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.
Putting aside the inflammatory labeling for the moment, are we to understand that you're so dense as to not understand the fundamental difference between "asking" for and/or receiving a raise versus trying to muster the force of government to force your employer to "give" you a raise?
I guess there's no arguing with people who have or pretend to have no grasp of such basic and fundamentally opposite concepts of "voluntary transaction" versus "coerced transaction."
What I think Drover doesn't understand or refuses to recognize is that there is force on both sides of the equation. The availability of jobs within reach of more than just a limited portion of those who are or would be the working poor is substantially dictated by employers. When unemployment exceeds the structural rate, employers have power that they don't have when there is a balance between supply of and demand for labor. If employers ignore the power that that imbalance gives them, and provide jobs and compensation as if labor was a valuable resource, then generally there isn't going to be a problem. With only minor relief, what we've seen over the last generation, though, is a pattern of abuse of that power, an unfair exploitation of the imbalance, evidenced by the doubling of economic inequality in a generation and more significantly by flat wage rates despite climbing corporate profits. In such cases, it is government's moral obligation to take action to disincentivize the exploitation and otherwise attempt to balance the uneven power.
"The employer does not need to increase the wages of his employees unless there is enough pressure on him to do so."
An employer typically gives merit increases in order to retain employees. This is especially true of corporate jobs as opposed to some 'one man building manager business' who pays the least he can.
In corporation you are schedule to review your accomplishments with your manager before merit inncreases are assigned.
You are measured against your job descriptions responsibilities, market data is considered and the pot of cash allocated to your dept is then divided according to accomplishments. The less accomplished the les money, the greater accomplished the most money.
Government jobs are based on levels. You can bust your hump and get as much as the guy who does the minimum to keep his job. Great way to remove incentive and reduce efficiency and productivity of a taxpayer funded effort to provide a service to taxpayers.
Minimum wage is for part time workers, workers that get tips and is not meant to support a family. If you want to try and support a family on minimum wage you best be astute financially and live according to your means.. or get a better paying job.
Suddenly the social justice system decides to turn the economy upside down with blindly poor economic decisions and then complains the minimum wage can't support a family. It wasn't designed to do that. It is not a conspiracy to hold classes of people down. This is pure agenda for socialism using the min wage workers as a pawn and why would they object to that help?
The class warfare era was heralded in with the AIG bonus recipients. Why were people who recieved bonuses attacked??? Beyond comprehension!!!!! Then we find out someone included in Dodd's legislation, wording that ensured the AIG bonuses were guaranteed. Dodd claim no knowledge of who put that wording into 'his' bill. Then we find out it was Tim the tax cheat who ensured the AIG bonuses be given. The Oh administration created a straw dog, a target to attack, a target on which to base its class warfare startegy.
Obama has gone far to destroy our economy for the purpose of failing it and then replacing it with socialism.
This isn't abourt minimum wage or class warfare this is about replacing capitalism with socialism.
An employer typically gives merit increases in order to retain employees.
Typically, perhaps, but increasingly that has not been the case, which is why some action may be warranted, given this clear indication of an untoward imbalance in the marketplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
the pot of cash allocated to your dept
This is the main lever employers use in their exploitation of their unfair advantage in an imbalanced labor market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
If you want to try and support a family on minimum wage you best be astute financially and live according to your means.. or get a better paying job.
Hence, the call to take steps to ensure that employers don't abuse excess power to withhold from the marketplace sufficient "better paying jobs".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Suddenly the social justice system decides to turn the economy upside down with blindly poor economic decisions and then complains the minimum wage can't support a family.
You have the events backwards: Economic inequality have doubled in a generation, and wages have been flat for ten years despite profits increasing substantially. The economy was turned upside down by opportunistic exploitation of unfair imbalances of power. What the OP is talking about now is restoring fair balance to rectify the damage precipitated by such abuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
This isn't abourt minimum wage or class warfare this is about replacing capitalism with socialism.
No it isn't, but I recognize your need to have some petty rejoinder to fall back on.
Perhaps someone can explain this rather perplexing logic to me.
On another thread, a certain section of the workers in society has been labeled as 'degenerative parasite class'.
How does that actually work out?
Am I a degenerative parasite too, because I recently accepted a pay rise?
The actual topic in question was referring to minimum wage workers campaigning for a $15/hr rate.
So can I safely assume, that all min wage bashers out there would never accept a pay rise themselves - or is it one rule for us, but another for them.
And how dare the lower orders even ask for this anyway?
What is the world coming to.
If have to ask this question and don't get the fundamental difference between minimum wage and a merit raise from a private employer giving an optional pay increase willingly you are incapable of the most basic of critical-thinking and common sense.
minimum wage isn't meant to support a family on, and now others jockeying for the positions that pay low wages losing the most.
Now instead of two people making $8/hr, one person will make $15/hr. Does this kind of basic math escape you? Literally, I know children who could process this logic better.
This thread is a failure, it doesn't even compare apples to apples and it doesn't surprise me someone like the OP tries to equate two completely different things and try to make an emotional play like one expects when you are devoid of facts and common sense.
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.
