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.
Speaking of idiotic:
Who would work for "nothing"? Would you .bob?
It's called slavery. Isn't that, in fact, what conservatives are essentially proposing by their constant calls to eliminate all welfare and social programs?
It's called slavery. Isn't that, in fact, what conservatives are essentially proposing by their constant calls to eliminate all welfare and social programs?
I'm not a conservative, but I don't see anyone calling for slavery. I do see that a huge portion of a workers labor is surrendered to the govt before they get any of it (have to pay for your beloved redistribution schemes etc. somehow, right?)
So I say if you don't own your own labor outright, you're a slave.
It's called slavery. Isn't that, in fact, what conservatives are essentially proposing by their constant calls to eliminate all welfare and social programs?
It's called free market. Slaves can't refuse work, can't dictate how much they are being paid or whom to work for.
Please explain to me why people should be paid more than the value what they can produce? How is that in anyway ethical, reasonable, moral, fair and just?
Two people get a job for $15/hour. One person doesn't get jack, because liberals don't care about him. Two people can pay to have food, shelter, clothing, transportation...
One person lives in a cardboard box, starves, has worn, torn clothing, travels on foot because liberals don't care about him.
That's not the way business operates, they only employ the number of employees they need, if they need three employees they retain three employees, if they only need two then they lay one off. Here is a nice article that will explain it to you: http://www.brookscollegeprep.org/sit...micro_ch19.pdf
That's not the way business operates, they only employ the number of employees they need, if they need three employees they retain three employees, if they only need two then they lay one off. Here is a nice article that will explain it to you: http://www.brookscollegeprep.org/sit...micro_ch19.pdf
What do they do when they can't afford to keep the employees they need because of wage increase?
Im a liberal with a business degree who currently works in management at the 3rd largest department store chain by volume of sale in the country.
I can tell you for a fact that both of you are wrong.
the customer is the last one to see any change, not the first. Anyone who has ever been a part of any business should know that.
If you guys want, i can explain in full what happens before a customer would ever see a price increase.
I do agree in many cases the the customers see the actual price increase the last - it's many businesses' last resort as they would lose customers; however, it doesn't mean that the quality of service or product doesn't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
people in business get raises all the time and you cost didnt go up .
It's hard to believe someone with a business degree doesn't type with proper punctuation or capitalization. I even try my best and I don't even speak English.
Did the liberal business school forget to teach basic math?
It's called free market. Slaves can't refuse work, can't dictate how much they are being paid or whom to work for. Please explain to me why people should be paid more than the value what they can produce? How is that in anyway ethical, reasonable, moral, fair and just?
What do they do when they can't afford to keep the employees they need because of wage increase?
Here you go, figure it out for yourself then come back and tell me that if a company has 3 employees @ $10 an hour and the minimum wage goes to $15 they will fire one of them.
Emotional arguments aside; if a machine shop had the choice to purchase 2 lathes for $30k, or three lathes for $30k, which would make more sense from a productivity standpoint?
Labor shouldn't be seen any differently.
Emotional arguments aside; if a machine shop had the choice to purchase 2 lathes for $30k, or three lathes for $30k, which would make more sense from a productivity standpoint? Labor shouldn't be seen any differently.
In the case you cite the third lathe would be free, so even if only two were needed it would make perfect sense to get the third and keep it for a replacement or parts, the only cost in acquiring the third lathe would be the cost of storing it. If you employee three employees at $10 an hour the minimum wage increases to $15 an hour you would retain all three up to the point that MFC equals MRP
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.
