Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Insist on a living wage and not a minimum wage

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 8:24 a.m. EST by thezencarpenter (131)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

My comment is directed at the issue which is central to the conflict between the 1% and the 99%, and that is "JOBS" and the need for a realistic living wage. It is absurd to think that a person could "live on a wage of $10.00/$15.00 per hour when you ad up all the living expenses that a person has to pay each month such as housing, transportation, food, clothing, fuel, car ins., etc..,as well as health care costs, a retirement plan. And why should they have to? The greed that has infected our society the past several decades has brainwashed some people (I will call them the 1% wannabes) to think we should all do without the basic needs of a decent way of life. This is the problem. Prosperity for all is a better solution than poverty for all to this economic problem. the phrase "The working poor" needs to be seen as an oxy-moron, working should not make you poor, how ridiculous. The numbers in the discussion for a living wage are so unrealistic it shows how out of touch the decision makers are. A family of 4 needs more than $38000 a year minimally, and that is to live in the poorest nighborhoods, drive used cars and skimp on groceries. It covers only insurance required by law, and presumes these people do not get sick, don't deserve any entertainment, and will never establish a rainy day fund. This form of economic oppression is what is fueling our 'recession' directly into depression. Who has a plan for a strong economy that doesn't include good paying jobs? We will not have a strong economy if we do not have a buying public that does not have to rely on predatory lending practices to participate in it. What is it that makes that so hard to understand? The answer of course is GREED. These unethical people that make up the 1% and the 1% wannabes that support their philosophy have created this predatory system and they simply don't care about anyone but themselves. Although, to be fair, there are many members of the 99% that are are just as guilty of buying into the "Greed is good" mentality by ignoring the need for a living wage in their daily transactions. Thanks for reading and good luck to all the talented and hard working people that are sacrificing during these desperate times.

174 Comments

174 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23059) 7 years ago

We should still be pushing for a living wage.

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 7 years ago

Yes but you also need a living economic system so it does'nt spirial out of control.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23059) 7 years ago

We need a new economic system that works for all people, not just greedy corporations and the wealthy. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Why are wages decreasing? Because capitalism, not regulated properly, allows that.

[-] 2 points by 1169 (204) 7 years ago

I'm with you BW we got a mess here. No more dem, repub, indep, lib, conser, gay strai, mid, class divide and conqure tatics. You youngsters are getting this world, don't give up! CHANGE is the only way. I don't know how, but I'm on your side.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23059) 7 years ago

We need to keep pushing, keep saying things that people have never heard of or thought of before. Like the idea that becoming wealthy is not the be all end all of life. That maybe living in a society where everyone has enough would be much more pleasant than living in a society where a tiny few do extremely well at the expense of everyone else who sits back on the sidelines stupidly worshiping them.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

Everyone should be able to make a decent living. There is no just reason to have anyone sleep on the street or starve. I don't really care how it's done, i have some idea's how it could be done. But any way is fine really. As long as we stop making people suffer.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

if everyone were paid equally ,

we all receive more than $100,000/ year

[-] 1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

insist on a living wage from who?

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

There are several ways to organize society in a way that every one has there basic human needs met. First people will have to start agreeing that we shouldn't leave people out to suffer and even die if we can prevent it.

I'm sure you don't want people to suffer, right?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

ofcourse, no one should have to die

[-] -2 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

you're being overly dramatic.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

got plenty over 40 without a good paying jobs

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Everyone you deal with on a daily basis, try to buy local products and services and pay what they are worth to you based on the knowledge that that individual or company has value. In other words don't be greedy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

I love shopping for groceries

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

I agree. There is also no reason to have to walk across town when there are thousands of parked cars not being used. These are problems that should not exist in today's societies. We are smart and able to solve complex problems, why not these? Like you, I don't really care how it happens, but it must happen. It must. "Oh mother, why is the world so?"

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

noone is starving here - plenty of welfare. how about getting some skills?

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 8 years ago

I think Obama just said that "No one is starving here, Americans are lazy" Skills are only useful if there is a place to utilize them.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

what are your skills onemoe?

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 8 years ago

Graphics, computer, electrical, manufacturing, construction, and equipment operating what are yours?

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

I work in a bank.. Formerly a carpenter. so a wide variety of skills. Can you drill down on one specific area?

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

How often do you really hear of people starving in the US? If anything, poor people are usually more obese.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

Yes sure. And no-one is kicked out of their house either i guess. Hell lets just pretend poverty doesn't exist at all.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

There is definitely poverty. But people rarely, if ever, starve to death in the US. The poor in the US should consider themselves lucky that they are in the US.

[-] 2 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

I'm not quite sure why you focus on that. My point is that everyone should be able to have a decent life. By arguing the details of the suffering doesn't help us ahead much. People are suffering while it is preventable.

Btw, you focus on the US. While i think the whole world ought to be more fair. It's about time we humans become a civilized specie.

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Your points are very good, and you are right that Mooks is sailing off topic by arguing about the details of the lives of the poor. With today's technology, with today's knowledge, it shouldn't be like this. As people are attempting to find the Higgs Boson in wonderfully constructed particle accelerators, others should be figuring out how to make it so that everybody can live a decent life. Being poor is not just about having no food, it's also about the everyday stress of finding that food and staying healthy. These people can often survive, but the stress often causes them to have mental problems, problems which they cannot find help for so easily.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Obese and malnourished -- I do not consider them to be fortunate.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Compared to the poor people from most other societies on Earth you don't consider America's poor to be fortunate? Seriously? You must not realize the suffering people are going through all over the world.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Actually, if I were poor I would rather live where I am now in Indonesia. The climate is always nice, it's easy to find fruits in trees, you can always bath in the ocean and sleep outside. You can also construct a simple house with banana leaves, you just have to make sure that rain doesn't come it. It's much easier than trying to survive in a capitalist engine when you have no funds.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Poor people here get an apartment complete with a roof. They can bath in an actual bathtub and can have fruit (though in reality it is Doritos and soda) for free at the grocery store. And they also often have flat screen tvs with cable, computers with internet, and cell phones. Many even have cars.

