what's the point of being an educated worker (besides the under appreciated value of simply being educated)? If we raise the educated workers pay in step with the McDonald's worker, then we are right back where we started in the first place.
More, of course. I'm thinking we need to look back at a time when one breadwinner could support a spouse and several kids and find out what happened between then and now with wages and corporate policy. My guess is, outsourcing has done us a lot of harm. But it could be other factors, too.
Then what would be the difference than between paying a McDonald's worker $15 per hour versus $7.25 an hour and paying an educated worker $15 an hour versus $30? Would we still not be subsidizing their wages?
No. McDonalds will have to eat a profit loss and deal with it. People are only going to pay so much for a burger. Too bad for them. If any company wants to do business in the US, they should have to contribute something positive to society.0 -
No. McDonalds will have to eat a profit loss and deal with it. People are only going to pay so much for a burger. Too bad for them. If any company wants to do business in the US, they should have to contribute something positive to society.
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.0 -
No. McDonalds will have to eat a profit loss and deal with it. People are only going to pay so much for a burger. Too bad for them. If any company wants to do business in the US, they should have to contribute something positive to society.
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.
Workers contribute positively to a company's bottom line, therefore, companies must contribute positively to the society those workers live in by providing a fair and living wage as well as safe working conditions and by not carrying out practices contrary to the freedom and security of that country, such as selling unsafe products or contributing to corruption or other social ills.
Edit: This should also go for companies who wish to have access to American markets to sell their goods and services. We don't have to allow anyone to buy or sell here or employ people here. Nor should we unless it benefits us.0 -
No. McDonalds will have to eat a profit loss and deal with it. People are only going to pay so much for a burger. Too bad for them. If any company wants to do business in the US, they should have to contribute something positive to society.
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.
Workers contribute positively to a company's bottom line, therefore, companies must contribute positively to the society those workers live in by providing a fair and living wage as well as safe working conditions and by not carrying out practices contrary to the freedom and security of that country, such as selling unsafe products or contributing to corruption or other social ills.
Edit: This should also go for companies who wish to have access to American markets to sell their goods and services. We don't have to allow anyone to buy or sell here or employ people here. Nor should we unless it benefits us.
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.0 -
I disagree there. It's one thing to provide subsidies for a segment that needs stimulation and growth, such as green energy, a segment that is practically non-existent in this country. (For example, compare the land size vs. solar power of Spain and that of the US).
It's another thing altogether to provide massive breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world. There's a reason why those companies don't want Dems in office.
Saw this infographic today, and those numbers are chilling:
https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4ffc3bad8cd9ee00030028bb/attachments/LobbyingRoi.jpg
0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.
I agree, the fact that many soldiers cannot support a family and live well disgusts me. I often disagree with how our government uses our military, but I have never said soldiers shouldn't be paid well. Same goes with police at the state and local levels, they're often woefully underpaid for the work they do.
If we could figure out how to force government to act for the benefit of all, then corporations would be forced to follow policies that, if they brought about no particular good, at least caused no harm.0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.
I agree, the fact that many soldiers cannot support a family and live well disgusts me. I often disagree with how our government uses our military, but I have never said soldiers shouldn't be paid well. Same goes with police at the state and local levels, they're often woefully underpaid for the work they do.
If we could figure out how to force government to act for the benefit of all, then corporations would be forced to follow policies that, if they brought about no particular good, at least caused no harm.
Meh. In our city police and fire get treated better than the civilians. In the four years I have worked in government, civilians haven't seen a raise in 7 years. While the police and fire saw a 10% raise about 4 or 5 years ago. But the paper states that city employees saw an average of 5% raise.... Creative way to tell the public we all got a raise, though that couldn't be further from the truth.0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.
I agree, the fact that many soldiers cannot support a family and live well disgusts me. I often disagree with how our government uses our military, but I have never said soldiers shouldn't be paid well. Same goes with police at the state and local levels, they're often woefully underpaid for the work they do.
If we could figure out how to force government to act for the benefit of all, then corporations would be forced to follow policies that, if they brought about no particular good, at least caused no harm.
Meh. In our city police and fire get treated better than the civilians. In the four years I have worked in government, civilians haven't seen a raise in 7 years. While the police and fire saw a 10% raise about 4 or 5 years ago. But the paper states that city employees saw an average of 5% raise.... Creative way to tell the public we all got a raise, though that couldn't be further from the truth.
They're well off where you are, then, around here, not so much. They aren't getting paid enought to support their families, anyway.0 -
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.
