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.
What you believe in is myths. The "freedoms" you write about aren't freedoms. It's not freedom to accept a job that is barely subsistence but do so because corporations refuse to pay a living wage. Apart from freedom, that's coercion.
As for job descriptions, there is a reason why we have job classifications -- different jobs require different skills. If you expect an office worker to fix an electrical outlet, injury may occur, and the company will be 100% liable for damages. That's why companies insist on electricians to perform electrical work.
You have the freedom to study to the point where you can prove you are worth a higher wage. I would take that freedom over the alternative any day.
Personally I have more than doubled my salary since 2008 because I used the freedom I have to study hard, work harder and prove I am worth more.
So the guy who emptys your garbage can year round in all kinds of weather doesn`t deserve a living wage or medical benefits because he has no skills? He shows up for work and works hard at a lousy job and he should have to search the cans he empties for food? I see that your not exactly walking in the footsteps of Jesus. Nice.
No. 1: You don't know Jesus, or you wouldn't have made such a comment.
No. 2: Your Alinsky tactic is noted (and I'm not falling for it)
No.3: Trash collectors are Union employees. I'm sure they make far more than they are worth, so they do not have to "search the cans for food." That is pure demagoguery. Nice try though.
Oh, and by the way, around here they are all white, too. In case that was going to be your next line of attack. They are all pretty husky looking fellows.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 04-02-2013 at 05:37 PM..
You mean they don't buy low and sell high? They don't buy in bulk for a better price? They don't streamline man-power, hours, overtime and benefits?
Of course Costco does all of those things.
The main difference is Costco hasn't grown as fast as Wal*Mart and Sam's Club have and therefore aren't in nearly as many markets as those stores are.
I don't suppose you want me to get into the laws of averages do you and where most of the Costco stores are located? Of course you wouldn't because then you'd have to really start thinking about cost-of-living and how it relates to geographical locations and population densities and we wouldn't want that now would we because then it would be too complex for the simple-minded to understand and then they wouldn't be able to shove everyone in to one giant box.
By the way the CEO of Costco before he left took home $13,000,000 in 2011. You want to do the math for everyone and tell us about CEO pay and outrageous bonuses and the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay?
I'll save you the time... $367:$1
You want to tell us what Costco did to health insurance for their employees in 2003?
It doesn't have to do with markets, although that's some of it. Actually WalMart is a lot more labor intensive than Costco, which makes the two not comparable on that scale. It would indeed be difficult for Walmart to pay the same as Costco. However, that does not on any level negate my point.
And I was never comparing CEO wages to employee wages, in fact I have defended CEOs as being incredibly hard working with a ridiculously difficult job on one of the 50 other threads on this topic.
What I was arguing, is that if you treat your workers with an above average attitude and sense of worth, then you're going to get better performance.
If you shop at either of those stores and don't see a difference in employee attitude then you're certainly not paying attention.
They didn't have to do it, is my point. But they did, and Costco is a far superior store to Sam's Club as a result. I don't really see how you can refute that. It can be done and is, there are examples of companies in the same business that outdo their competitors by valuing their employees. Most just don't take that route.
From the last election it is obvious that the left hates capitalism. What did you expect? them to roll over and play "sure, tax the chit out of me" and I will give my employees more.
What you believe in is myths. The "freedoms" you write about aren't freedoms. It's not freedom to accept a job that is barely subsistence but do so because corporations refuse to pay a living wage. Apart from freedom, that's coercion.
As for job descriptions, there is a reason why we have job classifications -- different jobs require different skills. If you expect an office worker to fix an electrical outlet, injury may occur, and the company will be 100% liable for damages. That's why companies insist on electricians to perform electrical work.
Why am I bothering to argue with a communist? I guess it's fun, sort of. In a truly free society, no one is owed anything by anyone. Barely subsistence? That's pretty good compared to the lot of man in the natural world. DOn't want the job? Go travel out into the wild and live like pre-historic man. No one is forcing you or anyone else to be a member of this society. You could hitchhike to Alaska go deep into the woods and become a hunter/gatherer. Of course, you probably wouldn't survive, but it's your choice. The only way you force people to owe something to someone they don't want to help is through tyranny. To a communist, tyranny is justified to ensure all workers get a "living wage" (of course the great leaders and their minions who decide what these supposedly fair wages are get to live just a bit better on account of their great benevolence). There's a reason many self made men are libertarian or republican. If you had the stagnant economy where the govt. made the business decisions and controlled free decisions they (and I) wouldn't have had the opportunity to improve our lot in life. Basically we'd be stuck with the lazy union workers. I'd also be interested in your version of subsistence living. Also, many minimum wage jobs can and are performed well by mentally handicapped people. If you are a grown person and this is the best you can do, assuming no mental injuries, it's on you, not me, and not anyone else.
Why am I bothering to argue with a communist? I guess it's fun, sort of. In a truly free society, no one is owed anything by anyone. Barely subsistence? That's pretty good compared to the lot of man in the natural world. DOn't want the job? Go travel out into the wild and live like pre-historic man. No one is forcing you or anyone else to be a member of this society. You could hitchhike to Alaska go deep into the woods and become a hunter/gatherer. Of course, you probably wouldn't survive, but it's your choice. The only way you force people to owe something to someone they don't want to help is through tyranny. To a communist, tyranny is justified to ensure all workers get a "living wage" (of course the great leaders and their minions who decide what these supposedly fair wages are get to live just a bit better on account of their great benevolence). There's a reason many self made men are libertarian or republican. If you had the stagnant economy where the govt. made the business decisions and controlled free decisions they (and I) wouldn't have had the opportunity to improve our lot in life. Basically we'd be stuck with the lazy union workers. I'd also be interested in your version of subsistence living. Also, many minimum wage jobs can and are performed well by mentally handicapped people. If you are a grown person and this is the best you can do, assuming no mental injuries, it's on you, not me, and not anyone else.
Someone save this post from this specimen for future reference when some scabby-mouthed right-winger exclaims,"Right wingers don't hate workers! You have no evidence of that!"
Naturally, this post has been made by another independently wealthy right-winger who spends his time posting on internet message boards.
What you believe in is myths. The "freedoms" you write about aren't freedoms. It's not freedom to accept a job that is barely subsistence but do so because corporations refuse to pay a living wage. Apart from freedom, that's coercion.
As for job descriptions, there is a reason why we have job classifications -- different jobs require different skills. If you expect an office worker to fix an electrical outlet, injury may occur, and the company will be 100% liable for damages. That's why companies insist on electricians to perform electrical work.
Actually, in your scenario, lawyers are the reason why an office worker can't fix an electrical outlet.
And you have it all wrong - it IS freedom to accept any job you want and have the skills necessary to perform, at a wage that you and your employer agree upon. You are also free to walk away from a job that you don't want.
Forcing corporations to pay a certain wage is the lack of freedom.
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.