If you think that living in a banana leave hut and bathing in the ocean is better than the above, then by all means stay in Indonesia.

Oh and the Indonesian stock market is up about 250% just since March 2009. Now that is a capitalist engine.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

There isn't enough of that wonderful public housing to go around.

You make it sound like someone can just go ask for an apartment and will be given one. There are long waiting lists for section 8 & traditional public housing apartments and they aren't free anyway, even welfare people pay rent.

We still have thousands of people in homeless shelters, thousands doubling and tripling up with relatives (somtimes in violation of leases, risking homelessness for the entire family) According to habitat for humanity:

"In the United States alone, 95 million people have housing problems That’s one third of the nation. These problems include payments too large a percentage of their income, overcrowding, poor quality shelter and homelessness."

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

So you would rather be a poor person in Indonesia than in the US? I realize that many people have it tough here but the poster I was replying to stated that he would rather be a poor person in Indonesia. I have my doubts that it is better to be poor in a third world country than in the US.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

The above-mentioned "luxuries" are only being provided so that they can be further weakened, appeased, and able to provide labor when needed. Let's talk quality of life -- health, education, and decent housing.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I don't understand what you mean. I would think they would be more likely to be weakened being left in the elements to starve to death.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Are you unable to follow the ideas in the discussion? Nobody ever challenged the fact Indonesia wasn't a capitalist country. Please take a moment to reread what has been said.

Also, a dictionary might help. The singular of leaves is not leave. If English is your second language, I suggest you follow online lessons or use the Spanish forum for Occupy.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

So you still think it is better to be poor in the Indonesia than in the US?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Yes. Very much so.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Then please make this opinion more well known. I would gladly help the poor of the US start a mass exodus to Indonesia and other developing nations in tropical climates. Just let me know what I can do to help.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

A lot of people are already doing it. It costs me $3000 a year to live here, and I rent a 4 bedroom house, drive a motorbike everyday, and smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. The smokes alone would cost me more than $3000 dollars a year in Canada. If I had $100,000 dollars in the Bank, I would retire today at the age of 35.

[-] -2 points by Chihare (-2) 8 years ago

Yes, USA is so horrible; better to live in the jungle like a monkey.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Jungle is not everywhere, and if you are poor, it's much easier to live in Indonesia than US. There are not too many homeless people here, simply because they take a piece of land and build a simple house. Another advantage of Indonesia is that people are very social and culture is formed around community living. Everyone helps each other. Iv'e seen communities help the poor to build their houses on land they did not own. Nobody cares really, as long as each person can live an acceptable life. I used to have a really poor neighbor who plugged his electricity on my house. I didn't mind. He helped clean around the yard and often picked fruits in the trees for me. It's not easy climbing 50 feet on a tree without branches to get a fresh coconut. But, he would.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 8 years ago

You must live on a farm.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

prove you are worth it & I'll give you a raise. I E. that means you can demonstrate you are more productive than the person working beside you.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

I don't need a raise. I'm fine with what i have. But i do care about all those people who are not fine. It saddens me to see fellow humans suffer while there is no need for it what so ever.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

and the federal government is the savior? they are the cause of the desperation in the first place.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

I'm not putting hope in any group or person to be our savior. Don't put words in my mouth please.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

so give to the charity of your choice, pay someones rent - just don't impose your values on me by using force.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

What the hell are you talking about. No one is forcing you to do anything. Your precious little life is not at risk from my value's

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

social security = force. can I opt out for my own retirement & disability insurance? no. public schools the most divisive use of government force. I cannot use my school taxes to choose a school for my children via a voucher program. Only unless I can afford to pay for both. So again - it favors the rich while the rest of us are forced to go to the government school where they can indoctrinate our kids with anything they want. Medical Insurance takeover attempt - we'll see about that in a few days.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Of course ! Government is enforcing the agreed upon rules, laws, and polices of the land. Do you not believe in a land of laws? Are you suggesting everyone should just be allowed to make up their own rules? That would be anarchy. Are you an anarchist? Should we also get rid of the traffic lights that force you to stop at intersections?

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

social security is unconstitutional so it is a bogus law implemented by force. Free to choose is not anarchy

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. A government by nature forces everyone to follow the laws of the land. If you are successful and get the law changed, you will in effect be forcing others to follow the rules you want. It cuts both ways. So if you want no one to be forced to do anything, then you must not want any government. Therefore, you sound very anarchist in nature.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

stick with the constitution & you cant go wrong. Anarchy is Occupy Oakland.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

'Libertarianism supports small government, free markets'

Hey hell. Let's start with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throw it right out. We don't need no stinkin' regulation of capitalism. We'll put our kids to work as wage slaves to compete with China and clean their clock. Free market baby!! Yeah!! Whoo -hoo!! Internet forum high five to ya'!!

Now that's what I call some good ole' right wing neo-liberal economic policy. Which is 'this close' to Libertarianism. Which is 'this close' to anarcho-capitalism!

Tell me more anarcho-capitalism loverboy! Which capitalism regulation should we get rid of next? Let's dream big! The EPA? Because corporations are angels and wouldn't dream of polluting the land or water. Oh yeah. Small government baby!! Wait I know!! Let's get rid of all those pesky banking regulations. Because it was banking regulations that CAUSED the financial crisis. Not the lack there of , right? Now we're talkin'! Right anarcho-capitalism lover boy!

I just love the smell of anarcho-capitalism in the morning!

