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.
Nope. It's one thing to live by those rules of your own accord and another to have them forced upon you by some arbitrary figurehead. Nope.
Just wondering.
Lefties constantly bring up Henry Ford "paying a living wage" of $5 a day.
Those were the conditions that you seem to have loved when bragging about Ford loving the working man.
But I don't ever expect lefties to know history.
"There’s an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford’s decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realized that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.
It should be obvious that this story doesn’t work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It’s also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that’s very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.
So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn’t why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?"
That is how I live my life now anyway - where do I sign up? I'm happily married, never have smoked one cigarette in my life and I have alcohol so seldom (we are talking about 3-4 times a year, I just prefer water, tea, coffee, soda) that it is no lost for me to get a job that would pay me $200 day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
Yes, I would. I would not find any of these much of an imposition.
1. I pretty much live a moral lifestyle now.
2. As an aircraft mechanic, I was subject to government mandated random drug testing, I rarely drink alcoholic beverages, and I quit smoking years ago as a tax protest.
3. Been monogamous for over 30 years, no big deal.
so, yes, no problem. Where do I sign up for a position in Billings?
Just fine with it.....until that employer decides he doesn't want you to own a gun or ride a motorcycle or go mountain climbing, indulge in porn, etc. on your own time.
Just fine with it.....until that employer decides he doesn't want you to own a gun or ride a motorcycle or go mountain climbing, indulge in porn, etc. on your own time.
"and then they came for me."
Inconsequential, given that when that happens, you can simply walk away.
Your employer wants you to be a moral person and live a moral life.
They are allowed to do random drug tests and check for alcohol use and tobacco products.
You must also be in a monogamous, married relationship.
no for the simple reason that there is too much power left in the hands of the employer. lets take the monogamous marries relationship for instance, does this mean that i HAVE to be married in order to work there? what if i was divorced for good reason according to the catholic church? does that disqualify me? or suppose i was a widower? does that disqualify me? or suppose i am leading an upright and moral life, and my wife leaves me because she doesnt want that lifestyle, does that disqualify me? suppose i take ill and the doctor prescribes a narcotic pain killer because my level of pain requires it, does that disqualify me? suppose i have a friend that smokes MJ in my presence, and the next day i have a drug test, would the resulting positive disqualify me? or suppose i live in the same house as a smoker, but i dont smoke, does that disqualify me? or lets say i am a bit gullible, or naive, and a drink a mikes hard lemonade because i believed it was just a strongly flavored lemon based beverage, does that mean i am again disqualified?
as you can see there are many many instances where someone could be disqualified for something that either wasnt their fault, or because an employer decided to be an iron fisted dictator and not accept that something could had been an innocent mistake.
Lefties constantly bring up Henry Ford "paying a living wage" of $5 a day.
Those were the conditions that you seem to have loved when bragging about Ford loving the working man.
But I don't ever expect lefties to know history.
"There’s an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford’s decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realized that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could expand the market for his products.
It should be obvious that this story doesn’t work: Boeing would most certainly be in trouble if they had to pay their workers sufficient to afford a new jetliner. It’s also obviously true that you want every other employer to be paying their workers sufficient that they can afford your products: but that’s very much not the same as claiming that Ford should pay his workers so that they can afford Fords.
So, if creating that blue collar middle class that could afford the cars wasn’t why Ford brought in his $5 a day wages, what was the reason?"
Ford made the automobile a mass consumer product; it was in that context he sought to make it affordable to his employees. Virtually obody goes around flying a jet for personal use.
Ford also paid the $5/day in order to stem turnover of employees which was over 100%. Part of his reasoning was that people would trade the negatives of the assembly line for higher pay.
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.