SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 15 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Maybe restaurant workers getting paid a living wage would be a more meaningful show of respect to them than anything else. Or maybe, just maybe, we could tie Minimum Wage to inflation so it’d adjust on an annual basis and we could be done with all this endless political snarking. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Or maybe, just maybe, we could tie Minimum Wage to inflation so it’d adjust on an annual basis and we could be done with all this endless political snarking. Fine by me. But R’s would never agree. I assume this model starts with a living wage at the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Just now, redtail hawk said: Fine by me. But R’s would never agree. I assume this model starts with a living wage at the beginning No…it starts with a minimum wage. That’s why it’s called that! 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 Just now, SoCal Deek said: No…it starts with a minimum wage. That’s why it’s called that! 😉 The words minimum and living are not mutually exclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: Fine by me. But R’s would never agree. I assume this model starts with a living wage at the beginning Do the D's want it? Really? They've controlled all 3 houses recently. We all saw what was important to the D's, right? 2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: The words minimum and living are not mutually exclusive For HS workforce it kinda is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 15 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Only one - ONE leader in this country got Covid Sham right. He’s the most qualified to be POTUS. And everyone that was being cancelled on Twitter for saying Covid doesn’t impact kids or if you’re vaccinated you’ll still get Covid they were right to. They don’t have the humility to admit how badly they damaged the country thus should be disqualified from voting. The hubris, the arrogance, and the incompetence that led to the most grossly Un American reaction in history should serve as a warning to how dangerous these people that listened to China and the WHO immediately are to this country. Whatever you just said doesn't change the fact that you're a wanna-be commie who has demanded that the government take control of the economy to curb in inflation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 5 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Do the D's want it? Really? They've controlled all 3 houses recently. We all saw what was important to the D's, right? For HS workforce it kinda is. Agreed. There's 2 much big money in American politics. so carve out a lower wage for non head of households. It's not that difficult... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 3, 2023 Author Share Posted July 3, 2023 4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Whatever you just said doesn't change the fact that you're a wanna-be commie who has demanded that the government take control of the economy to curb in inflation. Cool story brah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 11 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Cool story brah. That was an intelligent reply. Hoax. I'm sorry that you prefer a command economy. I'm a capitalist. You're more of a commie. That's how it goes, I guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: Where has some dude been exposing his junk to children and not been charged with a crime? I don't know and I don't care because whether its happened or not isn't the point. Its where you stand on the issue of public decency. Because the point is whether or not people who will find it offensive will be told by the high priests of the social justice movement to just deal with it. You know what, I'm going to correct myself. It has happened. Men pretending to be women undressing and exposing themselves in women's locker rooms and bathrooms to women and teenage girls. In those cases the man's "rights" to prance around naked in front of women they're not intimate with is vigorously defended by the left. Edited July 3, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 56 minutes ago, redtail hawk said: The words minimum and living are not mutually exclusive Yes they are. Minimum wage is intended as a backstop for part time workers. If you’re working full time you definitely shouldn’t be working at minimum wage, unless you’re not the primary bread winner. Further, the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in any of this. Since the cost of living varies widely across the country this should be a State by State matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 On 6/30/2023 at 9:45 PM, Big Blitz said: Stop voting blue as you move to these states from your deep blue dumps Not gonna happen. People bring their political beliefs with them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 32 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Further, the Federal government shouldn’t be involved in any of this. Since the cost of living varies widely across the country this should be a State by State matter. True. Raising the federal minimum wage would have zero impact where I live, even if there weren't a state minimum wage. Labor shortages have driven starting wages well over $15/hour in just about every job out there. But raising the federal minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi would severely harm the ability of those states to attract new business, create new jobs, and get toward a place where their local labor markets drive up wages to something more like the booming parts of the country. It's time to repeal federal minimum wage laws entirely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. Raising the federal minimum wage would have zero impact where I live, even if there weren't a state minimum wage. Labor shortages have driven starting wages well over $15/hour in just about every job out there. But raising the federal minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi would severely harm the ability of those states to attract new business, create new jobs, and get toward a place where their local labor markets drive up wages to something more like the booming parts of the country. It's time to repeal federal minimum wage laws entirely. Bingo! Frank…you and I are going to run one heck of an Administration one day! 