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.
And WHEN that family opts for public assistance they get called lazy and various other names for doing so.
Can't have it both ways, you know.
And, yes, indeed there are families out there who have to try to live on the income from ONE minimum wage job. Are you suggesting that rather than have a minimum wage for honest work, that the "government" permanently supplement the income of someone trying to support a family on a minimum wage income? If there were no minimum wage requirement, then the family would require even MORE ASSISTANCE from the government in order to survive because surely those creative business owners would pay as little as possible to workers. That would, in fact, increase THEIR bottom line, wouldn't it?
No, they're not supposed to be having kids yet, and thus, they are free to work a minimum wage job while they gain some skills and then go look for a better job BEFORE they start popping them out. Why should the taxpayer pay for the irresponsible mistakes of those who can't keep their pants on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD360
Have you never seen ADULTS working in fast-food places? I have. Another conservate "illusion".......only kids and "tennyboppers" have to work at minimum wage jobs. That is absolutely stunning denial.
Obviously everyone has seen adults working for minimum wage. It's sad, b/c these people should be beyond that by that point in their life. These are the people who aspire to do nothing with their lives, they are content at McD's. However, you also don't know if some of these folks are managers, who can definitely make a decent wage. You also don't know if they are working there b/c they have enough money to live off from investments, etc. and they are just working to have something to do with their time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD360
That's right.....advocate for the "company" while they ********* left and right. LOL Do YOU own the company you worked for? Jeeeezzzz. I guess lots of people have to learn the hard way.
What does that mean? After working for others from the age of 14 up until the age of 23, I have only worked for myself for the last few years, as a freelance writer and as a small business owner. Now, I am working for my husband, he is the operating partner of a restaurant, so yes, we own the company we work for. I can see both sides of the token as I have been in both positions. I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
you must admit that we are not all born with the same intelligence. NOT EVERYBODY can be a CEO or a top-level manager, etc., etc.
You CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. I would suggest that you're having difficulty with logic in your thought processes about this subject.
We are not all born with the same intelligence, no, but that does not mean that someone with an IQ of 90 can't attain high ranks within a company. How about being a foreman of a construction company? Do you have to have high IQ for that, or do you just have to have a high IQ in the area of spatial skills, practical skills, and whatever else is necessary for that position? There are different kinds of intelligence, and just b/c one's Stanford-Binet score isn't very high does NOT mean they cannot have a great life with hard work and using the intelligence they do have.
Real simple folks, if raising the wage of a couple of employees by 50 cents an hour is going to break a company then they were doomed to failure to begin with so there was no real affect. I am sure plenty of you will have an excuse for companies failing to pay their employees a wage that does not even keep up with inflation but in the end that is all they are, excuses.
Casper
Please. It has everything to do with greed. Companies don't hire or they freeze pay increases or they furlough employees so that their CEOs can take home 400+ times what their employees make.
If that's not greed, I don't know what is.
then maybe you should OPEN A BUSINESS
a ceo, owner, boss, willset the pay. not only for themselfs, but the employees
Please. It has everything to do with greed. Companies don't hire or they freeze pay increases or they furlough employees so that their CEOs can take home 400+ times what their employees make.
If that's not greed, I don't know what is.
and what does what a ceo makes have to due with the illegal minimum wage????
Real simple folks, if raising the wage of a couple of employees by 50 cents an hour is going to break a company then they were doomed to failure to begin with so there was no real affect. I am sure plenty of you will have an excuse for companies failing to pay their employees a wage that does not even keep up with inflation but in the end that is all they are, excuses.
Casper
I don't think $.50/hour will cut it. That's only $20 more per week (40 hour week) which still keeps poor people poor. Many are not even working a full 40 because companies don't want those benefits to kick in so they max out at 38 hours.
What about raising $2/hour which is what I've seen posted here ?
At some point there is a line where the business cannot contain increased wages without cuts/increases in other areas.
And the government said there is no inflation when you take out energy and food hence their reasoning for no COLA adjustments to SS.
The logic of that is lost on me though because I don't think anyone can live today without food/energy.
Let's see. Company/business owners NEVER increase the prices of their products just because they want to make more money? Well, why the heck do they even bother owning a business?
What "fee increase" are you talking about?
Companies charge what the market will support. No more, no less.
Look...when I was working minimum wage in the 90s, it was like 4 bucks an hour. It's almost TWICE that now and no one is better off. I don't think raising it is the issue.
No, they're not supposed to be having kids yet, and thus, they are free to work a minimum wage job while they gain some skills and then go look for a better job BEFORE they start popping them out. Why should the taxpayer pay for the irresponsible mistakes of those who can't keep their pants on?
Must be rainbows and unicorns every day in your world. I guess where you live people with children don't get laid off or otherwise lose their jobs. Is that a law there?
Where the rest of us live, this is happening:
"The share of residents in poverty climbed to 14.3 percent in 2009, the highest level recorded since 1994. The rise was steepest for children, with one in five affected, the bureau said."
Darn those military people having kids while getting a pay check from government. What ever were they thinking?
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.
That is absolutely stunning denial.
