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.
Tell me why a 16 year old with no skill and no education should get a livable wage flipping burgers?
Because it's not about skill. It's about Time. If you devote 40 hours a week out of your life to someone else that's 40 hours you can't get back. You should at least get a livable wage in return. How, as an employer in good conscious, can you use 5 days, 8 hours a day out of someone's life and not return them a livable wage?
You're basically saying "I don't give you enough to actually survive, but i expect you to devote all that time to me anyway"
If you accept that amount of time from someone you should, at the very least, give them enough so that they are able to survive independently.
Because it's not about skill. It's about Time. If you devote 40 hours a week out of your life to someone else that's 40 hours you can't get back. You should at least get a livable wage in return. How, as an employer in good conscious, can you use 5 days, 8 hours a day out of someone's life and not return them a livable wage?
You're basically saying "I don't give you enough to actually survive, but i expect you to devote all that time to me anyway"
If you accept that amount of time from someone you should, at the very least, give them enough so that they are able to survive independently.
If you're going to give someone 40 hours you should demand you get what your worth and if you can't move on to another job. Why is it the responsibility of the employer?
I don't know how you can determine what these jobs were intended for, other than to get the work done for McDonald's.
Considering the fact that McDonalds hired CHILDREN to do the job, I dont think its a stretch to figure out who they intended to take these jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I"ve known some fast-food workers who were there a long time, like the guy who worked the drive-through window at a McD's I used to go to for coffee on my way to work.
That simply means the guy who worked the drive thru window received what he considered a living wage and lacked the motivation to go earn more. This doesnt at all change who they were intended for.
Everyone here knows that McDonalds positions are for entry level, teenagers but you. Why is that? There is a reason why McDonalds accepts a higher than normal turnover in its employees after all.
Ayn Rand is for baby intellectuals. The Fisher Price of intellectualism, if you will. Except most of her toys are broken.
No surprise you offered absolutely nothing to backup this babble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
Actually, and sadly, I think that is where your intellect breaks down.
Nope.. nothing here either, why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus
Because it's not about skill. It's about Time. If you devote 40 hours a week out of your life to someone else that's 40 hours you can't get back. You should at least get a livable wage in return. How, as an employer in good conscious, can you use 5 days, 8 hours a day out of someone's life and not return them a livable wage?
You're basically saying "I don't give you enough to actually survive, but i expect you to devote all that time to me anyway"
If you accept that amount of time from someone you should, at the very least, give them enough so that they are able to survive independently.
Complete and total failure of a reply. If YOU accept to work 40 hours a week, then YOU need to determine determine the amount of reward YOU need to accept. So according to the amount of time argument, a brain surgeon who works only 8 hours a week should be earning minimum wage but flipping hamburgers so he can earn more?
You guys are ridiculous, tell me how your employer is supposed to know what YOUR living wage is, and why you think the guy next to you should earn 5x as much as you, simply because they use crack and need to earn enough to pay for their "fix"..
If you're going to give someone 40 hours you should demand you get what your worth and if you can't move on to another job. Why is it the responsibility of the employer?
Because he is the one accepting the work? If he can get slave labor would he accept that too?
No surprise you offered absolutely nothing to backup this babble.
Actually, I did but my ipod crashed during writing the reply. In sum, I am a former student of Objectivism. I've read everything by Ayn Rand (multiple times). I am as well versed in Ayn Rand's thought and philosophy as any "expert" out there. I can tell you with certainty Objectivism is a cult and Ayn Rand was intellectually immature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Nope.. nothing here either, why is that?
There is I just didn't bother to write it. But basically, a living wage would be an amount that someone needs to cover the basics of survival, food shelter, transportation, work clothes, etc. Enough so someone can function in life without a second job. Obviously, it doesn't include any luxury items. I originally gave a brusk answer because I cannot understand why you could not infer this. And again, as for your doctor example below, more skill would, of course, deserve more recompense but that does not mean less skill should get less than a living wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Complete and total failure of a reply. If YOU accept to work 40 hours a week, then YOU need to determine the amount of reward YOU need to accept. So according to the amount of time argument, a brain surgeon who works only 8 hours a week should be earning minimum wage but flipping hamburgers so he can earn more?
I've already answered the second part. As for the first part: So the employer has no moral obligation is this whatsoever? If someone is dumb enough to work for peanuts or work as a slave it's okay for the employer to exploit that? See how your intellect breaks down? Again, if someone is dumb enough to work for less than a living wage, you have no problem with an employer who exploits that. You just don't get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You guys are ridiculous, tell me how your employer is supposed to know what YOUR living wage is, and why you think the guy next to you should earn 5x as much as you, simply because they use crack and need to earn enough to pay for their "fix"..
Yea, that's what we're arguing, in defense of people who use crack. Nice extrapolation.
And now the truth comes out. What you secretly want. You're fine with slave labor if you can get it. I win. That was too easy.
You didnt answer the question, why is that? Many people in america VOLUNTEER, according to you, they shouldnt be allowed. What makes you so important to determine this?
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.
