That has nothing to do with Trump. Changing the subject to someone else only shows weakness.


No, your kidding? The Right wanting to change the Constitution? Never heard of such a thing. I thought the Constitution for the Right-wing was like a surrogate to the Bible? Only when it's convenient right?

I fail to see Trump slapping anyone into obscurity with his false promises and his gross ignorance on so many fronts. Saying he's ending birth right citizenship while being clueless on what the 14th explicitly says, puts him at the top of the heap for the best bs candidate for the GOP;http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lessons-for-trump-from-a-14-yr-old-girl-509101635878

That's it? That's all you have? So much for locking horns and debating the facts right? Like I said, Trump wouldn't know the truth if it ran over him. The mans a joke and he proved it by promising something he can't deliver. He's just a mouth piece for the useless idiots who need to here from one.

Lol! Nice try, but all that rambling isn't going to change a thing. There is no ambiguity or misunderstanding as to what a person is. That is why there has never been any challenges to the 14th as it relates to human beings born in this country. A person is a human being whether he or she is illegal or not has no relevance to the law itself. Everyone knows this. So while your argument is dead in the water, you surely are not that naive enough to know it will just miraculously change.

Sorry, but he is not speaking the truth when he says he is going to end birth right citizenship, because he can't. The Constitution will not allow it; http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lessons-for-trump-from-a-14-yr-old-girl-509101635878 So, when it comes to bs, you won't find one that'll feed you more of it than Trump.

Teacher: "Kids,what does the chicken give you?"
Student: "Meat!"
Teacher: "Very good! Now what does the pig give you?"
Student: "Bacon!"
Teacher: "Great! And what does the fat cow give you?"
Student: "Homework!"

That would work if the economy was functioning normally, but say there is a fall in demand and workers are unemployed and factors stop production. Then there is a clear fall in demand and companies have to take cost cutting measures, at this point there are generally two options for employers cut wages, or cut jobs. At this point since the fact that the price of low end labour is inelastic doesn't matter as demand has fallen. This is where the minimum wage is a problem, it acts as a legal limit to wage cuts.

People have different needs and different values, but the point here is to define what we mean when we say need. Here that's having a minimum quality of life and avoiding poverty.

There is an easy way to determine this, and that's exactly what has been mentioned in the quote I keep including. A living wage should allow an individual to afford a minimum of things such as education and entertainment. This of course also refers to workers on the bottom quartile who generally are the most at risk of poverty. When we say that an individual needs something we mean needs a minimum while also avoiding poverty. Consumerism, which is subjective, isn't included. Whether you need an extra week of holiday doesn't matter when what you need is defined as that which allows you to avoid poverty.

Less a consultant firm, more an economic institute. This has nothing to do with consumerism, cars televisions, or what they want. If it was based on what people wanted then the living wage would probably be much higher. It's all about what people need to live a basic lifestyle. That is to say one in which they aren't threatened by poverty.

Organisations who carry out economic analysis:




No, because the living wage is only done on a per person basis. Having children would entitle the worker to childcare benefits.

If the minimum wage rises marginally above inflation then of course it won't result in unemployment as rising prices, offset rising wages and therefore it's hard to argue against it. The problem come when you have a hike in the minimum wage, like the proposal to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. However there can still be some problems say the economy is in recession, and there's a fall in demand. You have to options, reduce wages or cut jobs. In the UK wages were quite flexible during the great recession and so offset a fall in jobs. In the US unemployment rose to a higher level than in the UK. Reducing wages is probably better than cutting jobs, but if your workers are on a minimum wage then there's no flexibility.

In public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic.[1] This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare. However, in many cases education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance, or taking care of a sick or elderly family member are not included. It also does not allow for debt repayment of any kind. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define a living wage as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four. This is two adults working full-time with one child age 9 and another of age 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

The organisation which calculates the living wage was mentioned in the article. The term "decent life" is obviously subjective, no one has the same values and therefore what someone considered valuable won't be considered as being valuable by someone else. This is what Conservatives mean when they focus on individuals. However there is a way to calculate what people can be able to live on comfortably.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
The methods used for calculating the living wage can be found here.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/thelivingwage/

I'd have a bigger problem with the term competitive. In the UK there is this idea of a living wage, which is essentially enough to live comfortable on. In most of the country its around 7.20 pounds and hour and in London its just over 9. When I say decent wages I mean the living wage. What is competitive is harder to explain. Wages in companies can be held back by "stickiness" which can lead to a situation in which workers are overpaid relative to their productivity which means that what workers are paid isn't always determined by supply or demand.

It was a bad choice of words, I should have said decent instead of fair. The minimum wage doesn't have much to do with fairness and it wouldn't be a fair wages for certain industries. Things such as supply, demand, job description and skills determine what is a fair wage.

Since the UK first introduced the minimum wage there has been no significant rise in inflation as a result of it but a dramatic hike might raise inflation. My solution wouldn't be a dramatic hike to 15 dollars an hour as has been proposed in some areas of the US, I would propose a steady rise in the minimum wage which is above inflation year on year.

One reason I support the minimum wage is due to benefits. Here in the UK we had something called tax credits where those considered in need of in work benefits could have the government top up their pay packets. This had three bad effects, the first was that the system was badly managed and prone to overpaying, those in the lowest income quartiles who received tax credits would then receive a letter demanding that the amount by which they were overpaid be paid back. This was often in the thousands. The second problem was that people were so afraid of being overpaid that they stopped claiming meaning that billions were wasted. The third was that if the government subsidised pay then companies could get away with keeping wages low. Tax credits were ended in the last budget and were replaced with a promise of a minimum wage of 9 pounds an hour by 2020. This solved all three issues.

That might be true of small-medium sized businesses who suffer most from a hike in the minimum wage but not for large corporations. While profits have soared since the recession growth in wages has been much slower.

We’ve had innumerable people who have never run a business in their lives trying to tell us that the effects of a minimum wage rise can only be glorious. So it’s refreshing to hear the views of someone who will actually have to deal with the effects of a minimum wage rise: the CEO of Wendy’s. Amazingly, they’re not predicting that their newly better paid employees are going to spend so much more at their stores that their profit increases. Nor are they predicting that the rise in aggregate demand is going to do the same. Finally, they’ve not broken down in tears, agreed that the shareholders are just too greedy, and insisted that the capitalist pigs will just have to do without so that the workers get their fair share.

No, instead they predict that that their restaurants will have to increase prices and reduce the amount of labor that they use.

That is, make all consumers worse off and also make some people unemployed. This isn’t the bright new dawn we were promised about a rise in the minimum wage, is it? It is what people like me have been predicting but remarkably few people seemed willing to listen to us.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/wendys-explains-what-really-happens-with-a-minimum-wage-rise-job-losses/

If raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to an increase in productivity then the only other choice is to either raise prices, which can often be difficult due to competition or reduce the workforce. Those whose productivity doesn't justify a rise in the minimum wage will find themselves unemployed.