Yes God forbid a nation looks after its people. (Australian here)
I thank God I wasn't born American.0 -
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.
Yes God forbid a nation looks after its people. (Australian here)
I thank God I wasn't born American.
I thank God I wasn't born Australian. But that's just because your internet sucks even worse than ours!
0 -
Yeah, because that's going to happen. We aren't Sweden. And define something postive to society? Your definition and mine are going to be vastly different I bet.
Yes God forbid a nation looks after its people. (Australian here)
I thank God I wasn't born American.
Define "looks after"....0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.
I agree, the fact that many soldiers cannot support a family and live well disgusts me. I often disagree with how our government uses our military, but I have never said soldiers shouldn't be paid well. Same goes with police at the state and local levels, they're often woefully underpaid for the work they do.
If we could figure out how to force government to act for the benefit of all, then corporations would be forced to follow policies that, if they brought about no particular good, at least caused no harm.
Meh. In our city police and fire get treated better than the civilians. In the four years I have worked in government, civilians haven't seen a raise in 7 years. While the police and fire saw a 10% raise about 4 or 5 years ago. But the paper states that city employees saw an average of 5% raise.... Creative way to tell the public we all got a raise, though that couldn't be further from the truth.
They're well off where you are, then, around here, not so much. They aren't getting paid enought to support their families, anyway.
I guess, they are... I believe starting salary for a police officer here is somewhere around $62-$65 thousand a year (I'm trying to remember from a budget discussion a couple of years ago)... they also start out with 15 vacation days... considering I make about a third less than that, I don't think that's too shabby....0 -
What if I said that providing safe working conditions (which by the way I am not against) is contributing to people losing their jobs? You don't need as many hands on deck when a machine can do all the heavy lifting or the intricate/repetitive work.
I am not against technology replacing workers because technology can and does improve our standard of living.
I am against outsourced jobs and sweat shop goods being freely sold in our country. We should never have opened trade with China without getting a guarantee of human and worker rights and that goes for every country we trade with. We should also, as a society, have the right of protectionism even in cases where corporations are not mistreating workers in order to have and maintain a high standard of living for the largest possible number of citizens. Their profits should never be put above our welfare.
I am also against corporations who pay American workers so little that those workers are forced to seek public assistance such as food stamps to survive. Those corporations (not the workers!) are a burden on our society and must be forced to pay a real living wage so they will cease to damage our society by increasing our tax burden.
I am too... Oh and for the record... there are also families in the US military that qualify for Government Aid... I know of a few families who has one spouse working in the military (and places don't typically like to hire the civilian spouse because there is a high chance that the spouse will need to quit after 2 or 3 years... though I don't think this is as wide spread anymore) that qualifies for WIC or Food Stamps... when I was younger, we were just above the threshold... So it's not just corporations.
I agree, the fact that many soldiers cannot support a family and live well disgusts me. I often disagree with how our government uses our military, but I have never said soldiers shouldn't be paid well. Same goes with police at the state and local levels, they're often woefully underpaid for the work they do.
If we could figure out how to force government to act for the benefit of all, then corporations would be forced to follow policies that, if they brought about no particular good, at least caused no harm.
Meh. In our city police and fire get treated better than the civilians. In the four years I have worked in government, civilians haven't seen a raise in 7 years. While the police and fire saw a 10% raise about 4 or 5 years ago. But the paper states that city employees saw an average of 5% raise.... Creative way to tell the public we all got a raise, though that couldn't be further from the truth.
They're well off where you are, then, around here, not so much. They aren't getting paid enought to support their families, anyway.
I guess, they are... I believe starting salary for a police officer here is somewhere around $62-$65 thousand a year (I'm trying to remember from a budget discussion a couple of years ago)... they also start out with 15 vacation days... considering I make about a third less than that, I don't think that's too shabby....
