The main crux of their argument was that workers were "stealing from the successful people," and are "lazy." It's like they are against people making a livable wage or something.
I appreciate the fact that you were the ONLY person there that was arguing in favor of workers. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would like to offer these arguments.
The minimum wage is below the poverty level for a family of four and that workers should receive a wage that they cannot only survive on, because they can't now, but also be able to attain the american dream.
That most of the jobs added to the economy are service sector jobs that are notoriously low paying.
In most states, waiters and waitresses make $2.13 an hour, 30% of the federal minimum wage. If a waitress doesn't make the federal minimum wage from her tips, the employers are suppose to make that up, but often don't.
Before regulations were put into place by the federal government, factory owners would chain school aged children to machines and pay them pennies an hour. Thus the need for regulations in the first place.
Working for a living isn't lazy or irresponsible, not paying people a livable wage is. A working American is not lazy.
history shows that without a LIVABLE minimum wage, employers will pay the least possible to the detriment of their workers, their wellbeing and the country as a whole.
It isn't about "stealing" from the "successful person," it is about paying a fair wage according to their skills and abilities.
That employers, such as Wal-mart, purposefully pay low wages so that the government will provide the benefits that is the employer's responsibility.
and finally,
Working a full-time job shouldn't mean having to get food stamps.
A side note, the woman talking about her experience working in the corn fields was a perfect opportunity to uncover that she did not have to fully support herself on that job.
I wish you the best of luck and hope that you return to Faux snooze. It is hard to argue with people whose main intent is to say the most inflammatory thing that will get their name in lights. It is the strategy of some Conservative commentators to say ridiculously insulting and inflammatory things to keep the controversy going and thus make a living (see Rush). It isn't about what is a good agruement. Keep fighting the good fight!
= new reply since forum marked as read
