So many quotes, so little time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
He's saying that paying employees a livable wage precludes obscene CEO pay.
|
And you're implying that all employees work for major corporations--small businesses, Mom-and-Pops don't have employees?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I suggest a maximum wage so as to prevent the seperation of incomes.
|
We've already seen how well such a concept works with the alternative minimum tax. Within a few years, everyone's income will be the maximum that our leaders allow (except for theirs). Their income will be exempt, much as Congress is exempt from Social Security. You know, "Some animals are more equal than others."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
I see two solutions to the problem, pay the people at the bottom more or tax the people who refuse to give them enough to live on more. If you have a magical solution that incorporates reality into it, I'd love to see it.
|
If you have a solution that will prevent the entire world from buying products made in countries with lower labor costs than ours, I'd love to see THAT. Otherwise, as you said, it's GIVING away money unsubstainably, if you can call it "giving" at the point of a government gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Stevo, have you ever worked for minumum wage?
|
This is just silly. Practically everyone has. Most people start at minimum when they are young, and then work to achieve a better life. A few find it easier to whine (for YEARS) that the minimum wage isn't high enough. That is, when they're not whining that there aren't any good jobs, usually because of competition from companies with a better handle on their overhead. Or because the employee couldn't be bothered to undertake some kind of training that would make them more valuable to the company.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What a fantastic point! Yes, the one and only reason for minimum wage is to make me sleep better at night. It's not like McDonalds would be paying people $3.45 an hour if they could. It's not like busniesses have to be heald responsible for the ability to give out fair wages to their employees.
|
That sounds suspiciously like the sarcasm that was mentioned before, with maybe a little bitterness thrown in. I will say, without a trace of sarcasm, that "It's not like employees can't switch to a job that pays better than minimum wage." Of course,that would require that the employee put forth some degree of effort, say, practicing birth control, looking for other work, being willing to relocate, taking additional training, or otherwise getting off their ass.
I defy you to show me a labor-intensive (or almost any other) business that can survive if no one will work for the pay it offers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I still can't believe that you seem to think that everyone who has low income made a decision to take that crappy job. No on wants to work at McDonalds. Some people have to work at McDonalds, or they will starve. Do you understand? When I was in college, I HAD to take a job landscaping for minimun wage because I would have had to drop out of school and screw up the rest of my life to work for more.
|
So what you’re saying is that minimum wage, in your case, propped you up until you had worked hard to get something better. You DO realize that you just shot your whole argument in the foot, don’t you? It backs up everything I said above!
Here is another little aspect of owning a business--it's not minimum wage-related, but it certainly has an impact on the funds employers have available to increase pay. Now employers may be responsible if an employee decides to have a kid they can't afford.
(This is from Rush Limbaugh, and it can't be linked. Please limit your discussion to the veracity of what he said, instead of your personal opinion of him. Thanks.)
Quote:
The Massachusetts legislature plans to vote this week on a bill that would give all employees in the state 12 weeks of paid medical leave annually, 100% of their pay up to $750 a week, plus the guarantee to hold their jobs to care for newborns or sick relatives," and pretty soon, sick dogs and cats and a leaking swimming pool, what have you.
"If the bill passes, it would mandate the most generous paid leave policy in America. It's the first of 24 similar proposals pending this year. Family friendly and popular with female voters ["Pay for not working? Yeah, sounds good!"] , most of the bills are enjoying wide bipartisan support says Deborah Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. 'We're seeing real movement toward more paid leave.'"
I'm sure you are. I mean, this is, "Let's grow government." The employer pays for it. The employer's gotta pay the employees' leave up to 750 bucks a week and then keep the job open, and then, assuming the employee has work that matters, has to be replaced.
So you're paying two people while one of them isn't there, holding the job open for the one that's not there to come back. I don't know what you do with the employee that's been moved in there. It's the business that will pay for it. This is no different than what Maryland did to Wal-Mart in its own way, and it's going to spread nationwide. (interruption) Well, yeah, see, that's an interesting question, because what's going to happen, you know, businesses are not dumb, folks. In most businesses, particularly small businesses, like a Boys and Girls Clubs, they don't have a stash of cash in the back room that they're not using. . .
They don't. Now, if you're an employer, and the objective is to get fixed costs nailed down as much as you can, get the expense side, including labor, nailed so you at least know what you're dealing with in terms of what you have to earn in order to break even and show a profit, how many women of child rearing age are going to be hired? Now, it'll never be said during an interview, "You're not being hired because, why, you could get pregnant on me and you would cost me double when you're not here." That won't be said. How many women are actually going to get hired?
This stuff always has a cause and effect. This will lead to new legislation, and it'll just keep spiraling, and what you'll get is more and more government control over how businesses hire and operate and what they pay . .
|
Translation of the Massachusetts proposals: "Much like going out and looking for a better job, saving money in anticipation of having a child is now passe. Those rich business owners should pay for it!"
Will, since Massachusetts thinks this is "fair,” do you provide this, in order to "damn well [be] sure that [your] workers get fair compensation?" Or do YOU want to decide what's fair, instead of the government?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I predict that the agenda to destroy the "middle" class in America is too far along to reverse.
|
I would be interested to see the logic behind the government’s agenda to destroy a huge percentage of the tax base, but I am
not interested in wading through pages of quotes that don’t really address the question. Now if you’d said that government officials had an agenda to control all aspects of business, while diverting huge sums of money into their control …
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I guess if every business, restaurant, landscapper, etc.. had to pay their workers 30K per year then no one would have a competitive advantage over another but prices would probably go up and patrons would fall off so some would have to close. This may happen anyway with the 7.50/hr proposal. Also as wages go up some businesses will probably have trouble competing on the international market.
|
Thank you for slamming that nail right on the head.