Vulcanised wrote:In that case Keith Russell et al. let America take in the refugees they made homeless in this WAR--
Which war? There are two, you know. One (Afghanistan) was justified; the other (Iraq), was not.
--instead of bunging them--
I don't know what "bunging" means.
What about the harmful side effects of America invading and flattening other countries and their economies? America has no interest in Union with other lands because it doesn`t serve their arms industry and their pockets.
This thread is about a global minimum wage. If you are only interested in bashing the USA, start a new thread.
Vdevils wrote: 4. I have seen alot of survival for the fittest and then contradictions going back to help poor people just dont let em make a living wage.
The US minimum wage is hardly a "living wage". Further, do you realize that, in many "third-world" countries, people are stricken with poverty because violent conflicts keep businesses from being able to invest in those countries? In many "third-world" countries, armed militias steal food shipments, medicines, and relief supplies intended for civilians--and sell them for money used to buy more arms?
Having a "minimum wage" if there are no jobs, no businesses to hire anyone, isn't going to do any good...
Education is a must and most people can not afford one, esp. if they working in sweat shops.
So, what do you recommend? Pay teachers less, so sweat-shop workers can afford to go to class? Or, pay sweat-shop workers more, so they can afford to go to class, but the now-higher-priced goods remain on the shelves, meaning that fewer people will be needed to work in the sweat-shops...
I have already said i dont have the recourse's to begin oh yeah my education if only i could make enough to afford one.
There are student loans available...that's how I earned my degree--and I'm a poor white artist making less than 22,000 annually.