In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.
The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren’t you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.
Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?
Handing money out to the “disenfranchised” solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever “ist”.
I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?
Quote marks because “disenfranchised” is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone’s post history. Aren’t you quite the haxxor?
I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.
I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don’t care, it’s none of my business. Just don’t use my tax dollars to fund any of it.
Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a “living wage” simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don’t, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.
But nah, it’s easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/“the man”/“disenfranchisement” and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.
It seems to simply be a difference in values. I personally think a human being has value simply for existing, and many others would agree on this. Nothing idiotic about valuing different things.
We are in agreement, humans do have value. My point is that a living wage is possible, but it requires effort and sometimes tough decisions. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their lives, but I disagree that everyone is entitled to a ‘living wage’ simply for being alive. Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
- FDR
It seems that where we differ is they yes, I do think that employee providing shitty service deserves a living wage. But more importantly, there’s so much that people do for us that should be paid but isn’t, or that isn’t paid enough to live off of but should be. People who volunteer their time to clean up public spaces, to help take care of the sick and elderly or young children, people producing art for the rest of us to enjoy, people doing doing fundamental research on topics that aren’t currently trendy, and likely many more that aren’t coming to mind right now.
Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?
I’ve been a waiter and can tell you it’s probably because the boss won’t pay for enough people or is trying to cram too many people into their establishment without investing in the required infrastructure and staff.
If only there were nearly 50 years of data proving your wage theory wrong. Productivity skyrocketed, and workers wages stagnated. Who got paid for all that value that was created? I guess all the people providing labor weren’t providing real-enough value?
Unions provide the same benefits today as they did 100 years ago. They attempt to level the imbalance between the employer and workers. If there’s a large imbalance then the workers don’t have the leverage to negotiate better wages.
In the US, close to half of the winnings do go to the lottery, plus a portion of each lottery ticket usually goes to fund some government agency. Schools, programs for the impoverished and disenfranchised, etc.
The real question, in my opinion, is if you are willing to spend that much money on a ticket, why aren’t you willing to spend that much money on just outright funding government programs? Imagine if 100% of what someone paid for a ticket went to programs for the disenfranchised? That could make real difference.
I spend about $10 per year on lottery tickets. I pay upwards of $40k in taxes, much of which is funneled to “disenfranchised”. I’m good, thanks.
Ok, but if you had a guarantee that your $10 would go directly to the disenfranchised with no chances of returning millions to you, how would that change things?
Handing money out to the “disenfranchised” solves nothing, thus it never ends. I am for real solutions, like education and a strong family unit. But, you know, having that opinion means I am racist/classist/whatever “ist”.
Love the quote marks around disenfranchised. Real classy.
Let’s see… cursory glance at post history indicates… Yep, right wing, anti union and against a living wage. That all tracks.
I think you are both arguing about an institution giving money to random people right? Just the amount of both money given and number of recipients are changing right?
Quote marks because “disenfranchised” is subjective. And wow, you have mad skills to look at someone’s post history. Aren’t you quite the haxxor?
I consider myself moderate. Lefty tools such as yourself label anyone that disagrees with them as right wing racist maga nazis. Fuck you.
I am anti union. Unions served a great purpose 100 years ago. Now they are corrupt shake down organizations that contribute to inflation and drive jobs out of the country. But if someone wants to join one, I don’t care, it’s none of my business. Just don’t use my tax dollars to fund any of it.
Living wage. There is this idiotic entitlement mentality that people somehow deserve a “living wage” simply for consuming oxygen. Here is the truth: people are paid what they are worth. If you are providing real value to an employer, they will pay you enough to retain you. If they don’t, find another employer. Rinse and repeat.
But nah, it’s easier to blame shortcomings on billionaires/Trump/“the man”/“disenfranchisement” and hope some politician will send you money for your vote.
It seems to simply be a difference in values. I personally think a human being has value simply for existing, and many others would agree on this. Nothing idiotic about valuing different things.
We are in agreement, humans do have value. My point is that a living wage is possible, but it requires effort and sometimes tough decisions. Everyone should have the opportunity to better their lives, but I disagree that everyone is entitled to a ‘living wage’ simply for being alive. Have you not been to a restaurant where the service was terrible? Do those employees deserve a living wage?
No context needed, unequivocally, yes.
It seems that where we differ is they yes, I do think that employee providing shitty service deserves a living wage. But more importantly, there’s so much that people do for us that should be paid but isn’t, or that isn’t paid enough to live off of but should be. People who volunteer their time to clean up public spaces, to help take care of the sick and elderly or young children, people producing art for the rest of us to enjoy, people doing doing fundamental research on topics that aren’t currently trendy, and likely many more that aren’t coming to mind right now.
I’ve been a waiter and can tell you it’s probably because the boss won’t pay for enough people or is trying to cram too many people into their establishment without investing in the required infrastructure and staff.
If only there were nearly 50 years of data proving your wage theory wrong. Productivity skyrocketed, and workers wages stagnated. Who got paid for all that value that was created? I guess all the people providing labor weren’t providing real-enough value?
Unions provide the same benefits today as they did 100 years ago. They attempt to level the imbalance between the employer and workers. If there’s a large imbalance then the workers don’t have the leverage to negotiate better wages.
Maybe you are racist and/or classist.
Maybe you are an idiot.
Hey maybe.
You realize that most studies show that direct cash payments to people on welfare/needy return better results, right?
You make $200k a year, not bad!
What is better: