Minimum wage

[mayfly13]

A poster in this thread said something that resonated with me:--smthng in this line:

"If a business can't afford to pay it's employees a living wage, so they pay them the 8$ minimum wage,
maybe they shouldn't be in business after all."


Sounds reasonable to me, I would be keen to hear conservatives' comments too.

 

[bellisarius]

A poster in this thread said something that resonated with me:--smthng in this line:

"If a business can't afford to pay it's employees a living wage, so they pay them the 8$ minimum wage,
maybe they shouldn't be in business after all."


Sounds reasonable to me, I would be keen to hear conservatives' comments too.

What about that sounds reasonable? Businesses do NOT exist for the benefit of the employee's. They exist to the benefit of the owner(s) and customers.

 

[rockcasbah]

Chinese suppliers are believed to account for around 70 percent of Walmart’s merchandise. A 2015 analysis from the Economic Institute, a progressive think tank, found that Walmart’s trade with China may have eliminated 400,000 jobs in the US between 2001 and 2013. vox.com

Bit of a conundrum.

 

[bellisarius]

Bit of a conundrum.

Isn't it though? Anyone remember the protests, howls of anguish, and cries of 'slave labor' when it was disclosed that Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line was being made in Haiti? Where are those social busybodies now?

 

[mayfly13]

I like bellisarius's posts. Because, even if I don't always agree with his views, he says it as it is, no nonsense.
Haven't Raegan/Thatcher's neoliberalism-globalization pushed us into an ongoing bind? Either exploit our own blood, or let China& defeat our economies/nations

 

[Champakian]

A poster in this thread said something that resonated with me:--smthng in this line:

"If a business can't afford to pay it's employees a living wage, so they pay them the 8$ minimum wage,
maybe they shouldn't be in business after all."


Sounds reasonable to me, I would be keen to hear conservatives' comments too.

What about that sounds reasonable? Businesses do NOT exist for the benefit of the employee's. They exist to the benefit of the owner(s) and customers.

Exactly. Employees are only elements of production.
US employees are ungrateful, but in poorer countries, just the opposite.

Employees are fickle and prone to feeling an importance greater than their worth.
Unlike your other factors of production, you never know when they will get sick or quit.
I hate to say it, but women demand an additional benefit, the right to take up to a year off.

Employees make robots and automation an attractive alternative...

(In other words, in most of the developed countries, they are their own worst enemy.)

This I learned because I've always (except when very young) been an entrepreneur.

 

[Champakian]

Bit of a conundrum.

Not really. Most times, job elimination leads to job creation.
The cheapest and worst of jobs get exported to China.

Eventually, they will catch up and then we will both
be fighting over cheap labor elsewhere...

 

[Champakian]

Isn't it though? Anyone remember the protests, howls of anguish, and cries of 'slave labor' when it was disclosed that Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line was being made in Haiti? Where are those social busybodies now?

Recuperating from Trump fever.

 

[Champakian]

I like bellisarius's posts. Because, even if I don't always agree with his views, he says it as it is, no nonsense.
Haven't Raegan/Thatcher's neoliberalism-globalization pushed us into an ongoing bind? Either exploit our own blood, or let China& defeat our economies/nations

That's absolute gibberish.

~~ sorry ~~​

 

[rockcasbah]

Isn't it though? Anyone remember the protests, howls of anguish, and cries of 'slave labor' when it was disclosed that Kathy Lee Gifford's clothing line was being made in Haiti? Where are those social busybodies now?

Americans don't want to work menial jobs for shitty pay...that's what immigrants are for, right?

 

[bellisarius]

Americans don't want to work menial jobs for shitty pay...that's what immigrants are for, right?

There's the other problem. They don't want to work menial jobs yet that's the only thing so many are qualified for. One begins to get the impression that they just don't want to work..............period.

 

[Champakian]

Americans don't want to work menial jobs for shitty pay...that's what immigrants are for, right?

"Menial" is subjective, but illegal immigration does help to depress wages.
Regular immigration, not so much, since we screen them for skill sets.
You go to a shit job site, for example, and you're not going to find
a lot of Asian immigrants working for "shitty" wages...

 

[rockcasbah]

"Menial" is subjective, but illegal immigration does help to depress wages.
Regular immigration, not so much, since we screen them for skill sets.
You go to a shit job site, for example, and you're not going to find
a lot of Asian immigrants working for "shitty" wages...

Screen them for skill sets?

How does this explain butters?

 

[Champakian]

Screen them for skill sets?

How does this explain butters?

They never expected her to work as long as Harry was going to provide for her.
The marriage thing is the only loophole; they should close it and force
the really stupid, in love or otherwise, to emigrate...

 

[rockcasbah]

They never expected her to work as long as Harry was going to provide for her.
The marriage thing is the only loophole; they should close it and force
the really stupid, in love or otherwise, to emigrate...

