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.
Ok so so go show me what a "person means" Nicolas Carpio-Leon vs US. Kind of defines what a person is. But notice how you didn't address the 34 state thing?  So go keep thinking that it can't be changed. |
|
|
|
Ok first off illegal immigration is an issue that the people want to see ended. In order to chance that 14th he only needs 34 states to get the green light on that. 34 states, most of them will vote for that If he wants to repeal the 14th he will get that Number 2. The courts have never said if the 14th applies to illegals aliens. The 14th says all persons. They haven’t defined what person’s means. There are two cases that are going through two different federal apples, the 7th and 2nd. But there was an illegal that got caught with fire arms. His lawyer’s calmed he was entitled to that under the 2nd. 2nd courts said no he isn’t “people” as far as citizenship goes, the 7th disagrees with that saying he is. Lucky enough the Supremes are more then likely to take this up. So either they will rule that illegals are indeed “persons” as defined what the 14th says or they are not. |
|
|
|
I think people are getting tired of the BS from DC from both sides. Trump is speaking the truth that people have talked about for the last 25years with immigration being number one. I can't speak for others, but I feel betrayed by the Republican party. So it is a breath of fresh air when you have Trump. |
|
|
|
|
Teacher: "If I gave you 2 cats and another 2 cats and another 2, how many would you have?"
Johnny: "Seven."
Teacher: "No, listen carefully... If I gave you two cats, and another two cats and another two, how many would you have?"
Johnny: "Seven."
Teacher: "Let me put it to you differently. If I gave you two apples, and another two apples and another two, how many would you have?"
Johnny: "Six."
Teacher: "Good. Now if I gave you two cats, and another two cats and another two, how many would you have?"
Johnny: "Seven!"
Teacher: "Johnny, where in the heck do you get seven from?!"
Johnny: "Because I've already got a freaking cat!"
|
|
|
|
I can see it will be the latter.
why don't you stop the silly hypothetical questions which only play out within classrooms and ask me questions about real-world scenarios? |
|
|
|
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.
then you are OK with allowing govt to determine what are our needs. Maybe I'm OK with a studio apt yet earn 6 figures while another person who earns half might "need" 2 bedrooms |
|
|
|
Good for you. Care to answer my question, or do you intend to continue to dodge it for obvious reasons?
your question was silly why would a salesperson ask me to pay him/her half unless of course they wanted equity or a larger variable comp plan? With respect to 2 people "off the street", that's a nice hypothetical but does not apply to my market sector. I look for people who bring experience and market knowledge. |
|
|
|
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.
again, you are allowing govt to be your parent or overlord. Who are they to decide whether or not I NEED an IPhone 6 plus, or if I NEED 2 weeks in Hawaii ? So, it seems that you are OK with the govt determing what are the needs of the individual. Again, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" you may want to become familiar with the above quote because that is what you are suggesting and support. |
|
|
|
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.
again, some consultant firm gets to determine what a worker needs to live in an acceptable lifestyle? Why should said consultants get to decide if the worker should have a 70 inch TV? If the boss can have the big TV then so too should all employees. Why should I accept a job washing cars and find out that I can't afford to buy the cars that I'm washing? |
|
|
|
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/You keep dancing who gets to determine what is "acceptable" ? If a worker becomes a parent and has twins, should the employer immediately increase salary because the strain of 2 extra mouths requires additional income? What if an employee determines that they NEED to live in a better neighborhood, should the employer increase their salary? Perhaps you are unaware of where your beliefs lie................... "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" |
|
|
|
So you're saying if you have two equal sales man, and one wants $50k and the other will work for $25k, you're going to hire the $50k one?
If not, what are you trying to say that is different than my post?
I have no $50k salespeople, it's more than double that. I'm always willing to listen to a person who is interested in less base and more variable comp. I'm all for risk/reward and will reward more to people who want to take risk. I can appreciate that as I took a huge risk by starting the company. I'll always remember working for a very big company. There were a few of us in our distict who had the best numbers of productivity (road job but not sales) and some of us were literally doing double the amount of work of others. Come raise time, top performers might see 4-5% while lower performers would get 2-3% What happened was I and others left and the place was left with the less productive. It's a nice academic discussion to try and mandate equity but the performers will either stop performing or move on to a place where they are compensated based upon performance. Or, some like me go forth and start businesses. Socialism/liberalism always sounds good but in a competitive landscape, will always lose. |
|
|
|
I don't think that is the case, as illustrated by your post. Businesses pay their employees what they have to based on the market supply and demand, not based on what they contribute to the worth of the business.
