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.
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?
??? Why should low-wage workers subsidize middle class and rich Americans when they go out eating (McDonalds etc) or shopping (Walmart etc)? Low wage workers make possibly vast conveniences and cost savings for the rest of us including fast food, dollar stores, and discount stores.
People with your point of view speak as though employers OWN their employees, when in fact, it's a mutually beneficial relationship that is severable by either party at any time.
Want to see low wage workers off of welfare and earning more? Take away welfare. THAT is the only way it will happen.
??? Taking away welfare does not raise wages, so it does not have the desired effect of low-wage workers earning more.
For those of you complaining about getting paid more money. Why the hell don't you start your own business and then you can pay yourself. The constant b*tching from you lefties is sickening. You sound like a bunch of helpless whining babies.
What's wrong, Obama won't help you build that? Bi*ch at him.
Great idea, how exactly would a burger flipper go about starting their own burger joint? Do you know how much that costs?
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."
So now I must ask all conservatives:
What would YOU do if your choices were to work for an unsustainable wage (one on which you can't afford to live long-term) or starve? In that context, is taking that crappy McJob really a choice?
Why in the world would I give my money to low wage workers? I'm trying to get the money I give them by advocating for higher wages. They should be able to support themselves with their wages, not my tax dollars.
Are you supporting policies which redistribute income and wealth to you from low-wage workers? Policies like tax breaks and protectionism for homeowners, exclusionary zoning, NIMBY, supply controls, etc.
Ultimately it's up to the invisible hand of the marketplace which one you are; you are worth only as much as someone is willing to pay you.
That makes it your responsibility to develop marketable skills. And you have job placement services, career assessments, job outlook projections, education grants and guaranteed student loans, and career counselors to help you do that.
If you're 30 years old and bagging groceries full time because you dropped out of school, it's not the rich man's fault, it's your fault.
And if you graduate with $30,000 in student debt and a fine arts degree that gets you no job prospects, that is again your own fault.
Your statement that it's up to the marketplace which one you are and that you are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay you are technically correct, but they make it sound as if you are a victim of circumstance. You are not. You have resources available which you can use to find out what skills the marketplace wants to pay for, and you can go out and learn them.
If it's 1 for 1 then people still have no incentive. I can either work harder for that $180 or I can work the same and get the $180 for free from government.
Milton Friedman suggested it be .5 for 1. For every $1 more you earn, your benefits are only lessened by 50 cents.
1 for 1 makes sense in theory, but taking the natural human tendency to take the path of least resistance into account, I think Friedman's suggestion is more practical.
Reagan had the brilliant idea of 1 for 1 and then conservatives complained that recipients preferred welfare to working.
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.
