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.
Welfare programs DO NOT subsidize labor costs. They subsidize an individual's ability to have and raise a family. The working poor are in a catch 22 because the welfare programs start to phase out as they make more money.
Welfare programs if not contingent upon employment actually raise labor costs, by providing an alternative to working, thus decreasing demand for employment relative to supply on the lower end of the spectrum, and increasing wages.
By treating employees as contractors, employers are able to dodge not only the minimum wage law, but all of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act, including protections against retaliation and overtime rules.
These ^^^ are just some of the ways the businesses get "around" the minimum age. Have any of you ever read the Fair Labor Standard Act? THESE are not examples of social responsibility by the big businesses who are cheating this country. Is "cheating" an appropriate business model?
Arbitrary wage floors only push those of us that are least skilled out of a job.
I know some personally who would be financially destroyed were you to have your way, as opposed to climbing up from the bottom and making a career for themselves. You would outlaw their ability to work at the only rate anyone is willing to pay them. Of course, they'd be royally screwed, but you'd feel good about yourself for "caring" and that's all that really matters.
Left wing economic theory is 90% pure fantasy and can only survive when coupled with deliberate denial of reality.
That's not a free market where employees are left in the dark and the employer has all the relevant information.
Total nonsense.
The relevant information is right in everyone's face, given the obvious prevailing wage rates. That's evidence enough of value within the market.
You're really grasping at straws here.
Just what would you suggest we make available to employees, and how in the world would that increase their pay? Please base your answer on some type of legitimate economic theory, not just these repeated assertions.
Amazon is massive b/c it snatches piecemeal business from everywhere in the country. Maybe in the future, it will compete directly w/ local businesses, but as of now, it's not.
Nonsense.
Amazon is a direct competitor to any business that sells the products it sells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Wal-Mart haters are simply bad at math.
No, it's not math, it's elementary abstract thought. As in anything more complex than "if we tell Walmart to pay $15 per hour, every current Walmart employee will make $15 per hour indefinitely."
I read a story about Chicago and they were pressuring Walmart in the same way and of course the company took action. Instead of building in Chicago city limits Walmart when a couple of miles down the road to a suburb. The store is still on a main shopping strip but instead of the city of Chicago getting the tax revenue the suburb is reaping it. When will it be before the left understands the simple concept of action- re action?
I don't think they ever will. They've been pushing the same anti-business welfare state policies for 50 years now and haven't learned yet. Even when the city of Detroit went bankrupt they found other things to blame it on.
They want unrestricted immigration, then don't have enough jobs for the poor black communities. They put in a millionaire tax, then end up collecting less tax when the millionaires move away. They try to give advantages to unions, then lose jobs when the companies relocate to right-to-work states. They cancel successful school voucher programs, then go begging for more money to improve education. They crusade against stand your ground laws as being racist, without checking first to notice that the laws advantage black defendants twice as much as whites. They put in new regulations for low power toilets, then have to spend millions unclogging their sewer system. They award outrageous pension benefits to unions, then end up not having enough money to pay any pensions at all.
Liberals simply don't understand the concept of "unintended consequences".
Amazon is massive b/c it snatches piecemeal business from everywhere in the country. Maybe in the future, it will compete directly w/ local businesses, but as of now, it's not.
Completly ridiculous. As an individual who owns a company who competes with Amazon, I also have to partner with them in order to survive.
If I buy a lawnmower from Amazon, you dont think this affects a local business that I might have gone and bought one from?
Maybe those good paying jobs have been run off because Johnny can't read or write. When you have so many unable to speak coherently, spell or add, how are you supposed to run a business?
That is just an excuse people use to defend their move overseas. If someone is able to operate a cash register at Wal Mart they can place screens into a television.
Arbitrary wage floors only push those of us that are least skilled out of a job.
I know some personally who would be financially destroyed were you to have your way, as opposed to climbing up from the bottom and making a career for themselves. You would outlaw their ability to work at the only rate anyone is willing to pay them. Of course, they'd be royally screwed, but you'd feel good about yourself for "caring" and that's all that really matters.
Left wing economic theory is 90% pure fantasy and can only survive when coupled with deliberate denial of reality.
In case you haven't noticed, there has been some form of wage/labor laws since 1938. There is also a bill in 2013 which is before Congress to currently raise the minimum wage to $10.13, as the minimum wage has not been raised since 2009 and it has not even kept up with inflation, so people are actually LOSING money. COMMON SENSE tells anyone that if you have a country full of people how can barely afford to buy basic necessities, that you will also have very few who can buy the products of all these businesses. Supply and demand. If your customer base shrinks considerably, then your business is going to shrink too. This issue is not about my, nor anyone else, "really caring" about individuals or large groups who live in poverty. Your anti-emotion "harangue" is very patriarchal, if you didn't already know that.
"In the United States, statutory minimum wages were first introduced nationally in 1938[3]"
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938[1] (abbreviated as FLSA; also referred to as the Wages and Hours Bill[2]) is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA introduced a maximum 44-hour seven-day workweek,[3] established a national minimum wage,[4] guaranteed "time-and-a-half" for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor", a term that is defined in the statute.[5][6] It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,[7] unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage.
In case you haven't noticed, there has been some form of wage/labor laws since 1938. There is also a bill in 2013 which is before Congress to currently raise the minimum wage to $10.13, as the minimum wage has not been raised since 2009 and it has not even kept up with inflation, so people are actually LOSING money. COMMON SENSE tells anyone that if you have a country full of people how can barely afford to buy basic necessities, that you will also have very few who can buy the products of all these businesses. Supply and demand. If your customer base shrinks considerably, then your business is going to shrink too. This issue is not about my, nor anyone else, "really caring" about individuals or large groups who live in poverty. Your anti-emotion "harangue" is very patriarchal, if you didn't already know that.
So you can't counter my points at all? That's good to know.
Are you still pushing the subsidization argument by the way, or have you given up on that? That's really the point of this thread, I should have resisted the temptation to follow you off on this tangent.
This is the same thing you did in the TM threads, pull out random factoids while not really making any type of substantial point. Yawn.
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.
