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.
Not sure... I don't think I am either a conservative nor liberial. My friends say I'm fairly centrist. I'd have to ask some of my liberal friends on what they think.
This is where we differ.
I believe there are associated costs with acquiring resources to run a business. For labor, those costs are higher because you are dealing with a living consuming thing. Much like a cowboy and horse... if he cannot afford to feed his horse, he has no business being a cowboy.
I don't believe a business that relies on fully-employed labor but cannot pay a living wage has no business operating with labor (ie horse). Its a failed business and does not deserve the protections under the guise of society's responsibility to the welfare of its people to to stay in business. With that notion, I have to concede that I am willing to accept that that that cost is passed to the consumer. To that end, if the consumers won't pay for it then the JOB itself is not worth doing. The alternative.... the business must figure out how to operate more cost effectively and efficiently (or do it without labor). We expect that people live within their means... we should have the same expectations for business.
So recall that I mentioned that the floor for wages is higher when there is no welfare safety net... because the natural supply vs demand pressures would correct it. With a tax payer funded safety net, the wages are kept low because the pressures are avoided. Theoretically, the wages can be driven to near zero and the labor costs completely funded by the tax payer. The only thing preventing currently is the minimum wage.
I think if labor costs are included as an operating expense, the free market will adjust appropriately as they the producers and consumers negotiate over the price of goods and services. Businesses that thrive will be the ones that use what labor they afford most efficiently. Consumers that want a good or service that requires expensive labor will need to pay for it. I have a problem with this.
Of course proponents would say that its unfair because the free market should determine the cost of that labor. Remember, the day we as a society decided to intervene and not allow the labor supply experience attrition was the day that the free market on labor died.. free market on labor has not existed in this country for decades. If we still value the free market, then let those costs bubble upwards and take place at the negotiation table that sits between the businesses and the consumer. Let the businesses compete with each other... A business that hires more than it can afford or doesn't use its resources (labor included) efficiently/cost effectively would again be allowed to "die". We as a society never agreed to intervene in business attrition.
The analogy with horses breaks down when you try to expand the concept of living wage to those with families - since a cowboy has the option of sterilizing the animals, while an employer does not have the option to sterilize their employees.
So we have to address the issue of kids separately.
I really like this first idea. Do you think the left will go for it?
If a job is worth $5/hr, there is no reason to pay $7/hr. If society believes that $7/hr is appropriate, then it should be society's responsibility to provide that extra $2/hr, not the responsability of individual employers. For this extra $2/hr, we simply go back to your first point - these people will be employed by the state for that extra $2.
I missed that one the first time around. It is the responsibility of businesses to make a profit. If they can't do it then they should get out of business. Subsidized labor.
Slavery is against the rules. Should we subsidize former slave owners to pay their workers instead of forcing them to work at no compensation? through higher prices for the goods produced yes. Through a tax on everyone to be given to the former slave holders, no.
The minimum wage is simply the margin between working and slavery. If you need slave labor to make a profit, or government subsidizes to make a profit, then get the (whatever will fit through the profanity filter) out of business.
The analogy with horses breaks down when you try to expand the concept of living wage to those with families - since a cowboy has the option of sterilizing the animals, while an employer does not have the option to sterilize their employees.
The analogy was specifically in the context of maintaining that one horse for the purpose of business... not the children of that horse. As such sterilizing the horse doesn't really matter.
A cowboy who cannot afford to feed his horse is not a cowboy.. he is a person with a dead horse.
A cowboy who cannot afford to feed his sterilized horse is not a cowboy... he is a person with a dead sterilized horse.
In either case, the cowboy had no business owning the horse for the purpose of business in the first place. He certainly has no right expecting the tax payer to feed it.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I would only like to see a living wage to sustain basic necessities for an individual who is fully-employed so that they can maintain a standard work week. I'm not necessarily a proponent of a living wage to sustain entire families although my opinion is currently being challenged. I'm currently having an on going debate with a friend of mine (in person) regarding how to define a living wage. In readings, I discovered that many countries with some sort of living wage defines it to the individual.. not necessarily the individual + family.
You may have noticed that in my previous posts I try to be careful to always state that the intent is to sustain individual who is fully employed to maintain a standard work week. I do this because I do realize that some define living wage differently.. often to include family. I do not at this time.
The analogy was specifically in the context of maintaining that one horse for the purpose of business... not the children of that horse. As such sterilizing the horse doesn't really matter.
A cowboy who cannot afford to feed his horse is not a cowboy.. he is a person with a dead horse.
A cowboy who cannot afford to feed his sterilized horse is not a cowboy... he is a person with a dead sterilized horse.
In either case, the cowboy had no business owning the horse for the purpose of business in the first place. He certainly has no right expecting the tax payer to feed it.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I would only like to see a living wage to sustain basic necessities for an individual who is fully-employed so that they can maintain a standard work week. I'm not necessarily a proponent of a living wage to sustain entire families although my opinion is currently being formed.. I'm currently having this debate with a friend of mine (in person).
The morality can be set aside. Long term it is inflation and who benefits from it that matters. If the top pays the price from inflation then the bottom will be comfortable. It will be easy for a person to raise a family on the minimum wage. If the top benefits from inflation and the middle stays the same then the bottom will hurt. Without a safety net the bottom will starve or end up enslaved.
This ultimately amounts to a naturalistic fallacy with respect to the labor market. You cannot get from how much the market values a job to how much it ought to value the job, without some additional assumptions, which you have failed to make explicit.
I am interested... this is something I had not heard or thought about.
Could you provide examples on how a job is valued is based on some assumptions? (Still trying to get my head wrapped around what you said and I examples tend to clear it up)
I am interested... this is something I had not heard or thought about.
Could you provide examples on how a job is valued is based on some assumptions? (Still trying to get my head wrapped around what you said and I examples tend to clear it up)
he is saying that you need to specify what your assumptions are in order to make a coherent argument.
You miss the huge and crucial difference: every employee shares in the profit of the business. And not only shares in it, but shares equally in it based on nothing more than their length of service.
- No Salary Negotiation and no chances for increases based on Performance? You are ASKING for low loyalty and a poor performance result from your Employees.
What matters is the performance of the business. If the business does well, the employees share in the rewards. Increases based on performance of the business, because that's what matters.
Quote:
- The Business profits and Bonuses are shared equally amongst the Employees? The Janitor (who mops the floor) will get the SAME SHARE of profits and bonuses as the Engineer who develops, programs, etc. the damn products you sell AND who probably also sells them as well? Are you kidding me?
You're saying a janitor's contribution to success of the business is less than an engineer's? Give me a break. If your company has a crappy janitor, what happens? The bathrooms are always filthy, the place isn't clean: employee moral goes down, clients and customers who visit the office come away with a bad impression. Business partners don;t want to visit your headquarters anymore. You lose customers because they don't respect how you are maintaining your own offices. You think these things don't make a bad impact on the business? They do, of course. I argue that their impact is just as great as an engineer making mistakes in his design.
Quote:
- Your finances will be PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE??
It's no wonder why you DON'T own your own business.
Give me a break. I said they'd be the knowledge of the employees, not public knowledge. If you want to debate with me, get your facts straight.
But it sounds like it was specific to labor (unlike goods and services)... that's the part I don't quite have a full picture of.
what he was saying was (in an argument). you can't go from this point to that one without additional assumptions.
Does that clarify?
Oh ya and I'm having fun with the green weenies over in politics and controversies in a thread I started
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.