Love slave loophole, right.

 

[Champakian]

Butters is up, down,
better buy the pound...

 

[rockcasbah]

Love is blind, but he could have had 2 or 3 pino or asian girls for the same tare.

 

[Rightguide]

A poster in this thread said something that resonated with me:--smthng in this line:

"If a business can't afford to pay it's employees a living wage, so they pay them the 8$ minimum wage,
maybe they shouldn't be in business after all."


Sounds reasonable to me, I would be keen to hear conservatives' comments too.

If businesses had to pay a "living wage," whatever amount the government decided that should be, a lot of businesses wouldn't exist, and people who couldn't produce at that level would have no way of earning a living.

One's employment has to be of some value to the employer before being hired. One has to produce at a level an employer can mark up in order to recover the costs of employing that person and still be competitive in the marketplace.

If McDonald's had to pay their employees the living wage as determined in San Francisco, $26.03 per Hour for one adult and one child, two things would become apparent, human employment at McDonald's would no longer be a viable business model, or the employment of robotic technology would become the new norm. In both scenarios, entry level employees and the unsophisticated lose a place of employment.

Bear in mind that people are leaving San Francisco in droves. At the end of last year when I left California the exit level in San Francisco alone was up 649%. The problem? Democrats who think there should be a "living wage," an "affordable rent," neutered police officers, wholesale release of felons from jails, benefits for illegal aliens, and a host of other Democrat reasons, and of course the government corruption that comes from a one party state.

 

[mackiemack]

this isn't the political board, retard.

 

[Conager]

Love is blind, but he could have had 2 or 3 pino or asian girls for the same tare.

He did all right on a pound for pound basis. . .

 

[bellisarius]

If businesses had to pay a "living wage," whatever amount the government decided that should be, a lot of businesses wouldn't exist, and people who couldn't produce at that level would have no way of earning a living.

One's employment has to be of some value to the employer before being hired. One has to produce at a level an employer can mark up in order to recover the costs of employing that person and still be competitive in the marketplace.

If McDonald's had to pay their employees the living wage as determined in San Francisco, $26.03 per Hour for one adult and one child, two things would become apparent, human employment at McDonald's would no longer be a viable business model, or the employment of robotic technology would become the new norm. In both scenarios, entry level employees and the unsophisticated lose a place of employment.

Bear in mind that people are leaving San Francisco in droves. At the end of last year when I left California the exit level in San Francisco alone was up 649%. The problem? Democrats who think there should be a "living wage," an "affordable rent," neutered police officers, wholesale release of felons from jails, benefits for illegal aliens, and a host of other Democrat reasons, and of course the government corruption that comes from a one party state.

Let's carry that thought a step further. If employers are obligated, by law, to pay a 'living' wage then it stands to reason that they should not be able to terminate failed employees. In doing so they are, in effect, depriving that employee of life itself. Or so would go the logical train of thought. One needs look no further than government employees, or any highly unionized company, to see how that plays out.

The fact of the matter is that no one 'deserves' more than what they contribute. If your skills are such that you can be replaced by anyone off the street, then you aren't worth very much at all.

 

[Rightguide]

Let's carry that thought a step further. If employers are obligated, by law, to pay a 'living' wage then it stands to reason that they should not be able to terminate failed employees. In doing so they are, in effect, depriving that employee of life itself. Or so would go the logical train of thought. One needs look no further than government employees, or any highly unionized company, to see how that plays out.

Yes, such a policy would deprive more qualified employees of the opportunity to compete for the same job. It would do away with meritocracy and deprive the market of the kind of quality that increases production, breeds innovation and growth.

The fact of the matter is that no one 'deserves' more than what they contribute. If your skills are such that you can be replaced by anyone off the street, then you aren't worth very much at all.

This is why the Minimum Wage has to remain an entry level wage or we're going to usher in the Sovietization of the American economy and the same fate that would accompany it.

 

[mayfly13]

I think that I started it on the wrong foot.

The argument shouldn't be against the minimum wage of 8$.

Because in an theory yes, conservatives in theory are right: it IS ok.
And many ethical business owners make appropriate use of both minimal wage and living wage.

But unfortunately, a good chunk of small business owners are unethical, and use all sorts of gimmicks to overwork workers and underpay the work they extract from them.
And then you have the case of Amazon warehouse workers and of Walmart, who exploit their workers while making billions in profits every year.

So the question should be this instead:
How can one regulate the unethical, crony part of the market, so that ethical business owners could thrive?

 

[mayfly13]

Trump used to be an unethical business owner.
He employed illegals too, to avoid paying taxes.

Yet once president, he only focused on the workers - stopping illegals from crossing the border
no comment about fines for businesses that employ them and incentify them to come in.