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

If you want to do unskilled labor & compete with a 7 year old in China then you deserve the same standard of living as they have. As far as the Chinese being wage slaves - what were they doing before American industry went there? They were starving! There standard of living is rapidly on the rise - and yours - for lack of improving your skills - is going down. Get some skills and move up if you want more $$$ . You cant expect to be propped up & subsidized your whole life.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

yea exactly. and when your kids get some skills maybe they can earn more. but as long as they produce the same as a Chinese child why should they get paid more? The fact that they cant - is a testament to your poor parenting.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

Now we're getting somewhere anarcho-capitalist loverboy. What age should we put our kids to work. 7, 8 maybe? They can sew apparel at that age right? At what price can we undercut the Chinese. $1/day? What's the prevailing slave wage rate in China for kids working in sweat shops? I think we'll clean up at buck a day!! Imagine the manufacturing that would move back to the US!! Outstanding idea anarcho-capitalist loverboy!

'The fact that they cant - is a testament to your poor parenting'. No. The problem is the Fair Labor Standards Act! We need to get rid of that. And all other regulation!! Free market! Yeah baby! Whoot-whoot!!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

You keep mentioning the constitution. Where is the part about 'force' in the constitution?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Reply to geo. As there is not an available reply button on your comment.

I agree with your comment except I believe you meant to say chaos and not anarchy.


Chaos | Define Chaos at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. 2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases. 3. the infinity of ...


[-] 5 points by geo (1867) from Concord, NC 15 hours ago

A small federal government means the states have the right to undo all the standardization that has taken place.... that is a form of anarchy. Throw in free market principles and the states will sell out whatever standards they did have to the highest bidder.

Want lax environmental standards? Sure come to my state we eliminated almost all of them to bring in business. Its what happened to the Usury laws that protected consumers. The states crumbled one by one and repealed them, allowing banks to promote Credit Cards and other debt based instruments that directly attacked consumer savings. Our change to a consumer based society can be traced to the states fucking up and selling out..... a race to the bottom is what you get.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

It can be hard not to fall victim to years and years and years of indoctrination/propaganda. It is sneaky and insidious to say the least.


[-] 1 points by geo (1867) from Concord, NC 2 minutes ago

Old habits are hard to break. You are correct. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Old habits are hard to break. You are correct.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

where is the part about redistributing other peoples wealth? Thats the whole point - there is no part about use of force in the constitution. yet the govt exercises force constantly. we haven't been a country governed by the constitution since Lincoln threw it out the window. So - I guess you are happy living under tyranny.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

I'm happy having uniform clean water standards, clean air, toxic free soil to build my house on and have my kids play on.... standards for medication, food, and vehicle safety.

God Bless Lincoln.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Like I said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I agree the government is authoritarian in nature. It is designed to enforce the laws of the land. I'm trying to understand your views, which have some anarchist tones to them. Are you libertarian? What check is their against the power of individual tyranny in a free market?

[-] -3 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

Libertarianism supports small government, free markets & the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution. Force or coercion should never be used. How is that Anarchy? Occupy violent demonstrations - that's anarchy

[-] 7 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

A small federal government means the states have the right to undo all the standardization that has taken place.... that is a form of anarchy. Throw in free market principles and the states will sell out whatever standards they did have to the highest bidder.

Want lax environmental standards? Sure come to my state we eliminated almost all of them to bring in business. Its what happened to the Usury laws that protected consumers. The states crumbled one by one and repealed them, allowing banks to promote Credit Cards and other debt based instruments that directly attacked consumer savings. Our change to a consumer based society can be traced to the states fucking up and selling out..... a race to the bottom is what you get.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

The very definition of anarchy is a society free of all force and coercion. Libertarianism is just a short hop away from anarchy.

There ya go anarcho-capitalist loverboy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

YOU MAKE NO SENSE !!!!!

You can't support government and then turn around and whine like a baby when the government forces you to do something.

IT MAKES NO SENSE !!!!!

[-] -3 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

if you want to see anarchy just look at occupy oakland.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

And that should make the powers that be shake in their boots. It's time for them to start doing the right thing... listening to their constituents rather then special interests.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Why don't you describe it to me? What is the difference between anarchy in occupy Oakland and libertarianism? Also, I would still like to know what is the check against the power of individual tyranny in a free market?

[-] 3 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

lol seriously? It favors the rich? The distorted system you live in now is what favors the rich. And not the small rich either but only the super rich are the ones who really benefit.

Social security is a lot more affordable and of much higher quality for everyone then what you can possibly get in the form of insurance. Just look up the data between countries that have and that do not have social security. So you are worried you are forced to pay less and get more? Strange fears you have mate.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

did you ever do the math on what you'd have saved if you saved 15% of every penny you ever earned say till 60 years old? I did. @ an average 5% return I'd have 1.5 million. The govt isn't even giving you the interest back never mind confiscating the principal. Soc Sec is most discriminatory to blacks - as they have a much lower life expectancy & dont live to collect. a massive redistribution from blacks to middle & upper class whites.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

Just the fact that there is a difference in life expectancy is should be worry enough. That's alone should be reason enough to fight the inequality that the current system perpetuate.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

what are you proposing?

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

Thanks for asking. Personally i think that we are in a time in human history where we have the technology to ensure well-being of everyone on this little globe. So i propose that we start harvesting that potential for the benefit of humanity instead of profit. And that starts by people realizing that the current course is not the only one and wanting to change it.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

platitudes with nothing specific. figures,

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

Not much point in me going into a lot of details about my personal view if you don't even agree yet that change is needed.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

We have no interests in handouts. All Americans want is fair pay for hard work. The corpoRAT concentrations of economic wealth fostered (allowed, enabled, encouraged) illegal immigration specifically to undercut the minimum wage (it was no accident) -- and politicians and law enforcement looked the other way. The corpoRATS want a labor force of the desperately poor willing to work for crumbs.

CorpoRATS: unAmerican scum who hate the American way of life, a widespread middle class.

[-] 0 points by screwtheman (122) 8 years ago

OWS is made up of a lot of people looking for a handout

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Only so they can continue manning the barricades. This is the second American Revolution, get used to it.

