Low wages are one of the most ANTI-FAMILY policies in American history.

[Union Yes]

Poverty rips more families apart than anything else. (Economic strife has always been at the heart of America's racist past and present.)

"Free" Markets/"Free" Trade/Union-Busting - low wage enablers. All represent what ANTI-FAMILY policy is all about.

Killing middle class livlihoods and driving us back to pre-union wages with little or no benefits.

Why is the GOP so ANTI-FAMILY? Why are conservadems/DLCGOP'ers so ANTI-FAMILY?

What did the people do to deserve this anti-family wrath of conservative politicians?

Their unspoken answer:

We earned a fair wage for a fair day's work and fed our families.

Serf's ain't supposed to earn a decent wage according to the Bilderberg/Trilateral/GOPLC/GOP/SKULLS/CORPORATE lot of economic Fascists.

Corporate Persons hate paying real persons.

Low wages tax us more.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Most marriages I seen break up weren't because of money

It was because of the lack of money.

Don

[Loge23]

2. The REAL "transfer of wealth"

The right rabble screams about the transfer of wealth as if being taxed a little more on their supporters gazillion dollar salaries will make a difference to them.
Your post outlines the true transfer of wealth in the last couple of decades.
Their objective has always been clear: to destroy the unions and increase their profits.
It's not only wages either. It's benefits as well: health insurance, time off, working conditions, etc., that have eroded as the rich have gotten richer.

[dmallind]

3. Quick questions

Forgetting global competition for a moment - let's make this unrealistically simple and assume the US operates in an economic vaccuum.

Let's pretend that tomorrow the minimum wage is increased to $20/hr and everybody else's earnings are indexed from that. So if you make 4 times minimum wage today or about $29 an hour you would make $80/hr tomorrow.

What do you think would happen? A year from now would all workers be almost 3 times better off in real terms than they are now? Why or why not?

[NNN0LHI]

31. We just found out what would happen after everyone's wages went DOWN didn't we?

Don't need to pretend what would happen with that one do we?

We just seen the result first hand. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class disappeared. Now all we have is two classes. The wealthy and the poor.

And just bringing up wages is BS anyway. What about all the other benefits that workers used to have and don't any more like seniority, job security, decent working conditions and time off the job. Can't put a price on that kind of thing. But no one is going to get those kinds of things without belonging to a union unless they are related to the boss.

Don

[dmallind]

33. So - any ideas then on what would happen with raised wages since that's what I asked? NT

[NNN0LHI]

34. The rich will not get as rich and the poor won't get as poor

I thought I explained that in my above post.

Perhaps I should have been clearer?

Don

[dmallind]

37. Why?

If everyone had many times more money you don't thrink prices wiould go up? You don't think that goods produced by people making $20 an hour will cost more to buy than goods made by those making $7?

Real income is much more important than nominal income. Those middle-class single earner factory jobs in the 70s paid only a few thousand a year - an absolutely horrendous nominal income today, but made liveable by lower prices. If people can see that distinction between real and nominal why is there a problem extrapolating that out to what real income would be if everyone instantly made three or four times as much.

Why would the rich not get richer by the way? What is rich to you now? Where would you stop this wage multiplication idea?

If minimum wage is $7.25 now and you want to make it $21.75 (makes the math easy) for example - do you think the guy making $12 an hour supervising minimum wage people would do the job for $12 any more? Or should he triple too and make $36? Now what about the IT guy making $25 now? Does he make less than a front line supervisor without his specialized skill set and education? Why would he not just take a simpler job requiring fewer continuing classes and on call days and make more? So we have to pay him more right?

So when do we stop paying people more? A $50K accountant who could make $60K now as a clerical worker because you tripled his pay?
A $75K engineer who could make $90K now as a maintenance tech becuase you tripled her pay? A $100K IT manager who can make $150K as a sysadmin because you just tripled his pay?

Everybody really works for real income not nominal, and every job that requires more skill or ability or education will need to be compensated with more real income or they will simply do lower level jobs for more real income.

