100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Minimum Wage? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 05/23/14 02:10 PM
|
|
You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced. all labor is a skill,, whether it is a common skill or not is irrelevant I understand wage should be commiserate with work, but even that is not the reality who says a teacher isn't doing something that not everyone can do, and an entertainer too, but why would one make so much more than the other? because of being able to COMPETE based upon their PERSONAL Contribution to THEIR employer and their employers profits,,, time is money, time and energy should be compensated,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like, I needs me them Air Jordans, pimp wheels and mo gold blang ta match my teefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahh,, the neverending stereotype wagon,,,,
people seeking more than minimum wage are now up there with the 'welfare queen' who wears high end clothes and drives a fancy car and jewelry,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced. all labor is a skill,, whether it is a common skill or not is irrelevant I understand wage should be commiserate with work, but even that is not the reality who says a teacher isn't doing something that not everyone can do, and an entertainer too, but why would one make so much more than the other? because of being able to COMPETE based upon their PERSONAL Contribution to THEIR employer and their employers profits,,, time is money, time and energy should be compensated,,,, skilled labor noun 1. labor that requires special training for its satisfactory performance. unskilled labor noun 1. work that requires practically no training or experience for its adequate or competent performance. No not all labor is skilled |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Fri 05/23/14 05:07 PM
|
|
Free? Not for College or University! Problem is,that many people really have no use for a College-or University-Degree,and it's simply a matter of prestige,and an expensive one at that! Once upon a time, the Swiss were know for superb educational programs. Their universities were highly placed in the realm of education. But some papers that I have read of late, does not bode well for that reputation. The US was taken over many years ago to turn out robots for industry. They were indoctrinated to be good little employees and to serve specialized functions, not great functions but sort of like the grease that keeps the machinery rolling. Sort of like the British education system that I was introduced to back in the mid-seventies. The one that made one take a serious look at the US system and doubt it's benefits. But alas, that British system has gone the way of the American one, now just trains human robots for industry. But here is one of the papers that I spoke of, have you seen this? Just what sphere of influence has it had on the Swiss education system? A complex systems approach to education in Switzerland I haven't gotten much past the part: "Issues to be Addressed", but then I have read a huge portion of Agenda 21 and will complete Agenda 21 first, seems that coming back to read the other document may be redundant. Because I can and it looks cleaner. But even then sometimes forget to correct the secure link but that don't change anything it would be the same either way. Try this one, link repaired, no more secured url. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You dont need competitive wages for unskilled labor. The reason they pay so low is anyone can do it and anyone is easily replaced. all labor is a skill,, whether it is a common skill or not is irrelevant I understand wage should be commiserate with work, but even that is not the reality who says a teacher isn't doing something that not everyone can do, and an entertainer too, but why would one make so much more than the other? because of being able to COMPETE based upon their PERSONAL Contribution to THEIR employer and their employers profits,,, time is money, time and energy should be compensated,,,, skilled labor noun 1. labor that requires special training for its satisfactory performance. unskilled labor noun 1. work that requires practically no training or experience for its adequate or competent performance. No not all labor is skilled actually it is skill: : the ability to do something that comes from training, experience, or practice the CLASSIST definition of 'skilled LABOR' ,unfortunately, ties work to the 'training' (to be equated with financial investment) and totally disregards the EXPERIENCE that comes freely from ambition and interest if its not money, its not a value, if it didn't cost money, its not a value either,,,, but, strictly speaking, any LABOR is a SKILL in that it has come from someones experiences or practice in doing that thing,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Fri 05/23/14 04:45 PM
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/study-in-most-states-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-job/
When our entitlement programs are paying more for 'basic living' needs than what employers are paying their workers...there is a problem. But the deeper issue is WHY are employers ABLE to pay so low? they shouldn't need a law, but it's because most feel they can't find a job anywhere else, and that is partly because we have wiped out the small-business in this country with way to high of taxes, and to many. If a "burger flipper" could go next door to a mom and pop shop and make more money there they would, but if squeeze those startups out, then you have a study supply of people who you can then choose to pay whatever you want, because you know you are the game in town. The wagers should have slowly been increasing over the years, but they have not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the point was the min wage was only applicable for those making SALES of 500000 or more per year,,,, [/ quote] No, the point is that is pure BS, and totally false. Another example of not having a clue about the subject matter but just leaping forward anyway. It wasn't true in the first post and isn't true when posted again. there are different types of businesses that aren't all corporations,, which title 26 deals with,,,, Totally absurd, do you have any clue what Title 26 of the US code really is. It's apparent you don't. Title 26 is the entire operating code of the IRS and covers 12 subtitles. I would also say you haven't