Besides, if a middle class jobs economy started up again, the demos would be over. Actually the banksters and corpoRATS way overplayed their hands. Things were really going their way, they were at the top. Then they wanted more. Not only did they have win, everybody else had to lose. The morons roused the sleeping bear, the enraged populace.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

"We have no interests in handouts. All Americans want is fair pay for hard work."

I believe that is true of some people, but by no means all. I deal with poor people on a fairly regular basis and a good amount of them are perfectly content living off their meager handouts.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

I was talking about the majority, the now disappearing middle class. But I'm sure what you say is true. We need a safety net that doesn't sap initiative and self-responsibility. Maybe a well designed workfare program.

[-] 0 points by GODFATHERRNC (9) from Manitou Springs, CO 8 years ago

Some yes but we also have a big problem do the math on someone with a family of 4 like myself me and my wife work at The same place 40hrs a week we make $11 a hr so just over geting any help now I could not take a hand out its not in me i could not live off welfair how ever I did the math if me and my wife where to leave our jobs and go on welfair we would have more money then we do now when you add in we would get foodstams,rent help,medacad,welfair cheek and all the other help out their this should prove that something has got to change with the wage pepole are payed it is wrong that i could sit on my ass at home and live a better life then i do now working my ass off to make bills

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

This is a horrible reality. We need an economy structured for jobs, not greed. A small business economy perhaps -- protection from downward wage competition (that comes from the fraud 'free trade') -- millionaire not billionaire business owners.

[-] 1 points by JoeSteel (58) 8 years ago

Then go ahead and do il. I'm making the same money now that I was in 2001 before I earned my B.S. degree. But I don't blame other poor people for my low wages, I blame the businesses I've worked for who do not provide a decent wage or decent hours or benefits or sick days or heaven forbid, a raise!

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

what's your major? what do you do?

[-] 1 points by JoeSteel (58) 8 years ago

Education, and I'm a printer. I work for a company that dropped a whole lot of employees after 2008 so what I do differs from day to day.

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 8 years ago

I agree that you cant live on minimum wage...voice of experience.... Anita Perry (married to rick) said that is the kind of job americans are hungry for. I propose she and rick be forced to try it for two years and then re- evaluate the statement... Love these well off folks who seem to believe we should be thankful for crumbs...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 7 years ago

True, "we will not have a strong economy if we do not have a buying public that does not have to rely on predatory lending practices to participate in it", so we need a new constitution for new times, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 7 years ago

Living wage is on Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's policy platform, which is partly why I support her. That along with Single Payer Healthcare, Tuition-free College Education (big one for me), Nationalizing the Fed, heavy emphasis on Alternative Energies, etc.

She has no shot to win, but she doesn't have to. If she gets enough support even pre-election, the platform gets the attention it deserves. This tactic has a long history of influencing public policy in subsequent years! Slavery, women's rights, child labor -- all pushed by third parties initially! Other examples: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politicalsystem/a/thirdparties.htm

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 7 years ago

The accelerated work week would raise equilibrium wages. For historical evidence of this see http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/slack-attack/

For evidence that we don't need to specifically create manufacturing jobs, see http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/were-not-all-rocket-scientists/ and http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/rocket-scientists-part-2/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

DKAtoday (9205) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 week ago

With a living wage. More people will be able to afford to go out. Cost can be made up in increased customer volume. That is how profits were made in the good old days. Selling value/quality goods at good market prices to sell much to many making profit off of volume while giving good customer service to enhance return customers.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/raise-the-minimum-wage-to-10-an-hour/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

food stamps for everyone

[-] 1 points by theman (44) 8 years ago

I love carrying my inflated money around in a wheelbarrow

[-] 1 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

To thank that you deserve a living wage at all is greedy in itself... You work for what you earn and you do the best you can... We have just recently in the last century even had the economic advantages that we have today... Ask people 200 years ago and I bet most would beg to live like the poorest man in the country today... Actually they probably wouldn't beg because it would go against their pride and they would go and work harder... Life is not meant to be easy life is not fair and life does not mean you are guaranteed to live "comfortably" . Also do you think places like McDonalds or better yet small town businesses can afford to pay over $10 - $15 an hour? You are talking about bankrupting businesses across America... how does this help? Not to mention as an educator I see students daily not apply themselves in school and not care about their education. Should these students be guaranteed to make over $40,000 dollars even though they didn't try half as hard as the neighbor beside them? I realize this statement doesn't apply to everyone who didn't perform well in school I mean look at Albert Einstein ... so there are exceptions to the rules but overall for the majority this is real life and they should not be rewarded for a lack of effort. If this happens it will just encourage laziness amongst the population.... which is the main problem we have today...

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

I've seen a lot of responses like yours supporting the one percents agenda that everyone should suffer and live in poverty while they get rich, or as you put it that they don't deserve making a decent living. Of course this disturbs me, and proves that this propaganda has been successful. I am by no means suggesting any sort of entitlement based system, or that lazy people get a pass to the front of the line. I am part of the collateral damage of the greedy bankers and their supporters that drove the economy into the ditch. I am a highly skilled tradesman (who is not lazy as you imply) who is now forced to work these low wages that are being offered just to pay my bills. The intention of establishing this middle wage category should not be a threat to anyone, and it is not a new concept. this used to be just considered "middle class". I suppose it is possible that people like yourself may be misunderstanding that this is intended to replace the minimum wage, and you may think this will adversely effect your buying power as a consumer,or as you put it "bankrupt these companies". Actually the opposite is the case. If you return middle class wages to their previous levels, they will again be able to participate as consumers and thus restore consumer confidence and create more jobs in the end. So you see I am NOT asking the government to make this happen, I am asking YOU to make this happen. Stop thinking that you are the only that deserves a decent living and pay people their value.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 8 years ago

I don't think that person said that at all. But again, where will the money fir a living wage come from. It's doubtful the companies can afford that. The only other way is to have the wages subsidized by the government which pretty much makes any increase worthless for the inflation that would cause. Throwing more money at the problem will worsen the problem AND funnel more money into the hands of the 1%, something you seek to prevent.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Not true. These low wages are already subsidized by the government. The current low wage corporate work force is eligible for several forms of public assistance. So you see either way the 1% and corporate America wins. the big box stores etc. have access to cheap labor and the government subsidizes it. Sadly the public then ridicules these workers for having to rely on this subsidy just to get by. As I have said before I am in no way asking for any government intervention here, It is up to consumers that currently make a decent living, and feel entitled to that privilege, insist that the products and services that they buy are based on that. It's an ethical Thing! Don't get me wrong, since our society has become so selfish and greedy, this will be difficult to do. It may take the next generation to make it happen.