And all the time inflation will keep going up and up to eat up all and more of that massive nominal increase you just gave everyone trying to make them less poor.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Because I think we are talking about two different things here

You were talking about the 20 something dollar an hour worker getting more money and I am talking about the multi-million dollar a year CEO with his golden parachutes getting less. Much less.

Get that CEO's wages a little closer to the workers wages and give more to the workers is what I am saying. I don't see any downside to that.

Don

[dmallind]

40. So just the $MMM earners make less.?

So 99.99%+ mget much more money? Same problem then - real incomes won't change - inflation will keep up, driven both by cost from the new wage rate and the pressure of more money chasing equal goods. Paying people three times as much will no more change their long term real income than paying them in old Italian lire and saying they are millionaires.

[pansypoo53219]

4. even china gets it.

creating a middle class so THEY can buy their crap.

[Union Yes]

5. When wealth is fairly spread out among the workers of a nation..

it creates a nation with economic strength. When all people have access to wealth through work, they also earn very solid purchase power that drives a national economy. Also, a strong safety net- to protect the disabled, unemployed, job re-training programs, strong public education, health care etc.

Not saying modern day China has all of the above. Just saying, the above is a prescription for a successful national economy. It works well in Sweden, Norway and so many other nations.

:fistbump:

[Brickbat]

6. Union-busting, sacrificing jobs for a climbing Dow, and the sanctification of profit

are all economic terrorism in my book.

[bvar22]

7. K&R

All Hail The Giant Invisible Hand!
The Giant Invisible Hand will save us all!
The Giant Invisible Hand is benevolent!
The Giant Invisible Hand demands that we sacrifice the Working Class!
Must NOT make The Giant Invisible Hand angry!
All Hail The Giant Invisible Hand!

And people say the Democrats are Anti-Religion.
"Free Markets/Free Trade" IS a religion requiring dogmatic belief in an invisible deity.


Bad News:
There is NO Giant Invisible Hand of the Marketplace.
There is NO such thing as "Free Markets".
The RICH (Corporate Owners) made that shit up and sold it to a gullible America using their bought Politicians as the Front Men.
Capital will ALWAYS outrun LABOR, Environment, and Human Rights.

Do NOT trust ANY politician (Democrat or Republican) who espouses belief in the "Free Markets" or "Free Trade".
He/She is NOT on your side if you Work for a Living.

[laughingliberal]

17. +10,000. "He/She is not on your side if you work for a living." eom

[Union Yes]

28. Great post.

So correct. I do not trust any 'free' marketers/FT'ers and never will ever again.

Economic Fascists should be marginalized!

:fistbump:

[xchrom]

8. Recommend - it is a matter of social justice. Nt

[Union Yes]

9. So very true. Economic justice is social justice.

:fistbump:

[Selatius]

10. Erasing labor history from American history textbooks is also anti-family.

Because it belittles the efforts of hardworking family people to earn a living wage to support their families and to make a living in a dignified manner.

[Union Yes]

12. Removing labor history and the struggles of organizing irks me to hell.

It's a travesty that needs to end. Labor is as important a part of our history as almost any topic.

Thanks for pointing that out!

:fistbump:

[KillCapitalism]

11. One thing that irks me about conservatives...

is the way they demonize social welfare programs.

Well dumbasses, welfare could nearly be eliminated when people have jobs & make good middle class wages.

[laughingliberal]

19. Pretty much everything irks me about them. You make a good point. nt

[Dems to Win]

13. I agree. That's why I'm adamantly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants

It's not that I don't have compassion for foreign nationals, it's not that I don't think they are good people. It's that I want living wage jobs in this country, for American and legal resident workers.

Illegal immigration is not the only factor that has driven down wages, but it is one factor. We can't have another amnesty, like 1986, without encouraging more illegal immigration, as the 1986 amnesty did. We must say no to amnesty.