a clue about corporations either. And there are only two types of business outside of corporations, sole proprietorship or partnership, both private ownership that needs no blessing of a state. Some would argue Cooperative or LLC but those are just derivatives of the corporation. ,,,,I have 'family' too who run businesses or were responsible for the finances of businesses netting hundreds of thousands or millions,, and they could still afford to pay people a living wage,,,,, You keep claiming that and then proving the myth of the whole claim. Someone somewhere owns a lot, but that doesn't mean anything. It becomes very clear with each post, you aren't the CEO, CFO, or COO, yeah all those alphabet people with one thing in common, "Chief". And I'm sure they pay people more than they are worth and are still in business, not possible. Why is family in quotes? Pretend family? And if you have "family" that can pay a living wage, why are you not working there? Is there an allergy to work? its called making a business plan that works,,,,, Really, is this the same concept as Title 26? Are you capable of reading a business plan? What part does the balance sheet portray? What is the purpose of the Management Plan and how does that relate to the Business Plan? What is the marketing plan? Before you jump, you really should look to see if the pool has water. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the same about you, "never been there, never done that" but you are a very successful troll, i'll give you that. You did say that, but as usual you wouldn't be correct. And I don't need to be "given" anything. If I want something, I get it myself. If troll is how you see it, no argument from me outside of questioning the reality of your sight, not a very good track record to this point. Seems your view is limited by those self instilled blinders, like the ones used to keep horses on the straight and narrow, not to mention those brown colored lenses to maintain that consistent view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that you are trying to fight ad hominem with ad hominem, but I wish that you wouldn't because doing so makes you look bad, and it doesn't really work. But that is your standard reply. When somebody doesn't agree with your little snippets, then it's a personal attack. Well grow up, get a pair and post an argument. Otherwise, it's just bull, expect more of the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is true I don't personally consider shops that are able to have a market that is beyond local to be 'mom and pop' the stores I know don't have such websites except to advertise whats in their store when you come in,,,,,they cant take on the shipping costs for sending their products out,,, Let's see, where have i heard that before, that's right. "Definitions don't really have to mean anything if they are only opinions". Wasn't that about the crux of the theory? So if we extend that, then if a mom, a pop, or mom and pop together operate a small business out of their home with the internet as there marketplace, then they would be called a what? So the stores you know can afford some web presence, but they don't use it except to advertise what is in the store when you come in. So with that little knowledge of a website, just whom keeps it updated? And what shipping costs would those be, the ones the buyer pays, that would not be affordable? Sorry, I forget, the concept of free would be in operation here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Fri 05/23/14 05:58 PM
|
|
I understand that, but if the person isn't who they claim to be, then any and all 'learned by experience' becomes an invalid source, Most 'sources' are from 'experience' but if that never existed then..... And I don't mind making myself look bad, I am very comfortable in who I am, and in things that I have posted I know are from experiences that I can prove... That really was my intent. Really and your able to determine that how? Claiming some mystical experience like being in port a few days getting to know someone? You have no clue just who I am, what I am, what I've done or even what I'm capable of. And I really don't care if you accept anything, it doesn't change anything. But what you say about yourself speaks reams, especially having to somehow prove things? The difference is that I don't have to prove anything. You don't like it, so be it, I don't care, you meant nothing to me coming in so why do I care that you mean nothing going out. Maybe some day when you grow up you will understand. When I post here, I don't intend to "tell" anybody anything. I post the truth as known to me, if one just accepts it, they are a fool. If one rejects it, they are ignorant. If one is skeptical and investigates to determine their own truth, they are the truly knowledgeable ones. And then there are the ones that post a rebuttal, to those I am grateful for it allows knowledge to be expanded, for another view to be acknowledged and assimilated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can only say that if ya cant do the math and see what ones overhead is gonna be vs. what kind of profit is gonna be made than they have no place getting into business in the first place..Personally I think that coops will become the future.. 
"Best-laid plans of mice and men oft go astray" and 80% of those that go into business prove that to be so. That is the average of new business failures within the first 18 months in a good economy. But what part of that 80% just leap without looking, probably a good percentage, usually those surprised by the outcome. Before success comes in any man's life, he's sure to meet with much temporary defeat and, perhaps some failures. When defeat overtakes a man, the easiest and the most logical thing to do is to quit. That's exactly what the majority of men do. -Napoleon Hill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with the employment part but not the cigarette. I remember cigarettes at $1 a carton. Then the price started going up, some said they would quit at 50 cents a pack, then it was $1 a pack. Even at $5 a pack, they still don't quit, all they do is have a habit with increased costs to support. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can bet these idiots haven't considered the higher taxes and union dues, or the higher costs of health insurance as they "elevate" themselves out of poverty! Most would probably make less than they do now as their welfare goes away from the higher wages! 