That would be about right as far as what they should be getting around here, for the rough job they do, often godawful hours, and specialized training. Unfortunately, I think starting off they make half that? Maybe less.0 -
My biggest peeve, is not so much about how much they get paid each year.... because they do work in a very hazardous environment... even in a relatively safe city like ours (considering the size)... but that they get favored for raises more than the civilians do... even though the civilian jobs are just as important as the police... People don't realize everything that the civilians do for them... to make sure that there is clean water, flat roads, working street lights, no sewage running into peoples yards.... all of which contribute to the safety of the citizens... But because the Police and Fire have a union, and we do not (nor can we... and talk of unionizing can get one fired, it is stated in the policy manual.... we are in a right to work state) we don't get the cushy raises that the police and fire get (and no this isn't a fight about unions... it's just a comparison)... even though the newspaper paints a different story...0
-
My biggest peeve, is not so much about how much they get paid each year.... because they do work in a very hazardous environment... even in a relatively safe city like ours (considering the size)... but that they get favored for raises more than the civilians do... even though the civilian jobs are just as important as the police... People don't realize everything that the civilians do for them... to make sure that there is clean water, flat roads, working street lights, no sewage running into peoples yards.... all of which contribute to the safety of the citizens... But because the Police and Fire have a union, and we do not (nor can we... and talk of unionizing can get one fired, it is stated in the policy manual.... we are in a right to work state) we don't get the cushy raises that the police and fire get (and no this isn't a fight about unions... it's just a comparison)... even though the newspaper paints a different story...
Which just goes to show, even many low skilled, low paying jobs are essential, which is why I get upset when people suggest that those doing them don't deserve a living wage. They're not on charity, they're workers, doing essential jobs, why shouldn't they have a living wage? It just baffles me. Nevermind the cost to the taxpayer of supporting full time workers who aren't paid enough to survive without things like foodstamps.0 -
My biggest peeve, is not so much about how much they get paid each year.... because they do work in a very hazardous environment... even in a relatively safe city like ours (considering the size)... but that they get favored for raises more than the civilians do... even though the civilian jobs are just as important as the police... People don't realize everything that the civilians do for them... to make sure that there is clean water, flat roads, working street lights, no sewage running into peoples yards.... all of which contribute to the safety of the citizens... But because the Police and Fire have a union, and we do not (nor can we... and talk of unionizing can get one fired, it is stated in the policy manual.... we are in a right to work state) we don't get the cushy raises that the police and fire get (and no this isn't a fight about unions... it's just a comparison)... even though the newspaper paints a different story...
Which just goes to show, even many low skilled, low paying jobs are essential, which is why I get upset when people suggest that those doing them don't deserve a living wage. They're not on charity, they're workers, doing essential jobs, why shouldn't they have a living wage? It just baffles me. Nevermind the cost to the taxpayer of supporting full time workers who aren't paid enough to survive without things like foodstamps.
Except fixing a waterline or signal isn't exactly as low skill (and can be way more dangerous) than flipping burgers (which is what I conclude as low skill)... the meter readers have just about as dangerous of a job as the police officers do... Meter readers can show up to a persons house, just simply to take a reading and are often met with guns or baseball bats because someone (presumably who haven't paid their bill) believes their water will be turned off and of course the meter readers aren't armed themselves, they generally have no cause to... people doing the ditch work often have to take continual training and learn a skill...0 -
My biggest peeve, is not so much about how much they get paid each year.... because they do work in a very hazardous environment... even in a relatively safe city like ours (considering the size)... but that they get favored for raises more than the civilians do... even though the civilian jobs are just as important as the police... People don't realize everything that the civilians do for them... to make sure that there is clean water, flat roads, working street lights, no sewage running into peoples yards.... all of which contribute to the safety of the citizens... But because the Police and Fire have a union, and we do not (nor can we... and talk of unionizing can get one fired, it is stated in the policy manual.... we are in a right to work state) we don't get the cushy raises that the police and fire get (and no this isn't a fight about unions... it's just a comparison)... even though the newspaper paints a different story...
Which just goes to show, even many low skilled, low paying jobs are essential, which is why I get upset when people suggest that those doing them don't deserve a living wage. They're not on charity, they're workers, doing essential jobs, why shouldn't they have a living wage? It just baffles me. Nevermind the cost to the taxpayer of supporting full time workers who aren't paid enough to survive without things like foodstamps.
Except fixing a waterline or signal isn't exactly as low skill (and can be way more dangerous) than flipping burgers (which is what I conclude as low skill)... the meter readers have just about as dangerous of a job as the police officers do... Meter readers can show up to a persons house, just simply to take a reading and are often met with guns or baseball bats because someone (presumably who haven't paid their bill) believes their water will be turned off and of course the meter readers aren't armed themselves, they generally have no cause to... people doing the ditch work often have to take continual training and learn a skill...
Well I have no issue with getting rid of burger flippers, to be honest, and all restraunts, people can just learn to cook. But we still need cashiers in stores and similar low skill (relatively) safe jobs. And they need a living wage, or we need to learn to do without.
Edit: Same goes for janitorial workers. Low skill, low wage. Should we really try to do without? Public buildings will be nasty!0