for me it's all of the above. A developer who allows me to introduce products in less time than other developers is valuable to me. A salesperson who brings in good numbers is compensated well for their success. Those successful salsepeople then allow me to hire good developers so we can create better products thus making it easier to sell and the cycle continues. But, that all began with a dream (mine) and risking EVERYTHING and getting the product and market right. If I was wrong, then there would be no salespeople as I was the initial salesperson. There would be no development "team" as I could not initially afford them. I hold all accountable and don't measure by hours worked. If I make a mistake and hire a person with a poor work ethic, I quickly release them. I owe it to myself, to my shareholders and employees (who also have options) and to my customers. I can't have price increases to compensate for lazy employees (this isn't the govt). I can't have lost revenue due to lazy employees which then affects the performers. I'm not in a sector where I have min wage employees but a fair argument is that if min wage increases by 40%, should I increase wages by 40% of all of my employees? How do I tell them that they are now only worth 3x min wage as opposed to 4x or more? If I compensate for the min wage increase and give a proportionate increase across the board, how do I determine which employee(s) I lay off in order to free up the cash flow to hand out the pay raises? You see, a magic pot of money does not come my way the first day/week/month/quarter/year after a wage increase. I have a finite cash flow and must manage it. I am positive 100% that retail stores and other min wage type employers have the same concern that a pot of money does not arrive the day/week/month/quarter that min wage increases and that they would need to compensate for the cash flow impact. |
|
|
|
You can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is a fact that half the population has below average IQ, and their labor is the most valuable thing they can offer. As that labor becomes obsolete, what do we do? Telling people to be more like Edison is not a realistic approach to this looming problem.
ahh, the challenge of parenting. Not everyone can afford to send their child to college but they can instill a work ethic. It is an excuse to say that some people are incapable of more than stuffing boxes at a fulfillment center. I do not believe that. Sure, there are some folks who are mentally challenged, yet still in the workplace, and that is understandable but to those who are more interested in beer and cigarette money than paying rent, that is laziness. |
|
|
|
all fluff: no meat on the bone I gave specifics with specific questions Who gets to determine what is included in a living wage? To some, having cable tv with all of the sports channels is a necessity. Having an I-Phone and annual upgrades is a neccessity. A fairly new car for each driver is a necessity. Why should a person working the snack bar at the theater have to live in a studio apartment sharing rent with another snack bar employee while the general manager owns a 3 bedroom home? They both put in the hours so why should the manager own a home? The only solution is to reduce the income of the general manager and reduce his/her standard of living downward, because history shows that govt policies do not lift up people. Do you agree that there should be equity in lifestyle of the general manager and the snack bar employee if they work the same number of hours? |
|
|
|
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.
the concept that all jobs should provide a "living wage" again becomes subjective. Who gets to define what is a "living wage" One can try and say the poverty level but someone needs to put meat on the bone. Does a living wage mean a car less than 5 years old for each driver? Does it mean a separate bedroom for each family member? Must all TVs be at least 42 inches? should they have air conditioning? If they have children, should their salary be increased for every child they choose to have? In other words, the person selling you tickets at the theater who has 3 children should be paid a lot more than the 16 year old teenager. Would that not be "fair" and provide the "living wage" ? |
|
|
|
 it's just common sense was it a global economy when he was around? The times change and either you compete, or lose. The same goes for workers. It is up to the individual to make themselves as valuable as possible. The good looking girl gets more guys coming to her as opposed to the 300 pound girl. |
|
|
|
Regardless of the mandated minimum wage, business has moved on. The federal minimum wage is mostly meaningless, these days. Only 1.6% of our hourly workforce is actually making minimum wage. The free market has already mandated businesses to pay higher wages, without coercive government meddling. This whole hot-button topic is just a politically divisive ploy, to divide The People and drive low-information, single-issue voters to the polls. There are those who would have you believe that if the MW were abolished, evil businesses would begin paying their workers 3rd world wages. This is demonstrably untrue. If that were the case, then a large percentage of hourly workers would already be at the minimum, right now. Instead, it's 1.6%.... Imagine that. There are those who would have you believe that there are millions of hurting Americans who are desperately trying to support a family on a MW job. Also demonstrably untrue, just by looking at the BLS numbers. There are only about 1.3 million workers making the minimum, out of some 77 million total hourly workers. Of those, 705,000 are 16-24 years old, almost all of whom (697,000) are single. There are only 88,000 MW workers who are married and living with their spouse.  Economic rules state that if the price of a commodity, in this case labor, goes UP, then demand for that commodity goes DOWN. So, increasing the MW, will theoretically mean fewer available MW jobs. Higher labor costs will necessarily drive up COGS (cost of goods and services), which means inflation. Both of these hurt the 93 million unemployed and fixed-income Americans. However, as I stated above, MW workers are such a tiny piece of the big picture, none of this really matters, nor would its effect be really measurable, unless the increase was really large. it is a Democrat talking point |
|
|
|
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.
the term "decent" is also subjective. You could use the term "competitive" but that would be associated with a market driven wage as opposed to govt mandated. |
|
|
|
What are your thoughts about the minimum wage? Is it a job killer or a way of ensuring companies pay their workers fair wages and what do you think about its effects on employment?
you conflated "minimum wage" with "fair wages", why? The term "fair" is subjective (except county fairs). To a 16 year old who greets you at the restaurant, earning $8 per hour is fair to them because they know that it's an entry-level job. Perhaps to another person with rent and a car payment they might think $20 per hour is fair. They might see no difference in why they should be paid less per hour than the nurse at the hospital. |
|
|
|
Oh...you have video of "pro-lifers" and/or "mass murdering Christians" punching out a old woman in church? Let's see it...or are you just talking our your ARSE again?
Who were sold to the slave traders by other black people in Africa.
Dr Tiller, killed in a Church while he was helping with Church service... by a pro-lifer last church mass shooting in the usa was by a Christian Conservative..... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