They haven't bothered to consider overhead either, but then they wouldn't be concerned with that part, would they. But so many costs of business like Worker's Comp tax, Social Security tax match, Medicare tax match, unemployment tax are all a percentage of wages, the more you pay, the more you pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher Profits? If your wages go too high,and cut into profits,your Investors will invest elsewhere,besides,how can some Government-Idiot sitting in some Government-Office determine what wages workers ought to make? Wages are a part of the Price a finished product will cost! Still want to tell me anyone is worth $15.- flipping Hamburgers? And if anyones capacity is only sufficient to flip Burgers,why should they be paid the wages of a skilled Machine-Operator or any other skilled Tradesman? http://mises.org/daily/5865/MinimumWage-Rates Well,we made short shrift,last Sunday,of the proposal by the Unions and sundry Left Parties to set a $25.-/Hour Minimumwage! http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Swiss_say_no_to_world_s_highest_minimum_wage.html?cid=38543758 Swiss say no to world's highest minimum wage Voters in Switzerland have rejected plans for a nationwide minimum wage. At CHF22 ($25) an hour, the limit would have been the highest in the world. Within that first quote, there is a very interesting concept: The essence of the union doctrine is implied in the slogan exploitation. According to the union variety of the exploitation doctrine, which differs in some points from the Marxian creed, labor is the only source of wealth, and expenditure of labor the only real costs. By rights, all proceeds from the sale of products should belong to the workers. The worker has a fair claim to the whole produce of labor. The wrong that the capitalistic mode of production does to the worker consists in the fact that it permits landowners, capitalists, and entrepreneurs to withhold a part of the workers' portion. The share which goes to these parasites is unearned income. It is manifestly a predatory revenue, a theft. The workers are right in their endeavors to raise wage rates step by step to such a height that finally nothing will be left for the support of a class of idle and socially useless exploiters. In aiming at this end, they continue the battle which earlier generations fought for the emancipation of slaves and serfs and for the abolition of the imposts, tributes, tithes, and unpaid statute labor with which the peasantry was burdened for the benefit of aristocratic landlords. The labor movement is a struggle for freedom and equality, and for the vindication of the inalienable rights of man. Its ultimate victory is beyond doubt, for it is the inevitable trend of historical evolution to wipe out all class privileges and to establish firmly the realm of freedom and equality. The attempts of reactionary employers to halt progress are doomed. First, not to mistaken this as the whole of he article but as an excerpt to the very concept which is at stake with the fast food workers, not the wages but the control of the unions, the driving force behind the whole controversy. And this concept is what is being argued here by those wishing to gain without value. The concept that the profits of labor belong to labor with no other considerations. They contend that the share not going to labor is going to the parasites as unearned income. But if those parasites, the landowners, capitalists, and entrepreneurs to withhold a part of labors portion, then just where would the worker's get the stage to produce that labor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can bet these idiots haven't considered the higher taxes and union dues, or the higher costs of health insurance as they "elevate" themselves out of poverty! Most would probably make less than they do now as their welfare goes away from the higher wages!
The old axiom, beware of what you ask for, you may get it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can bet these idiots haven't considered the higher taxes and union dues, or the higher costs of health insurance as they "elevate" themselves out of poverty! Most would probably make less than they do now!
some of them know,but they think they will just go back to the Well again!
At $15 an hour there is no "well" to draw from any more. No welfare, no rent supplements, no WIC, no foodstamps, no free healthcare..... they're on their own!  OMG! I'm all for it! I can't afford to eat out anyway! Big Macs are already over $4 but KFC has a GMO chicken buffet at $5! Cancer in a bucket with all the trimmings!
I can afford to eat out, but not at a fast food place. McDonald's and Burger King are really not different than KFC. The up front costs may be low, but the overall costs are astronomical considering like you say the damage to health. But that's ok, there is always Odumbocare and medicine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest no such thing as that seems to be another EXTREME people argue for. Simply put though, no one working 40 hours a week should be in poverty. In America, 15 per hour would amount to 31,200 for anyone working four hours, which is nearly THREE TIMES The poverty threshold. That would, of course, be ridiculous. The poverty threshold for an American is currently almost 12000 per year. It goes up only three of four thousand per person you add to the household. For means tested programs, there is usually a cap of 140 percent of poverty level which means we aim for people to have 16000 per year and 5000 more per person. That is 7.70 per hour for a single person only supporting themselves, and around 10 if they have another person to support. As more single parents (cultural changes in ideas about sex and conception and fatherhood) are 'choosing' minimum wage jobs, that 10 per hour would be the more reasonable minimum wage. 15 is indeed as preposterous as 5 would be. Total BS, $5 minimum wage would be more valid that $7 and $0 would be more valid that $5. Could care less about single parents, you can't upgrade your skills to qualify for more money, then keep your legs closed. Care less about poverty level, there is no such thing, just another fake fact put forth by government to constrain those too lazy to improve themselves. But to suppose that a minimum wage somehow protects against poverty is just pure ignorance, it does the exact opposite, it forever condemns those without the means to reach a set value the opportunity to have work that would improve their value and get ahead. Instead they must forever be at the mercy of the government handout. Of course this can never be seen by the entitlement crowd, they have already resolved their fact to an immoral life build around theft, theft by the government's guns. No need to earn, just to be given. So sad for children that are raised in this unhealthy environment. Where is CPS, off harassing a family that is capable of supporting their children. Runaway government!!! |
|
|
|
|
