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.
What $3M employer would hire a $3 employee at minimum wage?
There is a broad spectrum of qualifications and productivity, employers can get plenty of workers worth, say, $5-$6-$7 per hour and don't need to dip to the $3/hr level of worker.
It doesn't matter if it's a $3 BILLION Dollar employer.
That would basically eliminate the 0b0mba administration.
Seems to me all your problems are related to the existence of government.Well the government aint going away and will probably continue to grow no matter which party rules.
So to find peace in your life you might want to read up on the story of Dick Proenneke Alone in the Wilderness, the story of Dick Proenneke, by Bob Swerer Productions
Then when you've had enough of paying for the upkeep of half the country make a pilgrimage about a thousand miles north of the Canadian border and set up shop in a place where you'll probably never see another human let alone have your taxes pay for the upkeep of your so called recipient class.
A place where you can fully exploit the term Alphamale.
That is true but it does not make what I said false. They both need each other to succeed. To much value to employer okay get rid of the employees and wait for the business owners to beg for their employees to come back. Without their employees we would not have billionaires and millionaires since they would not have enough people to move, stock, sell there products. If WalMart had 5 employees the owner would at best be middle class not a millionaire.
The problem with this scenario is there are many more folks capable of being employees than there are capable of being employers.
Walk of the job and I can replace you in a matter of days- you however, now have a significant blemish on your work history that might severely effect your ability to find new employment.................
We should all strive to be employers, not employees then, shouldn't we?
The difference is, very few people actually have the skills to be an employer.
a very sizeable number of people inherit business or capital , not everyone has the wealth to create employment , i find this idea that that workers should flagelate themselves before employers and be glad of the crumbs that fall from thier masters table , medievil
ive said it before , one of the things that makes america so different is how the coping class always seem so eager to take one in the gut for the super wealthy , anyone who votes republican who is earning under 50 k per year is voting against thier own interests IMO
The problem with this scenario is there are many more folks capable of being employees than there are capable of being employers.
Walk of the job and I can replace you in a matter of days- you however, now have a significant blemish on your work history that might severely effect your ability to find new employment.................
I am not debating that the employer is more important to the business then the employee but to say the employee do nothing and do not contribute to profit is just stupid.
But your stocks, investments, wealth is overall higher. Quite a bit higher than the price of commodities.
i've had gains, but they are outweighed by the increased cost of commodities.
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.
