The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications

True...but if you help the absolute bottom first, the middle will suffer and collapse back down into the working class. I didn't work hard all my life to simply earn minimum wage forever.

What are the last three marketable skills that you've learned?

They're welcome to it. I'm saying that they shouldn't expect the economic system to prop up their ability to do so. They are not being "down-trodden" just because they can't do it.

Again, boo-hoo. A lot of people did. What makes you special?

I am not asking for the entitlement. I am only asking for the continued opportunity. If all wages were cut so that everyone who was not an owner had to work for minimum wage, I would see that as patently unfair. In my union, we are rewarded with higher wages based upon years of service. When an employee is just in or out of high school, they don't need the same amount of money as a parent or potential retiree needs.Of course, I forget that you are quite far to the left. I am not right wing but am most definitely a moderate. I see advantages to both extremes.Every citizen should have the opportunity to earn more than when they were first hired. If you remove that incentive, what have you got left?

Who said anything about cutting wages? I'm in favour of raising wages - but starting at the bottom. That's a lie that capitalists use to keep wages low. Since when are people paid on the basis of what they need? As you said yourself, you (should) be paid more as you gain experience and become more valuable to your employer. But that isn't the case for minimum-wage earners. They're paid as little as the employer can get away with, regardless of their experience and value. An underpaid working class, like we have now.

Knowing full well that leveling everyone out won't work...why deprive the middle class of their efforts? You seem to be favoring the working class. One could argue that this is just as bad as favoring the upper class (as Republicans do) or favoring the middle class (as I do)I totally get your philosophy of bringing all classes closer together. I'm just angry that the middle group gets squeezed lower. Boo Hoo indeed! Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

We don't know that. But I didn't suggest it either. Where did I say anything about depriving anybody of anything? The difference is that the working class are the ones who need the help most.

I think it is fair to expect the economic system to allow them to do so. They'd be "down-trodden" in the same way as anybody who is prevented from making their own way.

NO NO NO. You guys are couching this all wrong.no, raise the middle class wages in proportion. If you are getting $18 an hour and the minimum goes from $7.25 up to $14.00, your $18 becomes $34.76. Or maybe give the 18 the same increase, up to $24.75. It's the assholes at the top, the 0.01% who should pay for all this. They can afford it. They are the ones making record +400x as much as their minimum laborers. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN STEALING OUR COUNTRY!!!Don't pitch the lower class against the middle class. That's exactly what these Rulers want you to do.

Hear Hear!

Have I said otherwise? The working class is still more down-trodden than the middle class. And part of the down-treading is by the middle class.

Who has the authority to do that? The government can set a minimum wage, just like it can set a maximum speed on the highway, but it can't set every wage. And you can be damn sure that Phat's union would be first to oppose your plan. They want the power to negotiate more, if possible. I'm not the one who's doing that. You and Phat are.If the working class is buoyed up, the middle class will rise automatically.

You can't really expect the middle class to be altruistic communists who sacrifice their own goals in order to allow all of their poor oppressed comrades to climb the ladder of equality to their level, can you? Human nature does not work like that. We all want to be included in the deal. Although I see in retrospect why the corporations do not want class unity between lower and middle. The past two contracts they offered a raise only to the top tier. There was not enough of a desire to fight for that, since the alternative would have been the elimination of seniority and an equalization of wages and benefits at the expense of the more senior people. I'm not sure if I agree. The union wants everyone to benefit from a contract offer, but only a certain percentage of members are active enough to push this through. We can usually get enough of a vote to pass or block a contract proposal, but member participation is only at best 20%.Too many members run to the company to negotiate individually for their future success, and time and time again we see them used, worn out, and transferred or quit. The companies know they can promise people decent wages provided the promise is not tied to a contract involving everybody. Additionally, the companies want to get rid of seniority so that they can force the higher wage people to do the hardest work and hire enough new people to fill in the balance....which weakens the union since we cannot promise a better deal for all if the "middle class" older workers are competing with the "working class" newer workers.

You should try reading what I write. Where have I ever suggested that the middle class should sacrifice anything? Are you saying that if the minimum wage went up to $14.00 and the government (somehow) mandated $24.75 for your job, your union wouldn't ask for $28.00?