AOC ramps up rhetoric on wages, says we cannot continue to allow people to be paid 'less than they need'
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., indicated on Monday that she will push for workers to get paid as much as "they need," without specifying what the amount would be.
“What we are fighting against -- what we are fighting against is a logic that says it is ok to pay someone less than they need to live, and we are here to say no more," she said during an event promoting her "Green New Deal."
Produce according to ability, receive according to need.
Seems like we've heard this line before. Let me see...Perhaps Karl Marx. Wonder what Ms Rand would say to AOC.
“What we are fighting against -- what we are fighting against is a logic that says it is ok to pay someone less than they need to live, and we are here to say no more," she said during an event promoting her "Green New Deal."
Produce according to ability, receive according to need.
Seems like we've heard this line before. Let me see...Perhaps Karl Marx. Wonder what Ms Rand would say to AOC.
Sounds like AOC has big plans, using the 20th Century Motor Company$ as a model.
$ read Atlas Shrugged.
More about the 20th Century Motor Company,
(SPOILER ALERT!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
"Make Orwell Fiction Again". I might have to order one.
CUT the pay of politicians, judges, bureaucrats and other deadwood union holdovers that can't be fired by 97%
'congress' passed a law that gave them the power to raise their own salaries.
The caveat was it didn't take effect until after the next election.
And signed into Law by a 'president' that....
A: had legislation they wanted passed.
B: Grateful for the support of the 'legislators' that helped them get elected.
It would make a very nice SCOTUS dilemma.
With the re-election rates, the case could very easily made they gave themselves a raise under the guise of NOT giving themselves a raise.
Would the issue be valid or not?
Could they justify the current level considering they HAVE NOT PERFORMED TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS since the last time the budget was Balanced.
Yeah, being paid more is just swell until lay-offs begin or the company goes under, taking every last single job to be had with it.
of course she is not smart enough to read it or comprehend it...
Start with fast food restaurants- use kiosks for ordering. I would go for that right now. The kiosks will be certainly more user friendly without having to deal with stupid people that cant seem to even listen to the simple orders from customers. I wont order from my phone remotely because I just dont trust that my order will be right.
When high school teachers told our daughter, about to graduate, that they all deserved $100,000 per year, I told hre that is not how it works, as she had no experience and was sararting college. I told her she had to prove what she could offer and how she could make a company better.Working their way up to what they want to earn is something teachers never share with them, just that they are the best - at what?
This fit right in line what AOC is verbalizing.I'm sure she has no clue to what she is saying. She never has read "Atlas Shrugged'.
I keep wondering when these individuals that won't get a real job will stop misleading others behind the grand scheme of "let's take, not earn"!
I predict there is a coming a tax on robots, like a minimum tax per hour of use to make workers competitive with them.
It's ironic that Rep Ocasio-Cortez condemned Former VP Biden for supposedly being tepid on the environment. By wrapping socialistic policies in a big green bow, she's undermining efforts to protect the environment.
Biden is right seek a middle ground. It's hard to quantify the costs of human activities that contribute to global warming. We know a large portion of global warming is caused by human activities, but we don't know exactly how much. We know global warming will be costly, but we don't know the price tag. Even if we knew, it's hard to quantify the future value costs borne today to mitigate it. So it is a complex problem with a middle ground. If we pick some reasonable number that represents the average cost of activities that contribute to the greenhouse effect, the problem will likely solve itself. If we tie proposed solution to socialism, we'll pay a double cost of socialism plus the cost of reducing greenhouse emission plus possible costs of the environmental efforts not working because they were created with an intrusive-gov't mindset.
Include me out.
(Not to be confused with the latest overly emotional accusation justice mob.)
Naomi Klein openly said in her book she used to be upset by the environment but then she realized it was one problem big enough to sell socialism. I stopped reading in the middle. I don't think she just "just kidding" in the second half.
I wonder how many people would think it was a good thing to learn that their boss wanted to fire them but the boss felt sorry for them knowing they needed the money.
And unless you are willing to come out with technologies and solutions which provide energy at a lower cost than I currently enjoy - don't talk to me about the nonsense called climate change. The solution isn't to hamstring the economy based on garbage science and ridiculous expenses with zero measurable results. We get enough of that out of our current government.
^^Yes.
I agree many people don't mind stealing from the future by damaging the environment, but most people are honest. The economy as we know it could never run if every citizen stole or trashed other people's stuff at the first moment they could get away with it. There's always an element of people who reject science and reason, but science actually gets things done, so I think it will prevail and the problems be solved faster than seems possible today.