Jump to content

So cons don't like Living wages? Not very Conservative of you!


Recommended Posts

Seems your daddy Adam Smith endorsed the living wage, so I guess these cons here are just Wanta-be Capitalists, lying to themselves and lacking the real convictions to be who they want to be. So either Adam was lying to himself, or these cons are lying to themselves.

 

Book I: On the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers. On Labour, and on the Order According to Which its' Produce is Naturally Distributed Among the Different Ranks of the People. Adam Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Wages of Labour

But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.

 

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

 

There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right got it...if a guy who is a conservative somewhere decides to endorse what you consider a living wage [also known as extortion] then all conservatives must follow suite because well....you said so.

 

Step 1: Find a blunt object no more than two feet long and 3 inches across

 

Step 2: Hit yourself with it.

 

step 3: Repeat step 2

 

Oh, so the very foundation of conservatism is WRONG! I know it is, and now you know it is!! lol!! These cons are so easy!!

None of what you put in the post (I did not look at the link) says anything about a single employer needing to pay a livable wage. If a man must work more than one job to make enough to survive, then that's what he must do.

I just highlighted Adam Smith's words for you. Are you the blind guy on the corner with the tin cup, that might excuse reading ability, but sure ignorance is an unforgivable flaw. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya don't address my point just come up with a red herring about your so called "Foundation of conservatism". If I showed you what liberals used to believe you would think they were conservatives. I am supposed to care about Adam Smith's words? Why? He is some great leader to me for some reason? I am supposed to blindly follow everything he says? I am not allowed to judge the information available to me on a case by case idea by idea basis? If I agree with most of what he said I can't disagree with some of what he said? Where do you get this rule book from? If I showed you a liberal who said "The best course of economic policy is to have completely unregulated markets" You would just follow that blindly because he also said things you do agree with?

 

What the crap is wrong with you guy?

 

Didn't I tell you to get a blunt object? Why the hell you still typing aren't you supposed to be doing what other people tell you to do like a good little progressive?

Hmm the whole world follows natural order backed by scientific study's, but you have to be the off ball I referred to in the OP, who lacks any convictions and stands for nothing. Adam Smith is the founder of capitalism you love to espouse about, so you are saying what you say is just BS, and you don't stand by any principles. That's fine, I will know not to take you serious in the future. lol! 1+1 no longer means 2 when talking to you. Got it!

 

As to a blunt object, that is my dick up your red bleeding asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just highlighted Adam Smith's words for you. Are you the blind guy on the corner with the tin cup, that might excuse reading ability, but sure ignorance is an unforgivable flaw. :lol:

What ignorance? Show me where Adam Smith says all a man's wages must come from a single job/career.

Who wants you to survive off one job. go get three jobs. even though you can't find one.

There are 3-4 newspaper pages of jobs everyday in the paper where I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a living wage?

A means of maintaining life; livelihood ~ So a wage that maintains life. Let Adam Smith explain it to you.

 

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

 

There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity.

http://www.marxists....book01/ch08.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ignorance? Show me where Adam Smith says all a man's wages must come from a single job/career.

 

There are 3-4 newspaper pages of jobs everyday in the paper where I am.

Where does Adam Smith say a man should work more than one job? Stop playing the fool, you don't believe what he says anyway!! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems your daddy Adam Smith endorsed the living wage, so I guess these cons here are just Wanta-be Capitalists, lying to themselves and lacking the real convictions to be who they want to be. So either Adam was lying to himself, or these cons are lying to themselves.

 

Book I: On the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers. On Labour, and on the Order According to Which its' Produce is Naturally Distributed Among the Different Ranks of the People. Adam Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Wages of Labour

But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.

 

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

 

There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch08.htm

Good find!

 

Domestic businesses must realize that their survival depends upon "net disposabale income" of working people. When people dont have the money to spend beyond rent, mortgage and basics, they will have to close up shop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shintao, on 04 Feb 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

Hmm the whole world follows natural order backed by scientific study's, but you have to be the off ball I referred to in the OP, who lacks any convictions and stands for nothing. Adam Smith is the founder of capitalism you love to espouse about, so you are saying what you say is just BS, and you don't stand by any principles. That's fine, I will know not to take you serious in the future. lol! 1+1 no longer means 2 when talking to you. Got it!

 

As to a blunt object, that is my dick up your red bleeding asshole.

 

 

Retard.. There are some F'd up liberals on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A means of maintaining life; livelihood ~ So a wage that maintains life. Let Adam Smith explain it to you.

 

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

 

There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity.

http://www.marxists....book01/ch08.htm

 

 

Adams wasn't speaking to the career McDonalds worker. More of the Obama philosophy. My dad did whatever it took to get through Med school and sometimes that meant barely even seeing his wife for weeks at a time. Any open or available side work he did it. It's called sacrifice dip shit. You do what is necessary to obatain goals and a better position in life, libers should try it sometime instead of complaining someone is not paying you enough to flip a burger. It's a wonder some of you libers ever made it out of diapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems your daddy Adam Smith endorsed the living wage, so I guess these cons here are just Wanta-be Capitalists, lying to themselves and lacking the real convictions to be who they want to be. So either Adam was lying to himself, or these cons are lying to themselves.

 

sure Smith is for a living wage - it keeps capitalism self perpetuating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked two jobs for many years. All of the money from my second job was saved. This money allowed me to purchase income property. I paid %50 down payment for my first property. Rent from the first property paid the mortgage with some money left over. This money was saved and more rental property was purchased. Now I am retired, the properties are paid for, and the rents go to me. As with all Dem. schemes a minimum wage kills jobs and raises prices. The minimum wage increase only effects %.01 of the workers. Tell the workers laid off because of a raise in the minimum wage they should be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does Adam Smith say a man should work more than one job? Stop playing the fool, you don't believe what he says anyway!! lol

 

Flipping burgers and sacking groceries are not a CAREER..... They are means to an ends jobs.

 

We provide free edumacation through high school and many have acces to trade schools, free meals etc. HISD in now handing out free laptops etc. to help prep youngsters to enter the workforce.

 

To say an unskilled worker should make enough to pay for his individual housing, all his meals, medical, retirement and throw in a few kids to boot and hew would not be able to afford the burger he is flipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your dumbass is back? Great

"So cons don't like Living wages?"

 

Obamacare is knocking people out of the job market...not to mention all the part time job it has created in place of full time jobs.

 

"The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a "disincentive for people to work," adding fuel to Republican arguments that the law will hurt the economy."

 

 

"Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But more and more Americans have to take jobs that are below their skill level because jobs have been lost to unfair competition.

Bagging groceries might be the only job you can find.

 

But it is not a career..... It is a stop gap to make the rent or pay a bill.... Might have to work two jobs etc.

 

Unfair competition? Would you be upset if a university brings in some hot shot Chem / Calc "prof" from China or india and ignores the local weed smoking nare do well grad student from the good ole usa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...