Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Larry Burkett said that a business owner who can't afford to pay wages sufficient for a breadwinner to support a family shouldn't hire breadwinners, i.e. the owner should hire single people who don't have families to support.
Why don't we set up a system where people are provided with aenough money for food, shelter, cloths and health care so only the people that want to work go to work. I am certain that with the basics provided the wages for thoese wanting to work would be a lot higher.
Why don't we set up a system where people are provided with aenough money for food, shelter, cloths and health care so only the people that want to work go to work. I am certain that with the basics provided the wages for thoese wanting to work would be a lot higher.
Why don't we set up reservations for recipient class people who don't want to work?
Provide all of their basic needs, but keep them on the reservation.
Why don't we set up a system where people are provided with aenough money for food, shelter, cloths and health care so only the people that want to work go to work. I am certain that with the basics provided the wages for thoese wanting to work would be a lot higher.
But, the taxes on those working (AKA the suckers paying for those not working) would be so high the net income for both would be the same. Under this system, who the heck would want to go to work?
Cool, I'm only going to hire single people with no kids that already live in really cheap housing when I start my business then. Sounds like cheap labor, and then since I am already paying them a "liveable wage" then I wont need to give them any raises. I like this concept.
When we lived in Southern Italy [1997 - 2001] we observed this to be a cultural norm there.
Young adults are assumed to be living at home with their parents, so their wages are low. Regardless of education, job training, or skills. This carried over even to professional athletes and TV show personalities.
Females are always assumed to be living with and supported by their father or husband. So they will never receive a higher wage.
Men who are married may be paid somewhat higher wages, to allow them to support their wife. Married men with children receive much higher wages. Regardless of their education, job training, skills, or even their job function.
A married man with children will earn a higher wage even if he is a dishwasher; as compared to female cooks, waitresses, or even assistant managers.
When we lived in Southern Italy [1997 - 2001] we observed this to be a cultural norm there.
Young adults are assumed to be living at home with their parents, so their wages are low. Regardless of education, job training, or skills. This carried over even to professional athletes and TV show personalities.
Females are always assumed to be living with and supported by their father or husband. So they will never receive a higher wage.
Men who are married may be paid somewhat higher wages, to allow them to support their wife. Married men with children receive much higher wages. Regardless of their education, job training, skills, or even their job function.
A married man with children will earn a higher wage even if he is a dishwasher; as compared to female cooks, waitresses, or even assistant managers.
Wow! I know there's a wage gap (men/women) in the US, but at least the gap is closing and is not culturally encouraged.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
b
So the skill of NBA thugs is societally defined at approx 100 to 1,000 times the value of teachers or cops or firefighters. Now that's a system you can really believe in.
I'd say a "livable wage" is a wage sufficient to promote marriage. Women are very good at determining the level of such a wage.
Unfortunately yes.
Our society values sports figures much more highly than educators.
Of course sports figures are the best in their field as proven by the constant and fierce competition.
Teachers however, if judged by the fruits of their labor have proven tremendously incompetent. To be fair though, sports figures don't operate under nearly the amount of government supervision and regulation that educators do.
1. Livable wage? If your wages are not enough to live in, increase your skills, or get a new employer.
2. How many people remember that we have Abraham Lincoln to thank for federal income tax?
3. Not all employers pay dirt cheap. Some pay decent wages and benefits, so that they may keep/retain employees that are beneficial to the company.
Employment is a 2 way street. As an employee you have to bring benefit to your employer, and as an employer, you have to be able to pay a wage that is competitive with others to keep employees. The difference between now and in the 20's, is there are MANY more employers available and many are willing to pay what it takes to get beneficial employees and keep them, realizing that it's more cost effective and productive having people trained and happy where they are.
I am lucky in that I work for one of those employers. I make a decent wage, get yearly bonuses, wage increases, time off, insurance, etc etc etc.
Better than that, I enjoy the work I do, and look forward to going to work. So, not only am I employed in a field I enjoy, I found employment with a good employer. I am sure that if I can do that, others can as well.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,655 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
1. Livable wage? If your wages are not enough to live in, increase your skills, or get a new employer.
2. How many people remember that we have Abraham Lincoln to thank for federal income tax?
3. Not all employers pay dirt cheap. Some pay decent wages and benefits, so that they may keep/retain employees that are beneficial to the company.
Employment is a 2 way street. As an employee you have to bring benefit to your employer, and as an employer, you have to be able to pay a wage that is competitive with others to keep employees. The difference between now and in the 20's, is there are MANY more employers available and many are willing to pay what it takes to get beneficial employees and keep them, realizing that it's more cost effective and productive having people trained and happy where they are.
I am lucky in that I work for one of those employers. I make a decent wage, get yearly bonuses, wage increases, time off, insurance, etc etc etc.
Better than that, I enjoy the work I do, and look forward to going to work. So, not only am I employed in a field I enjoy, I found employment with a good employer. I am sure that if I can do that, others can as well.
Thank you for that tidbit.
I knew that but until you pointed it out, it was lost to the frontal lobes and floating back there in that quagmire of a reptilian brain for years.
Overtime after 40 hours per week.....that we will hit about Thursday afternoon this week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