😂 (I only wish more people would get their heads out of their partisan arses.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. Raising the federal minimum wage would have zero impact where I live, even if there weren't a state minimum wage. Labor shortages have driven starting wages well over $15/hour in just about every job out there. But raising the federal minimum wage in Arkansas or Mississippi would severely harm the ability of those states to attract new business, create new jobs, and get toward a place where their local labor markets drive up wages to something more like the booming parts of the country. It's time to repeal federal minimum wage laws entirely. But what happens when unemployment rises? Guardrails are needed. Perhaps one of these models would work better: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Bingo! Frank…you and I are going to run one heck of an Administration one day! 😂 (I only wish more people would get their heads out of their partisan arses.) I see a disturbing trend of agreement on many issues ... I'll make sure to say something ultra-lefty to reset the old Crossfire dynamic. Otherwise this will get boring and PPP will be canceled. 1 minute ago, redtail hawk said: But what happens when unemployment rises? Guardrails are needed. Perhaps one of these models would work better: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp Interesting, particularly Sweden. You are correct that a stronger social welfare state in some ways allows for this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 On 7/1/2023 at 1:13 PM, BillStime said: Can you tell us more specifically what is being funded in SC? I will even help you out. South Carolina | Spending Profile | USAspending I will give you more insight: How much federal funding each state receives from the government (usatoday.com) 12. South Carolina • Net federal funding: $5,008 per resident • Total revenue from fed. gov.: $59.7 billion (23rd most) • SNAP benefit recipiency: 12.3 percent (tied - 19th highest) • Median household income: $50,570 (9th lowest) And to be fair: 48. Massachusetts • Net federal funding: -$2,343 per resident • Total revenue from fed. gov.: $78.7 billion (16th most) • SNAP benefit recipiency: 11.7 percent (25th lowest) • Median household income: $77,385 (4th highest) If the state is booming - medium household income should increase and net federal funding per resident should decrease. Correct? So, tell me, once again, why SC should continue to live off the federal government? What’s the point of this crusade? Federal funding goes through Congress. If MA needs more money, aren’t your representatives able to make their case? If they aren’t able, maybe you should get some new ones, instead of blaming everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: What’s the point of this crusade? Federal funding goes through Congress. If MA needs more money, aren’t your representatives able to make their case? If they aren’t able, maybe you should get some new ones, instead of blaming everyone else. It's not really a crusade - it's just highlighting the hypocrisy of the right biching about the "Biden" economy while select red states are "booming" and are still subsidized heavily by blue states... and people like @Big Blitzargues that blue states should continue to do so in order to keep their taxes low. BS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 3, 2023 Author Share Posted July 3, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: What’s the point of this crusade? Federal funding goes through Congress. If MA needs more money, aren’t your representatives able to make their case? If they aren’t able, maybe you should get some new ones, instead of blaming everyone else. He’s been thoroughly debunked again….shocker. And either wants to deflect, troll, play dumb, or post Trump memes - or all of those. California May work out to less a percentage a reliance on federal dollars then a red state - but it isn’t the red states fault that California off sets that with absurd state taxes and spending. That’s why his “math” is useless. Once again: When evaluating federal funding on a per-person basis, Washington, DC, stood out, receiving the most federal funding per person: Washington DC ($6,983 per person) Wyoming ($6,894 per person) Alaska ($6,495 per person) Vermont ($5,463 per person) Delaware ($4,373 per person) Using this metric, Washington DC, Wyoming, and Alaska received $1,000 more per person in federal funding than the next closest state. Georgia received the least federal funding per person, with $1,807 in 2020. Florida and Utah also had relatively lower distributions, with per-person funding of $1,937 and $1,957, respectively. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/ Edited July 3, 2023 by Big Blitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted July 3, 2023 Share Posted July 3, 2023 6 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: He’s been thoroughly debunked again….shocker. And either wants to deflect, troll, play dumb, or post Trump memes - or all of those. California May work out to less a percentage a reliance on federal dollars then a red state - but it isn’t the red states fault that California off sets that with absurd state taxes and spending. That’s why his “math” is useless. Once again: When evaluating federal funding on a per-person basis, Washington, DC, stood out, receiving the most federal funding per person: Washington DC ($6,983 per person) Wyoming ($6,894 per person) Alaska ($6,495 per person) Vermont ($5,463 per person) Delaware ($4,373 per person) Using this metric, Washington DC, Wyoming, and Alaska received $1,000 more per person in federal funding than the next closest state. Georgia received the least federal funding per person, with $1,807 in 2020. Florida and Utah also had relatively lower distributions, with per-person funding of $1,937 and $1,957, respectively. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/ Debunked? LMAO - only in your little mind. Where do you live ditz? Which state? Why are you so afraid to answer this question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts