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.
The purpose of government is to protect our rights.
Apparently, like most conservatives the only rights that deserve protection are those of companies. Workers... not so much.
Quote:
How is government allowed to dictate what companies can pay their voluntary employees?
Since the government doesn't dictate how much companies are suppose to pay their employees, just sets a minimum floor, I have no idea what you are going on about.
Quote:
Are you trying to invent some new "right" to receive more pay than your work is worth to the company doing the paying?
Getting back to my first statement, the only rights that conservatives deem worthy of protection...
The "voluntary" nature of employment is questionable as is the legitimate worth of a workers contribution to the profit of a company. If the power of workers be they individuals or groups of workers were any where approaching a fair balance we wouldn't be having this discussion, but they aren't. There are ample examples in American history regarding the imbalance of power between workers and management a history that conservatives strive to forget or ignore, it isn't a history that I wish to revisit. And it is because of that imbalance in the bargaining power of workers that from time to time right thinking governments have stepped into restore some semblance of power between the two. It is when that balance is in some state of equilibrium that the American economy has flourished.
Nobody deserves a certain wage. If what you're doing requires no skill whatsoever, then why should you get a high wage for it? If you're providing a service that only a handful of people can do, such as bain surgery, then you will get paid a lot of money for your time and energy. If you're providing a service that five billion other people can do, such as punching keys on a cash register, then you aren't going to paid a lot of money for doing it. Supply and demand. It is not an employer's responsibility to see to it that an employee has a decent home, food, and utilities. An employer has a job that needs to be done, and is willing to pay a certain amount of money to get it done. If you're willing to perform that job for the offered wage, then you do it. If you're not, then you don't accept employment there. If nobody is willing to do it for the offered compensation, then the employer will be forced to raise the offer until someone is willing to do it. That's how an economy does and should work.
You wasted your time although your right. They don't understand reward for work only I deserve therefor I should receive.
Here's a question I've been asking 100 times on another current thread.
Now, if wages are so low at places like Macdonald's and WallMart that workers there need food stamps, then isn't this one big problem?
why should the taxpayer foot the wage bill?
why should the companies be allowed to pay so low?
what is the purpose of this system?
how about just a decent wage but no food stamps, make coming off welfare pay, surely this is the right solution?
Wages for labor, just like payment for other services, is based on two things - supply and demand. If the service you provide is in high supply relative to the demand, wages will be low.
The trend has been increasing supply of labor and a decreasing demand relative thereto. So if you think you can earn a decent wage now, doing what paid a decent wage, say, 20 years ago, you may be in for a pretty harsh wake-up call.
The answer, IMHO, is to set up your own service-related business and take yourself out of the market. That will "fix" things for you, and lessen the supply for others.
questionable as is the legitimate worth of a workers contribution to the profit of a company.
Workers aren't paid on the basis of their contribution, per se, but on the supply vs the demand of such people. If there are 2 people who can make a tremendous contribution, for every job, wages will be low - period.
Apparently, like most conservatives the only rights that deserve protection are those of companies. Workers... not so much.
Looks like the usual leftists are reverting to the usual hysterical raving they typically spew when confronted with facts they don't like but can't refute.
De-industrialization (especially in Rust Belt cities), and a shift to a service industry has done wonders for our economy and low-skilled workers.
Whereas, for instance, in Baltimore, (and most other Rust Belt cities) decades ago, an individual with a HS diploma could make an 'honest living' working at a local factory, ($15-19 per hour), which could support an individual, as well as a small family. Once the factories shut down and work went overseas, the city alone, lost over a million entry-level, low skill jobs that provided a decent wage. Now there's incredible competition for sales and service jobs in the Inner Harbor, malls, fast food industry, etc. that pay no more than $9.00 an hour. The living wage in Baltimore alone is $11.00 plus.
Anywho, back to the OP, if I had it my way, the living wage would be aligned with the minimum wage, and then welfare (except for those permanently disabled/elderly) could be weaned off incrementally. The way the system exists right now, there's no incentive to get off welfare, the welfare system does little to promote self sufficiency or upward mobility, minimum wage jobs provide no security or stability to get off welfare even if you wanted to, etc. Lastly, employers like Walmart should not be permitted to capitalize (no pun intended), on this backward system that allows their employees to sign up for benefits at the expense of the taxpayer, especially as they boast insane profits; pay employees a decent wage, offer affordable insurance, and there wouldn't be such a level of dependence in return.
When you factor in shared living expenses it can be done in places with low COL. The problems start when it's not shared living and, in fact, the breadwinner takes on financial responsibilities for OTHER people (ie: children). They will be poor forever unless said breadwinner makes something of themselves.
$8/hr + kids isn't ''poor'', it's ''dystopian future underclass poor''. daycare costs are probably more than your take home pay.
As I've said many times before, outsource millions of jobs to cheap communist, 3rd world countries, open your southern border for millions of low cost workers to cross over, you then get an across the board cut in labor in the US and that includes skilled labor. And it is those who benefit the most who are calling the shots. Follow the money.
It should be obvious that the government has subsidies in place to encourage cheap labor. If you get paid "too much" then you are disqualified for many benefits. If you don't work at all then you don't qualify for many benefits.
Corporations have the system rigged.
The Brits actually refined this system when they realized that it is actually more expensive to have slaves and to rule colonies than it is to engineer a system of cheap labor, subsidized by the consumers and producers themselves.
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.