[-] 1 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

Finally a response that makes sense and states a point.. I may not agree with your logic and I am a teacher who works three jobs by the way... But ive been looking for a serious response all day...I believe this movement has potential but is seriously misguided

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Thank you, However if you think about it, it (this movement) is as real as the world, everyone has a different point of view, and the facts offered by people with reason always win the day. I would encourage people with the capacity of reason to discuss these important issues. the rest will take care of itself.

[-] 1 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by TheCloser (200) 8 years ago

A living wage for who? For the person that works in the mine for $2 a day so you can afford a second car? Or for the diamond miner in Sierra Leon who is paid $7 a karat? In a global economy, who exactly are you thinking of with the the concept of "Minimum Wage?"

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

The concept of a living wage is easily applied in any culture if that is their choice. Every society knows what is necessary for the general well being of it's members. the choice comes in whether that culture is focused on selfishness or generosity. It seems we, in the U.S. have chosen selfishness.

[-] 1 points by TheCloser (200) 8 years ago

Ok, I see it a bit differently. If people are all the same, then why are your needs more worthy than someone else's? You see, at $10.00 you are a top earner in global comparison. And thanks to US banks and other Corporate Citizens we have accelerated this selfish tendency. I think we would all like to live better. But a higher minimum wage would possibly put thousands of American small business owners out of work - someone else will do their job for less, overseas, you see.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

I see that, however, my goal is to shift the focus away from a "Minimum wage" to a "living wage". let me be clear, I am in no way promoting that we homogenize wages, nor am I calling for any form of entitlement system of compensation. Everyone understands the basic concept of fairness, and whether they are choosing to apply it in their personal transactions, regardless of geographic circumstances.

[-] 1 points by TheCloser (200) 8 years ago

Best wishes in defining "living wage"

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 8 years ago

Hear, Hear!! I'm tired of my leg being "trickled" on, and being told that it's raining. I didn't need a government study to tell me and every other tradesman out there that our wages have been flat since I started my carpentry career in the 80's. Back then a carpenter's average starting pay was $12-$15 per hour. That was here in the "right-to-work" state of Florida. Well I'm here to say that it hasn't budged. That's if you can even find someone hiring. Forget about benefits. Best chance at insurance is if your wife can get you on her plan.

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 8 years ago

In the years before mid 70s US economy was not global. Today, an American worker is competing with a Chinese, Vietnamese, Bengali, etc. As they learn to do better, we'll do worse if we did not educate ourselves to stay ahead with introduction of leading edge products & services. We need a renaissance to create new persons. Doddering fools preaching tired politics of individualism instead of collaboration & teamwork will not do it.

[-] 1 points by FuzzyThinker (112) from Jacksonville, FL 8 years ago

Fight for #23. Jobs for Everyone. Re-institute the Works Progress Administration for 11% Poor and 10% Underemployed and 9% Unemployed. There are empty factories that could be run by those who learn 'how to' skills to build products for Export. Go to Community College or Do Community Service or Make products.

I get the impression that anarchists control this website and have No Intention of Achieving Consensus and Voicing a Specific Action. We need a congresswo/men to be a sponsor of each Demand. I have more Fighting Points:

http://fuzzythinker.WebStarts.com/ows-_fighting_points.html
Here are other places to Post your Issues:
http://www.occupyr.com/Demands/
...and... http://www.petitiononline.com/99declar/petition.html

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

The wage is based on it's value to the employer. If anyone can do your job why should an employer pay more? The system was based on trading good and services, not on providing care for anyone. No one ever promised life would be fair. We were promised life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You have to chase your happiness yourself, not have it handed to you. I can't help but see a living wage as a form of welfare, and a reflection of greed. An attitude of give me free stuff because I want it. I want the electronic toys and car and oversized house because someone else has it. A greed every bit as damaging as what you see in the 1%. All these predatory lending practices wouldn't work if there were no borrowers with more envy then brains.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Sorry, too simplistic to respond to!

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

I've lived on 7.5 an hour before.

It isn't greed to negotiate a wage both parties are happy with - it is greed however to use the guns of other people to deny others a job (the end effect of using government to make employing low skill people illegal - which is the result of minimum wage laws).

Pick up Hazlitt or some other decent read on economics before you go suggesting things that sound good but have horrible consequences.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

You sound like a 1% wannabe, your delusional if you think there is any negotiating of these low wages that NO ONE is happy working for. These wages are slavery with a tip! Someone that enjoys suffering working 7.50 hr. should not assume anyone else would. Good luck my friend.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

As someone who has negotiated increased wages I have direct experience that contradicts your assumption. Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves - note those are two inputs - consumer and supplier. Not one input as you seem to believe. I don't currently work for 7.50 an hour as I've added skills and proven myself since then. The problem is people aren't willing to start their job experience at 7.50 an hour or aren't willing to take it if its the best job they can find at the time.

I did not suffer at that job - I rather enjoyed it.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Pure theory only works when applied to a linear model. value is not currently being determined by supply and demand, but rather by the political distortions of the free market.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Yes I agree which is why we need to end those distortions and get as close to a free market as we can.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

The politics of the day will not allow for that , that is why the 99% are protesting. In the meantime everyone can do their part and apply the concept of a living wage in their daily transactions. vote every day for the 99% with the money you spend! Your friends, family, neighbors, etc. need that money more than Wall street and the multi-national corporations that feed it.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

IWW unite!!!

