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.
Employers don't own their workers. Their employees are not their children. It's not their responsibility to support them.
The employer isn't passing off expenses to the American taxpayer. Those expenses aren't theirs to begin with. The expenses involved in feeding, clothing, and housing an individual belong to that individual. Not to that individual's employer.
Sure - however, in a free market, you don't have the option to pay your workforce less than subsistence wages.
Plus add to this, the cost of everything would go up, even if just slightly, it would be enough to make life pretty tough for those getting the BIG raises.
However, taxes could go down since we no longer have to subsidize workers.
However, taxes could go down since we no longer have to subsidize workers.
Well with our debt that wouldn't happen for quite some time
But currently we spend over $1 trillion on 83+ means tested programs every year and it's growing by 20% annually.
Obamacare may change that number drastically next year though between medicaid and the premium subsidies.
That is unsustainable.
DC cries about medicare costing $500+ billion a year (2012)
Well medicaid is not far behind at $415+ billion a year (2012)
Sure - however, in a free market, you don't have the option to pay your workforce less than subsistence wages.
That interestingly was one argument for wage labor over slavery. Slaves do not have their subsistence socialized unlike the wage laborer. In the north the farming practices were so different that wage labor was more efficient. Naturally in the long term something must provide for the mothballed labor. Looks like its the state now.
Y'all advocating for a "living wage" or "subsistence wage", or whatever the term is, do realize that when that wage is reached or imposed that those people receiving it will still be at the bottom and defined as poor?
Y'all advocating for a "living wage" or "subsistence wage", or whatever the term is, do realize that when that wage is reached or imposed that those people receiving it will still be at the bottom and defined as poor?
You're not catching my drift. I'm not trying to end poverty. I'm trying to lower my taxes. Why should I pay for housing and food of low wage earners? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for their employers to do so by paying them more?
Who in their right mind supports low wages? Low wage workers are a burden on the tax payer. Shouldn't everyone who works full time have the means to support himself? Not supporting this concept is akin to supporting slavery. What kind of jerk do you have to be to want full time workers to make starvation wages?
I'll make you a very simple deal (goes for all socialists): YOU agree to have your income slashed by 50% to give to all these low paid workers.
The MOMENT you do and the proof is out there, I'll do it too. Until then, you are NOTHING but a bunch of lying hypocrites.
You're not catching my drift. I'm not trying to end poverty. I'm trying to lower my taxes. Why should I pay for housing and food of low wage earners? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for their employers to do so by paying them more?
Won't happen, and you know it. Those who receive your unicorn and fairy dust raise will still be poor, the limits will be adjusted upward, and the benefits will continue. Just going to people with a higher base salary.
You're not catching my drift. I'm not trying to end poverty. I'm trying to lower my taxes. Why should I pay for housing and food of low wage earners? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for their employers to do so by paying them more?
Because the company doesn't owe workers anything other that what's been agreed to.
Those workers agreed to $8.25 an hour knowing full well they couldn't survive on that.
Is that the company's fault ?
Should Walmart just advertise for 18-26 and still living at home or 62 and over and on SS workers ?
Should Walmart only hire workers that will take that salary and NOT apply for government benefits ?
Walmart would be doing those people a favor. "Say our salary is just not enough for you to live on so we're not going to hire you because you'll just go and apply for government benefits."
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.
