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.
If doctors had to face bankruptcy if the charges for their services were not within the capability of the average person, guess what: Medical fees would PLUNGE. If people had to actually pay for their health care, medical costs would PLUNGE. If drug companies had to plan for the fact that people would have to actually be able to afford their drugs, DRUG PRICES WOULD PLUNGE.
The impossibly high cost of health care is a direct result of socializing these costs and oppressively regulating every aspect of their delivery. We need to abolish the FDA number one. And we need to completely deregulate the insurance industry. This will force the insurance companies to provide an affordable product through freedom. If they can't come up with something that is actuarially sound AND affordable, they go bust. You would see insurance rates PLUNGE. There is no incentive for them to innovate. It's a stifled and controlled and socialized industry. It's dead. But the rates keep going up while the quality keeps going down.
And we did it to ourselves by evading reality and making rights where they don't exist and shouldn't exist. And since reality doesn't give a S if we try to make an end run, nothing will get better until we return to reality. There is no right to health care, or insurance, or food, or shelter, or education, or drugs, or employment, or happiness or wealth or income. NO RIGHTS TO ANY OF IT.
And specifically for this thread: NO RIGHT TO A LIVING WAGE.
There are no new arguments here, just repeating tired talking points. Please explain how you determine that the ethically correct wage for an employer to pay is equal to the minimum that will stop the employee from leaving. Premises and conclusion.
I've always wondered why an employer trying to earn as much profit as possible is considered greedy, but an employee trying to earn as much salary as possible is not.
It is not just making a profit that is greedy but when you continually want more money when you have enough and your employees do not have enough to live on that is greed. Them keeping all that money affects their employees and causes others to have to help them because the employer is to greedy and selfish to. Not sure why you want this country to turn into a third world country. Also paying your employees low wages is employers shooting themselves in the foot because people who are paid low wages do not have spending money to spend on businesses like theirs.
I agree with you in general . People are signing up and then working these jobs for years and then protesting that " they " deserve more .
It's ironic in a way because a lot of the same people saying the rich or business owners are " greedy" are out there protesting for more money .
People will look at someone like Donald Trump and call him greedy even though he employs tens of thousands of people , sure he has flaws but he's providing livelihoods for many people
What I find is that often people find excuses or shift the blame on others
Or some have the mentality , " I was born poor , I'll always be poor"
I think we all have the issue of making excuses or not putting maximum effort in .. But some are worse than others .
I disagree that those making more money are " better " people though .
One can be a jerk or immoral if they make minimum wage or millions
I'm guessing you meant that people making more money are providing more value to a business or economy?
Min wage workers have a value , but the value is low because almost anyone can do the work.
There are lots of good paying jobs now that require skills that people would of never thought of being valuable
an example is social media manager. Sure everyone has a Facebook or Instagram account .. But knowing the right way to use those platforms for marketing can make a business a lot of money and that is why companies will pay well for that service.
No their value is low because the employer can get away with paying them as low as they want. Really give me some examples of all these good paying jobs you sure like to throw things out without giving any kind of evidence. No matter if some people did not make excuses or put maximum effort in that alone is not gonna just elevate them up. You have no idea how the real world works you just like to throw out your Just World Fallacy talking points.
There are no new arguments here, just repeating tired talking points. Please explain how you determine that the ethically correct wage for an employer to pay is equal to the minimum that will stop the employee from leaving. Premises and conclusion.
The premise is freedom. The conclusion follows. Employers need time and talent. They are willing to pay for it. At the right price. Right being whatever makes sense to them. Employees have time and talent. They are willing to sell it. At the right price. Right being whatever makes sense to them. The 2 may meet and organize an exchange of the time and talent, and the price that will enable a free trade. If either party cannot meet the price the other wants, either is free not to engage in the trade. The premise is freedom.
Reality governs the overall trading conditions. A common person with little talent, little creativity, few valuable ideas, and only physical skills such as strong arms and legs and the ability to follow basic directions does not bring much to the table. He or she is common and interchangeable with many others. Therefore Reality dictates that a low wage will be offered. That makes sense, and is correct, moral, just, logical, rational, expected, and, as we see, achieves an empirical imprimatur in the world we see around us. In other words people needing common people don't offer much, because common people who offer no value beyond their physicality are common and not worth that much. That's not exploitation. That's not compulsion. That's not unfair. That's Reality.
The 1909S VDB Lincoln head penny is rare, and hard to find. It is valuable due to its scarcity and its numismatic demand. The 1944 Lincoln head penny is common and does not command a big price. The part of 1944 Lincoln head pennies shall be played by common people. The part of the 1909s VDB penny shall be played by the occupant of the Charles E. Culpeper Chair of the New York Philharmonic, or the CEO of a Fortune 500 Corporation, or Lebron James, or Bill Gates.
And they will be paid majestically for the skills they possess that are rare and in high demand and given the height of respect. Which is correct, moral, just, logical, rational, expected, and is exactly what we see.
A living wage is also possible to the 1944 pennies, but their lives will be ordinary and much more limited, which is as it should be, and, indeed, according to Reality, how it MUST be. And all of that is completely and utterly FAIR.
It is not just making a profit that is greedy but when you continually want more money when you have enough and your employees do not have enough to live on that is greed. Them keeping all that money affects their employees and causes others to have to help them because the employer is to greedy and selfish to. Not sure why you want this country to turn into a third world country. Also paying your employees low wages is employers shooting themselves in the foot because people who are paid low wages do not have spending money to spend on businesses like theirs.
Who are you to say that someone "has enough" money? And that person not having enough to live on? Do they live within their means or not?
I get it - it's OK to be an employee and not want to do the hard work, but heaven forbid you are an employer that does the hard work and takes the risk.
I'll ask again: how is one greedy and the other not? In my world the one refusing to do the hard work and take the risk is not the greedy one. The greedy one is the person that thinks they should have great reward with no risk or effort.
No their value is low because the employer can get away with paying them as low as they want. Really give me some examples of all these good paying jobs you sure like to throw things out without giving any kind of evidence. No matter if some people did not make excuses or put maximum effort in that alone is not gonna just elevate them up. You have no idea how the real world works you just like to throw out your Just World Fallacy talking points.
If you had studied up at the link I gave you, you wouldn't keep saying things like this.
If employers can "pay them as low as they want," what will happen when the employer only pays $.01/hour?
You have made the silly claim in multiple threads that employers can pay as low as they want. Explain to us what will happen when they do.
I think the minimum wage is a lagging indicator of general economic conditions. I'm not sure why that particular issue makes the internet go bezerk.
Look around the world - Guatemala has a minimum wage of about $1.90 a day. Are they better off economically than Australia which has a minimum wage of about $16.00 an hour? In which country would you rather live?
Either one of those countries could raise or lower its minimum wage and probably be in the same relative economic position.
Same question, 2 different countries - Greece's minimum wage is about $4.75 an hour. Austria's minimum wage is about $10.30 an hour. Which do you think is the better country to live and work in?
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.