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 8 years ago

I am wondering if the bones of slaves compared to the bones of workers now would show which group was stressed more, received better medical care and nutrition, dental care and which group sustained more injury and became disabled more often and at what ages and how long they lived disabled. Seems to me there were rules about how slaves were treated. The law actually said they had to have food, shelter, clothing. They got some medical care. There are laws to protect pets even. Are free people free to starve? Free to be disable and toss to disability? How many are broken and dis-guarded? What happens to a company when they disable people? Animals are getting rights free people don't have for themselves. Every time wages go up, the necessities needed to sustain life go up so people never get anywhere and more profits can be announced. The increases are more than would be caused by paying higher wages. All the attempts at progress are gouged out to report bigger profits. The numbers end up be just being numbers and people are left to try and survive if they can. The bottom-line isn't a number, its buying power. Gas, utilities, food prices, housing, rent, which industries have to be regulated along with wages to ensure people are left with something?

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 8 years ago

For instance if you control the price of gas, seed, fertilizer, you control the cost of food. If you control the building materials, you affect the price of housing. The 1% isn't fooling anybody, they are the root cause of price hikes to everything with every wage increase. Do we protect life by privatizing everything needed to sustain it? Should my existence be a real money maker for the 1%? Call it whatever you want to call it, Monopolies are not a free market. The 1% does not want to provide the best things and have competition. That isn't what they do. They control resources that sustain life and thus they have Americans working more hours than anyone else and not offering healthcare. They blow people to hell and gone to control the worlds resources and use tax money to do it. Our government it a tool for the 1% and little more.

[-] 1 points by Spacehog (16) from Wilson, NC 8 years ago

I agree that the minimum wage isn't enough to live off of, especially for a family. However, if you just make a higher minimum wage or living wage the market will adjust accordingly because companies know you now have more money to spend. Not to forget the 1990 paint pealing off cars with crome rims and lowprofile tire owners out there.

Endless consumerism needs to be addressed first. GDP measured against how much crap we can afford to buy is in no way a good way to measure social health of a country.

[-] 0 points by cityrep (20) 8 years ago

Minimum wage is where pay starts, not ends. People earn more by being productive, learning new skills and adding value to their work. Henry Ford paid his assembly-line workers $5 a day so they could afford to buy his cars. How does a producer of good and services benefit from having a work force that is too poor to purchase its products?

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

I agree, My only issue here is that this value is now harder to determine, and maybe that is why this dialogue is going on. I suggest you look below at the reply in another conversation. I may have been unclear in my original post regarding my own perceptions on this concept. As to your last statement (How does a producer of good and services benefit from having a work force that is too poor to purchase its products?) Apparently in the multinational, wall street corporate model, quite well. profits are are up, and they are holding on to a lot of cash.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

I have no idea what you are talking about!

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

The minimum wage in Mexico is $5.00 a day.

I think you can draw a lot of conclusions from that.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 8 years ago

One argument I keep seeing over and over again is that companies are required by profit obligations the shareholders to pay the lowest wage possible, therefor shipping jobs overseas. If this is true, how is shareholder value increased when the top executives pay and bonuses are sky high? At a time when the stock price is falling? IT'S A LIE.

[-] 0 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

I agree with some of these concepts. I think we take it one step further and be granted an incentive's package at the age of 16 of $1000 a month continued for a lifetime. This alone would solve poverty. Lets call it a Living Wage Life Fund. (LWLF)

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Where would you get $1000 a month to give to every 16 year old forever? Social Security pays out an average benefit of about $1200 a month (It will be $1229 for 2012). Currently 12.8% of the population is 65 or over and they have a life expectancy of 78.11 years. So social security is figuring to pay out $1200 a month to about 4 million people for about 13 years. That system has people putting money in every paycheck and it's still going bankrupt. Especially as the number of baby boomers hitting 66 grows that number. I'm in favor of taxing more, but there aren't enough rich people to come up with the kind of money your idea calls for.

Forget that kids are irresponsible when it comes to money. Look at the numbers. US population is 312,582,000, and 27% are under 20. Just to make it simple and make the cost of this idea look cheeper. I'll say there are only 300 million people and one quarter are under 20. That would make at least 75 million people under 20. The sixteen year olds would be about one twentieth of that or 3,750,000 people. That comes to $45 billion a year just for the 16 year olds. You want to do this forever and each year add another group of kids? In 20 years you'd be up to almost a trillion a year, bigger then any other program, and it would still be growing.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

You cut government spending in half and other related institution. Have you looked at the debt clock lately? they money is there waiting to be distributed correctly. Also members of the (LWLF) Living Wage Life Fund pay 10% back to the fund. Its the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

You've gotta be trolling. Even if you could convince seniors, the military, the poor on medicaid or medicare, all government agencies to accept a 50% cut. I can't see the morality in taking money from the poor in order to give it to children that don't have a need for it. Giving people money just makes them more lazy. Giving it to children makes them lazy and irresponsible.

Could you even get this passed without starting it out by paying everyone 16 and over? Why not? It would only cost more then all the taxes we take in in one year. Done with this now, time to move on to real ideas.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

Please wake up, money is debt. Which means its a man made product which means scarcity of it is intentionally created. I'm talking of giving power back to the people. There is enough for me there is enough for you there is enough for everybody.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Money just took the place of goods and services in a barter system. The magnitude of debt we have is a recent phenomenon and a creation of human greed. The greed of the borrower as much as that of the lender. You just want free money, money represents work done by someone somewhere, if you take the former without doing the latter, you'll have debt.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

I'll explain it another way. I agree money is the measure and the instrument by which one product is sold and another purchased. However money is "Created", Not Grown or Built and so whoever does the "creating" of money in a nation can make a tremendous profit. Since a few cents will print a $1 bill or a $1000 bill and even less when it is electronically created.

