- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
it doesn't cost jobs when no one is being paid that, which is why minimum wage increasing legislation has only been passed during expansions (excepting the first FLSA). if people are getting paid $8.10 an hour to sack groceries, and the minimum wage is raised to $7, then no one loses their job.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
if the gov't wasn't feeding those people those employers would quickly find that they have no workers. the gov't stepping in made the problem, and now you just want another layer of problem stuck on top of it.
it's like when walmart goes and takes advantage of the fact that the government offers free healthcare to qualifying people. walmart then ensures that most of it's employees qualify, and get society in general to pay the costs of healthcare for walmarts employees (i mean, that is what people wanted, was for society in general to pay for healthcare, right?). and then the gov't has the nerve to cry foul when EXACTLY what should have happened actually did happen.
get rid of all the subsidies and all the government induced distortions and we'll see people getting paid a 'living wage' because no business will have employees if they're not paying a 'living wage'
Try feeding your horse half rations and see what happens. They DO have laws against that. You seem to believe it's OK to treat someone working for you in a less humane way??
As someone from a rural area I can tell you that when a horse or cow is sick they call the vet ASAP because they can't afford to lose an animal, but a corporation doesn't look at it that way. They would rather just replace that person ASAP and let someone else worry about it.
Your argument might make some sense if if wasn't for the fact that someone has to sweep the floors, stock the shelves, etc. Not everyone can be a business owner, lawyer, doctor, engineer. Some people are always going to be stuck doing life's dirty work and they have the same basic human requirements you do.
Try again, somebody has to write the check at the end of the day for the benefits.
I dont know of any insurance companies that take labor as a form of payment.
I believe the problem is the number of jobs that have left the country to take advantage of the cheap labor, caused by the difference in currencies. It's not the fault of the american worker that someone in Mexico or China can live on 1/10 (or less) of what it costs here.
There isn't much that can be done about the jobs they are able to outsource, but the jobs they can't outsource should pay a living wage. I also think the 20 million illegals we have let into this country in the last 20 years is a large contributing factor. If it wasn't for all those workers we would have a labor shortage, which would help raise wages and benifits.
You try again. You can't sell a product if you have nobody to make it. Without people doing the grunt work there is no money to write anybodies check.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I still want to know what a "living wage" is.
These discussions always remind me of a particular P.J. O'Rourke quote:
"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights? the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery? hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. "
These discussions always remind me of a particular P.J. O'Rourke quote:
"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights? the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery? hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. "
Your nuts, I answered your question, your are just trying to make up excuses to skirt the answer. The peoples labor pays for their benifits.
Do you really believe that you get benifits because your employer "allows" it, or because you work for and earn them?
Come on Vic, consequences? Why should anybody have to live with those?
Just because somebody dropped out of highschool, knocked up their GFs, have 3 kids, and continue to make bad life decisions doesnt mean they shouldnt get a house, health insurance, and a "livable" wage.
This is America, where you can make bad decisions and have others foot the bill!
Just because somebody dropped out of highschool, knocked up their GFs, have 3 kids, and continue to make bad life decisions doesnt mean they shouldnt get a house, health insurance, and a "livable" wage.
This is America, where you can make bad decisions and have others foot the bill!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I won't dispute that labor creates capital (because it obviously does). The question here, however, is should a person be entitled to a guaranteed return of more capital than their labor actually creates? Therein lies the rub.
My answer is no. But then again, I work on straight commission and am not protected by any minimum wage laws. I receive only what my labor actually creates.
My answer is no. But then again, I work on straight commission and am not protected by any minimum wage laws. I receive only what my labor actually creates.
You can't understand what I'm telling you, because you don't want to. You have everything figured out just the way you think it should be and you are in the center of the universe.
You want everybody to have these benefits, I want to know who and how the bill for that will get paid. The point I am driving at and will get to since you are do obstuse is, if everybody, even part timers get benefits, the costs will be paid for by the coorporation. Which will then turn around and raise the price on their product. Product in Walmarts case is bought by the very people you claim to want to help.
Benefits arent free, you cant simply hand them out without a consequence. In the process you may actually hurt smaller business and help Walmart, as Walmarts competition cant afford to pass these costs onto the consumer and fold up shop.
Your comment reminds me of an old cartoon from "the Wizard of Id". The king is on his balcony talking to the throng of people below him. He announces that he realizes that from time to the common people need some incentive.
The people cheer wildly, then the king says "So today were going to hang Sam the Sluggard".
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I love it when people get all fuzzy and altruistic over the internet on issues that don't affect them, i.e. a "semi-retired" farmer who leases his land fighting for an undefined "fair living wage."
"Some people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov
"Some people mistake their own faults for those of society, and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves." -- Isaac Asimov
I've never taken the position that part timers or temporary workers should have full benifits. It gets to be a bit of a sticky wicket saying that because many companies take advantage of the laws and only work people 39 hours a week to avoid classifying them as "full time". That is a different problem and for the purpose of disscussion should just be skipped over.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
There is really no question that these demands by so-called "anti-corporatist" socialists can only benefit big business and the rich, i.e. those who can afford it, and hurt small business and the middle class, i.e. those who cannot. That's exactly what we've been seeing from their "progressive" policies all along. How else can they possibly explain how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer after 100 years of their policies?
There are two reasons I rented my farm out.
#1. My wife has severe allergies, so I can't move out there and live. Since I can't do that, I can't have cattle and therefore I'm not really full time employed and I'm not making enough to afford Health insurance for myself ($15,000 a year to insure JUST me). I want health inurance.
#2. After 26 years, I finally got the damn farm paid for. I couldn't rent it out without taking the chance that a renter might stiff me on the rent and leave me in a precarious finacial position. That actually happens a lot more then you would think. Now that's the farm is paid for, I could survie it if that happened.
I've actually got a pretty good shot a part time position that actually has full benifits, including health and retirement. <crosses fingers>
Because most employers do their best to not pay an employee enough to be able to save up enough money to quit and start his own business.
I guess that depends on what kind of a business you want?
Farm $1,000,000
Combine, $70,000
Tractor, $50,000
Grain drill $15,000
Corn Planter $15,000
Sprayer $10,000
Tillage Equipment $10,000
Insurance $8000
Operating capital $80,000 minimum
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter