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.
Compared to the rich, yes. I work as hard as I have to to take care of myself but there are others who work much harder and have more because of it. More power to them.
Compared to someone else I'm the hard worker though. It's all relative. There are people who worked harder than I have to get ahead and people who haven't put in the effort I have. I don't begrudge someone who worked hard to get a head having gotten a head and I don't seek to take what they have. The fact I'm not that ambitious is my problem not theirs. What they have is theirs. What I have is mine. People really need to concern themselves with making their own way in life instead of trying to figure out how they can get someone else to do it for them.
The thing is there are people who got ahead of you who worked less hard then you did. How little/much you work is only one factor in success. People are concerned with making their own way the thing is no can get anywhere without help. Even successful people had help. Donald Trump when starting out was given a job with his dad's company. He went on to have success on his own but he had help this whole idea that everyone should look out for themselves is based on selfishness and is not an American ideal.
The workers are getting paid from profits of the company to so they are not taking it from anyone's pocket either.
No, the workers are not getting paid from profits. The workers get paid whether or not the company makes a profit. The wages and salaries a company pays out are "expenses." Expenses come out before profit. Those expenses (and other costs) come out of the pocket of the owners. Profit is what's left after all expenses are paid.
It may be easier to understand this if you think of a small business, an entrepreneur who started in his garage, and maybe now rents a small space in an industrial park. Let's say he has ten employees. He has invested much of his own money to start this business. He pays his employees weekly. This he does even before his company is profitable. The money comes out of the funds he has invested in the company (his own). Those wages represent an expense on the Income Statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
The whole reason people are getting government check aides is that companies are not paying enough for their employees. So they are either gonna get paid more or get a government check you can not choose neither it does not work like that.
Not true (where did you study economics and business?). Nobody pays an employee based on his individual needs, nor should he. Any given position has a wage scale attached to it, and that is largely based on market forces. Highly skilled people in short supply can command a high salary or wage. Low skilled people in abundant supply competing for those jobs requiring little skill have no bargaining power. If such a person demands more than what is offered (because of his needs), another person being interviewed may have already accepted what is being offered. Who do you think is going to be hired?
Do you look for the best price you can find on goods and services?
If your needs exceed what you are able to earn, you need to learn new skills, get an education, and learn to get along with less (reduce your "needs"). Further, you have no business getting married and having children if you are unable to support them.
Yes and the company pays what the company deems it can afford so long as it is able to hire workers for that wage.
Not quite true. Only to a point. It is market forces that determine the wage scale for any given position. Some companies may be able to pay near the top of the range, but they will expect more for their money, too; i.e., those they hire will have greater skills as well.
If you are a low skilled worker, you will be shut out by those whose skills are greater than your own. You won't get hired by the company that is able to pay more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The company does not owe more to the workers because it makes a profit. It EXISTS to make a profit. No profit = no company. If wages go up, prices go up which means fewer customers and less demand for the product being made which means fewer workers in the company.
Generally true, especially if the government forces wages up beyond what is reasonable, forcing a business to pay more for labor than the value received. This will usually result in elimination of the position and unemployment for the one who occupied that position.
These companies are making the taxpayers subsidize their business, when they should pay the full costs of their labor.
Horse manure! The "full cost" of their labor, as you define it, is a myth. It is Leftist gobbledygook. It is a made-up term by Leftist (socialists), and has no meaning in economics.
The cost of labor for any job is determined by market forces, and no component of that cost has any relationship to what someone may be handed by government bureaucrats.
Elizabeth Warren, is that you?
Anyone who espouses that garbage should not be considered for political office.
No, the workers are not getting paid from profits. The workers get paid whether or not the company makes a profit. The wages and salaries a company pays out are "expenses." Expenses come out before profit. Those expenses (and other costs) come out of the pocket of the owners. Profit is what's left after all expenses are paid.
It may be easier to understand this if you think of a small business, an entrepreneur who started in his garage, and maybe now rents a small space in an industrial park. Let's say he has ten employees. He has invested much of his own money to start this business. He pays his employees weekly. This he does even before his company is profitable. The money comes out of the funds he has invested in the company (his own). Those wages represent an expense on the Income Statement.
Do you know every business? How do you know that they pay employees first? Many employee get paid every two weeks so there is no guarantee their pay is what paid first. Businesses have to pay for the products they use they may have to pay for use of the facility their business is in and they have other expenses to. If your business is doing well enough you may pay yourself first.
Not true (where did you study economics and business?). Nobody pays an employee based on his individual needs, nor should he. Any given position has a wage scale attached to it, and that is largely based on market forces. Highly skilled people in short supply can command a high salary or wage. Low skilled people in abundant supply competing for those jobs requiring little skill have no bargaining power. If such a person demands more than what is offered (because of his needs), another person being interviewed may have already accepted what is being offered. Who do you think is going to be hired? So you would be okay with paying an employee $1 an hour? If employees can not make enough to live on which is why most people work why even work at all?This kind of thinking is prevalent in third world countries where employees are paid almost nothing and live in shacks I guess you would be okay if that happened here.
Do you look for the best price you can find on goods and services? Yes but prices are influenced by more things then just employee salaries.
If your needs exceed what you are able to earn, you need to learn new skills, get an education, and learn to get along with less (reduce your "needs"). Further, you have no business getting married and having children if you are unable to support them.
Some people do not have have the ability to do more. Some people have done these things but can not find jobs. Getting more education or skills for everyone is not a solution not enough jobs if everyone did this.
Hey if you do not want to pay employees more that is fine then do not complain when the employees get government help. You can not have it both ways either employers pay more or they are gonna get help from somewhere else.
Good point. That's why only the right-wingers are trying to make this into a discussion about individual people, at whom they direct vitriolic hate. They know that their perspective is without merit in the context of the actual discussion, the discussion about the labor economy. Supply and demand. It's as simple as that. There is too little supply of employment that pays enough to pay one's own way and secures one's own future, and as a result industry, besides getting "personhood", also gets the excessive unfair leverage to devalue work itself.
You're 100% right about everything you posted but don't expect some retired old-farts who want to protect their fixed incomes and get everything for a nickel, to side with you here. They don't care, they are out of the work force themselves, some used to have well-paying union jobs but now they only want to cut out coupons and buy everything for 99c which of course requires cheap labor. That's the real deal about our "conservatives" here. They're simply cheapskates.
So why didn't Pelosi and Reid fix this when they had the chance, instead of screwing over health care? Seems the legacy would have been much more wide spread.
Anyone who wants to raise the minimum wage needs to read an entry-level economics book. The economy is a machine, it doesn't care about your feelings. It only works with the right parts.
A "living wage" is subjective first off. Do you mean just scraping by? Because that is living, you are still alive. Do you mean live well? Because that is also subjective, how do you define "well"?
Here's the quick version. Entry-level workers don't deserve more than minimum wage. They are low skilled jobs, they are meant as stepping stones to either support yourself while you go to college or get some experience so you can move up to a better paying job. Furthermore, by raising the minimum wage you drive up the prices and you kill jobs, how can you help poor people by making it more expensive for poor people to live? And making it harder for poor people to find jobs?
People don't ask these kind of questions. The entitlement mentality that is plaguing this current generation is downright destructive. They think they deserve everything for nothing, they think they are "entitled" to $15 an hour even though they have no such skills or work experience to earn that much. They think the world owes them something.
There's NOTHING WRONG with an employer CHOOSING to pay a liveable wage, and there's EVERYTHING WRONG with government FORCING employers to pay a liveable wage.
We now return you to this week's couple hundred posts that circle the same central point.
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.