One can then make more money from manipulating pieces of paper and electronic numbers than they can from producing essential goods and services for people who need them.

There is no need for anyone to be cold, hungry, homeless or in poverty. All these things are caused by the intentional lack of pieces of paper and electronic numbers called money circulating in the world.

We could change that today if the desire was there?

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Sounds very simplistic, just print more paper? True we do create currency by fiat, but when you just run the printing press to make more dollars people lose faith in the currency and demand more for the same work.

That quantitative easing the Fed did helped the stock market a little but caused prices to go up too. A dollar buys a certain amount of goods not just because we say so but because people have faith in it. Just print more and that faith disappears. Countries that have done that have experienced hyper inflation and everything collapses.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

This is happening now. A solution would be to move from a monetary based economy to a new one. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.

If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs. It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

You can't just put a solution in place. People would have to be convinced it would be better. Maybe after a total collapse of world currencies more people would be willing to try a radical solution. Money offers a certain security in that it gives you a way to measure the value of your work. A system in which you just work and get what you need has the feel of communism to too many people and it wouldn't be accepted here. It's unfortunately human nature that if we are supplied with all our needs we're not going to be as productive.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

Double agent them from the inside, I like your plan. I still don't see why we cant have free services when other countries are doing just this. Please tell your moles no new taxes. We really need to advance beyond this concept of serfdom.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Wish I had answers and a plan, I just think we should work through the system, elect people and make changes to the tax codes to collect the funds government needs to do what the people want it to do. The average person in the US pays about 25% of his income to federal, state, and local government. In europe it's about 35%, they get more because they pay more.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

Your caught up on increasing taxes when the real problems lay in the faulty distribution of money in the current system. Do you not see that intentional scarcity creates Profit and abundance creates Freedom? Increasing taxes will only increase debt.

You only will prolong the inevitable. You cannot evict an idea whose time has come. Mass consciousnesses rules and once this has been won over the current system will fall and be replaced by one that reflects its true nature. The human drama is not a finished script. Each one of us are its authors , directors and actors.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

The system may certainly collapse, it's been stretched pretty far now. The distribution of goods and services and money too, for that matter, has evolved over time. Its present state can be altered, but the best way with the least disruption is to do it slowly. You may be a prophet for a new society without money, but it won't happen unless you can convince a majority that it's the right way to go, or have a total meltdown of the current system.

I see all sorts of ideas on these posts, we started with some guy's idea to just hand out checks to kids every month. It's easy when you see so many opinions to get the idea that everyone in the country is unhappy. They're not. The ideas here are good and bad, but they are minority opinions. We seem to think they aren't because we get all this support on here.

[-] 0 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

My friend thoughts are things. They are real as any material object. Once an idea has been planted like a seed it will soon sprout. The timing of such ideas will come about on their own accord as nature permits them to do so.

Your ideas are nothing new, what is happen here on this site is an exchange of new ideas and thoughts that will propel those who give them intent forward. You seem hard set on keeping the children locked up safely in the house because you yourself do not believe in your own true creative potential.

We have come to this world in this way, at this time, in this place, to know who we are and to create who we wish to be. This is the purpose of all of life. Life is an ongoing, never-ending process of re-creation. We keep recreating ourselves in the image of our next highest idea about ourselves.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 8 years ago

A solution is better than no solution. What you say is true the confidence of the people must be won over. Through the media this could be accomplished if the right message was relayed not continual propaganda garbage. Yes a total collapse may be necessary for this new system to emerge. It could be far less disastrous if the public officials opened their ears and eyes to the inequity that is occurring and really listen to the voice of the people.

A troll is always one to squash another's ideas without providing one of their own. You continue to do this? I'm open and receptive to your ideas so please relay one? How would you solve most of these pressing issues that face humanity today? Money, Poverty, Income, Health Care, Education just to name a few.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

You misunderstand, I don't mean to say your solution is good or bad, I'm saying you can't just wave a wand and put one in place. You need to have support for your ideas.

As far as ideas go, there seem to be too many popping up here. To be successful there should be some decisions made and the efforts need to get focused. My idea would be to work within the system, finding good people new to politics and run them on a clearly stated platform.

Rein in the corporations and banks through legislation for a start. Then fix the tax codes. We demand a lot of services from our government, people need to know they are not free. So everyone must pay more in tax.

Trolls do more the oppose, I've seen ideas for actions posted that I certainly hope come from trolls just trying to spoil things. Some of the extreme anti-semitic stuff for example.

[-] 0 points by gr57 (457) 8 years ago

except that since production cost includes labor costs and prices are based on the sum of all costs, inceasing th cost to make a good will increas the cost of that good. In the end, purchasing power remains the same

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 8 years ago

There is only one problem you are missing and that is that the American people are not needed anymore by the greedy who grew their large corporations on the backs of Americans' so our demands do not matter to them. They are in China and other places now.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

That's a good point, however, we still live here and life goes on. We are still consumers and where you spend the little money the money the corporations and the government have let you keep matters. I suggest, whenever possible, buying local products and services from small businesses.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 8 years ago

Agreed ...

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

We are in a global economy and USA workers are competing with workers around the globe for jobs who have a living wage much lower than what is needed in the USA

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

Only around 6% of workers make the minimum or less. Most are young and working part time and are not working for a "living wage". There are so many other bigger issues to deal with than minimum wages that actually create a race to the bottom for employers as they do not need to compete for employees as the government made it too easy to keep wages low.

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

I live on $16 an hour and it's rough. In my small town in Indiana rent is very reasonable. I have a one bedroom apartment in an old house downtown. It is $450 a month and includes all utilities. About a thousand dollars a month covers everything, car insurance and gas, cable, internet, cell phone, rent, groceries.

