Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-12-2015, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,840 posts, read 26,247,208 times
Reputation: 34039

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
It's not corprate welfare, it's individual welfare. The people are being subsidized. Corporate welfare is when a corporation enjoys unjustified preferential treatment from government as a result of their political connections.


People make choices that determine what their needs will be, and those choices do not impose any obligation upon their employers - nor should they.

As far as cost of living is concerned, there are many ways that government can lessen the burden upon people (and thus, upon the welfare system and ultimately, upon us as taxpayers). The notion that businesses should pay more in labor cost excuses the fact that COL is inflated by government and unfairly shifts the buren for such onto businesses.
I disagree with you. We subsidize below poverty level wages by augmenting them with welfare and SNAP ​How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year - CBS News
Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry | Center for Labor Research and Education
That's not ok with me, I think employers should be required to reimburse taxpayers for the money that their employees receive in welfare benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2015, 10:14 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,035,795 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I disagree with you. We subsidize below poverty level wages by augmenting them with welfare and SNAP ​How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year - CBS News
Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry | Center for Labor Research and Education
That's not ok with me, I think employers should be required to reimburse taxpayers for the money that their employees receive in welfare benefits.
Nice package deal. But wrong and illogical and irrational, but with the usual hackneyed agenda: Collectivism.

Wages are paid by employers in trade for time and talent to people of their choosing. Freedom and trade. No compulsion and no implied threat of violence. Freedom. Trade. Moral. Good.

Public assistance and food stamps has NOTHING to do with that. It's a separate and unrelated phenomena. And is based on compulsion and violence and the other decrepit principles of redistributionism.

Trading time and talent for money is moral. Stealing money from those who have it to give to those who need it is immoral and despicable.

So unwrap your little package deal and donate it to the garbage dump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Washington state
7,027 posts, read 4,890,151 times
Reputation: 21892
In 1926 Henry Ford implemented the 8 hour workday. By cutting the working day and doubling
pay, Ford upped productivity and doubled profit margins within 2 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 03:12 AM
 
Location: South Texas
4,248 posts, read 4,159,642 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
In 1926 Henry Ford implemented the 8 hour workday. By cutting the working day and doubling pay, Ford upped productivity and doubled profit margins within 2 years.
Are you sure you're ready to eliminate all of the regulations, taxes, tariffs, and relevant case law that has come about since 1926?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 03:15 AM
 
Location: South Texas
4,248 posts, read 4,159,642 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I disagree with you. We subsidize below poverty level wages by augmenting them with welfare and SNAP ​How low-wage employers cost taxpayers $153B a year - CBS News
Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry | Center for Labor Research and Education
That's not ok with me, I think employers should be required to reimburse taxpayers for the money that their employees receive in welfare benefits.
Your opinion is based upon the socialist notion that employers, not individuals, should ultimately bear the financial burden for the life choices made by said individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 05:03 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
4,023 posts, read 3,797,229 times
Reputation: 6550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
Your opinion is based upon the socialist notion that employers, not individuals, should ultimately bear the financial burden for the life choices made by said individuals.
When those choices are to either take the jobs that pay less than a living wage or have no income at all, then the employers are largely responsible for the choices the individual makes. They certainly can't "better themselves" (the tired old pro-business mantra that pretends anyone can get ahead if they really want to) with no money and even if they could there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be above base level. If the individual chooses not to work you call them lazy and if they take the job you say they made their own choice and it isn't the employer's problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 08:10 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,035,795 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
When those choices are to either take the jobs that pay less than a living wage or have no income at all, then the employers are largely responsible for the choices the individual makes. They certainly can't "better themselves" (the tired old pro-business mantra that pretends anyone can get ahead if they really want to) with no money and even if they could there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be above base level. If the individual chooses not to work you call them lazy and if they take the job you say they made their own choice and it isn't the employer's problem.
The employers are responsible for NOTHING. Employment is a simple and free trade of time for money, nothing more.

And yes, we live in a just world. A very, very, just world. Where effort and excellence equal advancement and happiness.

Good people who work hard and do well overcome adversity and make a happy life. If you are not happy and doing well, the FAULT is ALL YOURS.

Oh!!! but the cancer, the blindness, the discrimination, the bad luck! This is the equivalent of the "ethics of emergencies" where you construct an impossible scenario in a futile attempt to advance a bad argument. The fact is, for 95% of the population who are not facing a health cataclysm or a mental illness, effort plus excellence equals decent wealth plus happiness.

So almost all of us face a wonderful and just world where we are responsible for our own fate.

"There is no fate but what we make for ourselves" - Terminator 2, Judgement Day
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 08:20 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,022 posts, read 2,272,937 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
The employers are responsible for NOTHING. Employment is a simple and free trade of time for money, nothing more.

And yes, we live in a just world. A very, very, just world. Where effort and excellence equal advancement and happiness.

Good people who work hard and do well overcome adversity and make a happy life. If you are not happy and doing well, the FAULT is ALL YOURS.

Oh!!! but the cancer, the blindness, the discrimination, the bad luck! This is the equivalent of the "ethics of emergencies" where you construct an impossible scenario in a futile attempt to advance a bad argument. The fact is, for 95% of the population who are not facing a health cataclysm or a mental illness, effort plus excellence equals decent wealth plus happiness.

So almost all of us face a wonderful and just world where we are responsible for our own fate.

"There is no fate but what we make for ourselves" - Terminator 2, Judgement Day
That is not true in any sense. We have laws that employers have to follow. Yeah we live in a just world where we have wars,poverty,homelessness,rape. Keep on living in your delusional world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 08:29 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,035,795 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle View Post
That is not true in any sense. We have laws that employers have to follow. Yeah we live in a just world where we have wars,poverty,homelessness,rape. Keep on living in your delusional world.
"We have laws" can be changed. And we need to abolish all laws, including the minimum wage, that support theft and mediocrity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2015, 08:37 AM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,035,795 times
Reputation: 14993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
When those choices are to either take the jobs that pay less than a living wage or have no income at all, then the employers are largely responsible for the choices the individual makes. They certainly can't "better themselves" (the tired old pro-business mantra that pretends anyone can get ahead if they really want to) with no money and even if they could there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be above base level. If the individual chooses not to work you call them lazy and if they take the job you say they made their own choice and it isn't the employer's problem.
And there is no living wage. It's a figment of your imagination. If you want a wage you can live on, survey the economy in your area, then survey your own talents. Once you discover the wage you want, you stack that up with what you have to offer in terms of talent, expertise, focus, and drive. Then, you make yourself into a person that offers the correct goodness to achieve the wage you want. If you are not good enough, and can't get good enough, or more accurately won't get good enough, you need to set your sights lower.

And THAT is what weak people hate and are rebelling against. The requirement of effort, to enable survival. They just want it to BE THERE. And if they can't do it, then by God, they are going to take it. "So, since we live in an unjust world, I'm in favor of passing a law that will put others in prison if they do not pay me what I think I need to live comfortably."

That is what the minimum wage is all about. Mediocrity hating itself and seeking a violent solution to fix it, rather than a virtuous solution of self-improvement, self-awareness, and self-sufficiency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top