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.
Such horror companies having to provide health insurance! Employees are like dogs they should be grateful to eat!
Don't be ridiculous!!! My point is that companies are already giving a lot. My dad used to provide health insurance to ALL of his employees back in the 1970's. It was the right thing to do, but... the costs of health plans were a fraction of what they cost today.
Companies don't exist to support their employees. They exist to provide a product or service to their customers, and profits for their owners and investors/stock holders. They also need to hold back cash in order to survive unexpected costs and fluctuations in their business/cash flow.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to double the freaking labor pool by letting women work and even encourage it, wages will go down. Increase the supply, prices go down. It's common sense. The way forward is to encourage women to be women and have many many babies, stay home, and care for the home. This would solve social security as well. This is the path forward.
How would fewer people paying in to SS "solve" it?
Fallacious argument...expanding the labor pool ALSO introduced a HUGE pool of consumers to the market with their purchasing power. Go back and retake your Econ 101 course.
Economics is NOT a zero sum game unlike you Trumpsters would like to believe. The reason you Trumpsters are struggling is mostly because of poor skill sets and education and you prefer your woman to stay at home so you only have one income to provide for your family.
Trumpster? Cute. And I'm supposed to take you seriously. How about child care costs, which are huge. All the costs of going to work probably get close to nullifying that purchasing power, so your argument fails. Also, why do you thing wages have been STAGNANT for two decades or more?
This is why labor must organize to ensure fair wages.
Oh please. So you want companies to pay above market wages, and benefits so they become uncompetitive and go out of business? Then there are NO jobs. See UAW and other unions for that model.
Oh please. So you want companies to pay above market wages, and benefits so they become uncompetitive and go out of business? Then there are NO jobs. See UAW and other unions for that model.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to double the freaking labor pool by letting women work and even encourage it, wages will go down. Increase the supply, prices go down. It's common sense. The way forward is to encourage women to be women and have many many babies, stay home, and care for the home. This would solve social security as well. This is the path forward.
You’re either delusional or high. Young women are achieving higher levels of education than young men. They’re not barefoot and pregnant anymore.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 03-09-2018 at 02:19 PM..
Trumpster? Cute. And I'm supposed to take you seriously. How about child care costs, which are huge. All the costs of going to work probably get close to nullifying that purchasing power, so your argument fails. Also, why do you thing wages have been STAGNANT for two decades or more?
Your assuming all these women are low wage earning mothers paying child care. Most families in this situation chose for mom to stay home if she can for a few years if her wages are little more than child care expenses. What about all the single and child free women and high earning mothers?
Your assuming all these women are low wage earning mothers paying child care. Most families in this situation chose for mom to stay home if she can for a few years if her wages are little more than child care expenses. What about all the single and child free women and high earning mothers?
Not to mention the families who are thinking long term and realize that childcare costs are also an investment in a mother's future earnings.
Don't be ridiculous!!! My point is that companies are already giving a lot. My dad used to provide health insurance to ALL of his employees back in the 1970's. It was the right thing to do, but... the costs of health plans were a fraction of what they cost today.
Companies don't exist to support their employees. They exist to provide a product or service to their customers, and profits for their owners and investors/stock holders. They also need to hold back cash in order to survive unexpected costs and fluctuations in their business/cash flow.
Good luck doing that without employees.
Business owners who don't want to "support" their employees can just build their own damn widgets.
Without labor the capitalist parasites would starve.
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.