I am considering a move to a two bedroom the same landlord has it. It's much nicer than this place. My kitchen is like a good sized closet. The other has an actual kitchen with counter space and a kitchen table.

[-] 0 points by offmybrain (23) 8 years ago

If you force the increase of wages businesses will increase the cost of goods and services to compensate.So essentially if every worker made a living wage,you would still have the same amount of people known as "the working poor". Also a living wage definition can vary from person to person.I feel wages should be set at the state level(let states compete for workers),keep the feds out of it.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

There are plenty of countries where the lowest income is higher then in the us. And yet they have a higher standard of living. So your theorie doesn't seem to quite hold up.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

I would like To clarify what I meant by a "living wage". I am not calling for any sort of mandated wage standard. My view is that people need to see value in their daily transactions, and being willing to pay accordingly. Don't expect to pay a skilled person what a laborer would be willing to work for, as an example. You get good quality products and services by paying a fair value.

[-] 0 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

Dude, I bought two houses on $18/hr working a straight 40. When I started this job, $10/hr was plenty to live on in my own one bedroom apartment. Granted, I live in the Midwest, not NYC, but still $15/hr not enough to live on? I think you're a little out of whack.

[-] 1 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

What you are saying may have been true at one time, however, things have changed. We have seen the rates charged for fixed costs, such as insurance, fuel, food, health care, etc. rise, while wages have remained flat, or even decrease. And it's worth noting that this has benefited the "1%" at the expense of everyone else. In other words the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. I see no benefit to being a marter for enduring this.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 8 years ago

I'm 28. This all took place in the last like 2 years.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 7 years ago

Prove your worth it

[-] -1 points by screwtheman (122) 8 years ago

Who is going to fund this?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

No one has to fund anything anymore if we stop thinking in terms of money and start thinking in terms of resources.

[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 8 years ago

Housing?...already subsidized by feds...section 8 food?...already subsidized by feds, state and local..food stamps, food banks, meals on wheels, free breakfast, lunch for school kids Clothing?...Coats for kids, Goodwill,..

Libs still shrieking for more handouts

[-] 3 points by JadedGem (895) 8 years ago

Oh, yes, there are ways for the poor to get by currently. To bad they can't afford anything else so the prices have to go up, up, and away for everyone else so there is more profit to be made. Too bad there are more poor and needy in need of housing than there is housing, but yes there is a waiting list. If all the poor can do is try to pay utilities, there is nothing for the small business owner. In the end the only profits to be had will from the things that sustain life. When does the 1% own enough? When do they become powerful enough? How many will they kill off? How many will they starve? Slaves got three outfits at least, food, shelter, medical care etc. Did they feel lucky? Were they pampered pets? Did slaves work fewer hours to earn their keep? Do free people have the rights to things slaves were required to be given? Was slavery better than what we call freedom? How many slaves would the 1% want? The system is broken when a study needs to be done to show whether slavery would produce a lifestyle improvement or not!

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

At a certain point wage slaves actually are slaves (without the promise of shelter, etc.). Power differentials are simply way too high.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

stevo, are you a 1% Sky Person or are you a 1% wannabe/house slave cleaning the dried cum off your master's sheets with your saliva, gum and teeth?

[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 8 years ago

At last I'm not living on the street, shitting in a bucket, wearing halloween masks like you asshat

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Actually I'm not living down there. I wish I could. I do go down, but not often enough. I do consider myself a member of OWS (without voting rights since I don't stay at Liberty Plaza) and I consider OWS to be great American patriots who wish to restore the American democracy and middle class way of life (via jobs, not handouts) and rein in the CorpoRAT liar's culture. Are you a patriot?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

I wish more people at Liberty Plaza would discuss the impact of 'automation' on our economy. There's been a lot of posts about it on this board, but it doesn't seem to be a major issue with the movement and I think it should. From someone that has worked with major executives, I can tell you that this is a HUGE issue, and it is starting to come up more online but it's still not taken as seriously as it should. I've even spoken to several tea party members about it, and I was surprised that they agreed with me, but were afraid to speak out about it for fear that it would conflict with some of their core beliefs. Maybe you could look at a few links, and spread the word, or pass it to someone that can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201109/are-jobs-we-know-them-becoming-obsolete

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

It seems we are becoming useless eaters. In any democracy (the only legitimate form of government) the people are sovereign. Economies should be structured to take care of the people.

Dog eat dog is not a law of physics.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

I agree. If we can structure our economy to take advantage of our technology, a lot of the economic problems we are currently facing will decrease tremendously.

[-] -2 points by oldfatrobby (129) 8 years ago

WHy don't you hire these people then? We are all sick of people who make these sort of economically and morally bankrupt statements, like "a family of 4 needs 38,000." So what? Maybe you shouldn't have a family of four if you can't provide for it. The implication is if a person wants to be a breeder, others need to pay up. If they decide to have eight kids, they probably need 75,000. But that family needs to come up with the money, not others. If you feel they have a moral claim on your pocketbook and DESERVE ENTERTAINMENT, shell out to your heart's content.

Keep your filthy hands out of my pocketbook. We are tired of it, and will have our conservative revolution this next election. We will:

REPEAL OBAMACARE INSTITUTE A FAIR FLAT TAX ELIMINATE TAXES FOR CAPITAL GAINS ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM WAGE ENTIRELY SEAL THE BORDERS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS MAKE AMERICA PROUD AGAIN

[-] 2 points by thezencarpenter (131) 8 years ago

Unfortunately, this is the type of ignorant, selfish propaganda from the "1%" wannabes that prevents WORKING people from making a decent living.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

Yep! A lot of those beliefs are prevalent in the baby boomer generation and his name has 'old' in it, so I can just guess...

I have no problem with baby boomers in general, just something I noticed. A lot of the problems in this country are 'old beliefs' versus 'new beliefs'. Things have changed so much and so fast over the past few decades, a lot of the older people are having a hard time adapting.

[Removed]