[laughingliberal]

20. I don't think a path to citizenship is 'amnesty' but it is the TP the RW is pushing right now. nt

[S n o w b a l l]

14. I received a call from a temp agency the other day...

basically looking for free advertising for construction jobs. She said they don't have enough applicants because people would rather be on unemployment than working.

I asked her how much they paid...$8/hr. For hard manual labor. When I told her that's exactly why, she said, "oh, but there's lots of overtime involved. One guy worked 80 hrs last week." That would be $12/hr for working your ass off to barely feed a family that you never see. Pitiful.

[laughingliberal]

21. $8/hr for back breaking construction work? That's disgusting! nt

[Raineyb]

36. Let me guess, it never occurred to them that they'd ge more takers if they

raised the wages. 80 hours a week? Assuming a 6 day work week that's over 13 hours a day on average. Back breaking work at that. So this poor dude is working 40 hours at a mere 8 bucks a week before getting that 12 dollars an hour. And this bint doesn't understand why they're not getting enough applicants?

This is the future that the rich envision, people who are so desperate that they'll take ANY job no matter how low the wages just to have something to take home to their families. Of course if you're working 80 hours a week you're not actually seeing your family but I guess things like a bit of leisure and family time is only deserved by their class in these people's thinking.

Absolutely disgusting. And she was looking for free advertising too? The nerve!

[Union Yes]

39. Prime example of how far we've fallen as a nation. Thanks for adding. nt

[proudohioan]

42. I'm truly glad to hear that!

It's about time we started saying 'NO' to employers taking advantage of this shitty economy to pay piss poor wages with absolutely no perks or bennies whatsoever!

Let's remember that we, too, need to stay 'flexible' and 'competitive' for ourselves and our families! That, my friendly employer, is business, and it's a two-way street!

I made that awful mistake myself once, and I will NEVER do it again!

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

16. A-fucking-men!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[Overseas]

18. K&R ! //nt

[laughingliberal]

22. Wish I had a million recs to give for this. nt

[proudohioan]

23. Yes, spread the word, Union Yes!

Good job, it needs to be put out there! I have been trying to do my part, too!

:yourock:

[Union Yes]

29. Thanks! Good vibes your way.

:fistbump:

:hi:

[bobbolink]

24. Why are you only targetting the GOP? Do you really not know that the Dems are doing the same thing?

Do you not know that it was Clinton who brought us NAFTA, GAFTA, and those lovelies?

Do you not know that it was Obama who cut the COLA for SS recipients for the first time in 30 years?

Do you not know that it is the Obama administration that is apparently targetting disability persons now?

Have you not read this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8421970

If I die from being cut from disability, I will be just as dead as I would have been if it had happened under *.

Does that matter to you?

[SocialistLez]

41. +1 NT

[Libertyfirst]

25. 15,000 to 19,000 votes per day in support of this posting.

[OnionPatch]

26. It really is a matter of morality.

It's simply immoral to expect someone to work for you for less than a living wage, family or no. But as long as everyone believes it's an acceptable and expected business practice, things won't change much. Business will always be angling for the cheapest labor possible until our society evolves to understand how immoral it is and demands a change. It's going to take a collective mindset to really stop unfair labor practices. Someday our society will look back on this the same way we currently look back on the 7-day workweek, child labor and slavery.... but we sure ain't there yet.

[Union Yes]

27. Yes- economic justice is a moral issue!

:fistbump:

[reggie the dog]

30. You say something that is not possible for gen X and the mellenials

"We earned a fair wage for a fair day's work and fed our families."

Never will I be able to say that. We need 2 salaries now. In my parents generation 1 salary was enough to be middle class.

[Union Yes]

35. Young adults entering today's workforce sadly don't know what I'm talking about..

when I say "We earned a fair wage."

That simply has to change.

Soon we'll say "Remember, the middle class?"
Again, that has to change.

Thanks for adding!

:fistbump:

[Klukie]

32. A big giant Recommend!!!

and a kick