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.
I'm with you on this, rigby. I have no problem with the government employing someone for less than minimum wage, but I don't like the idea of private entities doing so.
This must be because I'm an evil liberal who just loves me some guv'ment! (From where I sit, I trust a democratically elected government with this kind of power, but I think *some* private businesses would abuse it.)
If we could develop this into a system, It will get abused & misused by all parties. I could see people paying for labor's that don't exist. I could see reporting that they worked a certain number of hours, when in fact that did not. I could see exploitation and greed taking advantage of this type of system at all levels.
I want disagree with you because I have been strongly against eliminating the minimum wage for decades, but I see your logic.
Do you think there are jobs that are necessary to do that are worth only $1 an hour or so?
Yea, if you're just starting out and they don't know if you will actually work or just complain the whole time, they could start you at $1. That way, they could hire almost everyone that applies and just test them out. (rather than send them home without a chance).
And once they have more experience, are worth more to the company, they can increase it so the person doesn't ditch them.
Yea, if you're just starting out and they don't know if you will actually work or just complain the whole time, they could start you at $1. That way, they could hire almost everyone that applies and just test them out. (rather than send them home without a chance).
And once they have more experience, are worth more to the company, they can increase it so the person doesn't ditch them.
Ok, here's my issue .. it's one that keeps me up at night to be honest with you. What do we do with those people whose labor is only worth $1 an hour? They can't live on that. Do we just let them die? Subsidize them with public funds? Just don't think about them? (Out of sight, out of mind.)
Yea, if you're just starting out and they don't know if you will actually work or just complain the whole time, they could start you at $1. That way, they could hire almost everyone that applies and just test them out. (rather than send them home without a chance).
And once they have more experience, are worth more to the company, they can increase it so the person doesn't ditch them.
I don't know about the wage part, but I can tell you many companies will not hire directly any more, they will go through a contracting type of agency.
A person is hired by ABC contracting Agency, they work for ABC, but are physically located at another office such has XYZ company. XYZ can work you for months, see how you are, your work ethic, are you reliable, and for as simple as wearing pink shoes XYZ company can terminate your contract with them, they do not need a reason to let you go. Since you are in fact being paid by ABC company, and it is ABC company's responsibility to keep you employed.
I know my company bring in contractors almost exclusively. If the company likes you, most of the contractors get hired full time.
Why can't we replace the welfare system with some type of government jobs program?
Economics 101 - Welfare is necessary to maintain low unemployment. If you make some guy on welfare sweep the street, he is putting a street-sweeper out of work. Unemployment roles then rise and the stock market tanks (Wall Street watches unemployment numbers closely). When Wall Street tanks, all the bankers complain to the Republicans in Congress (Wall Street is largely Republican) and the Republicans, who pay lip service to limiting welfare, make sure that there is enough welfare support so as to not steal jobs from the real workers.
That is the real story behind welfare. It will never go away and it will never be allowed to steal jobs.
I don't know about the wage part, but I can tell you many companies will not hire directly any more, they will go through a contracting type of agency.
A person is hired by ABC contracting Agency, they work for ABC, but are physically located at another office such has XYZ company. XYZ can work you for months, see how you are, your work ethic, are you reliable, and for as simple as wearing pink shoes XYZ company can terminate your contract with them, they do not need a reason to let you go. Since you are in fact being paid by ABC company, and it is ABC company's responsibility to keep you employed.
I know my company bring in contractors almost exclusively. If the company likes you, most of the contractors get hired full time.
This makes a lot of sense. If I were a business owner, I'd do the same. It's stupid to buy a car without kicking the tires and taking it for a test drive.
Economics 101 - Welfare is necessary to maintain low unemployment. If you make some guy on welfare sweep the street, he is putting a street-sweeper out of work. Unemployment roles then rise and the stock market tanks (Wall Street watches unemployment numbers closely). When Wall Street tanks, all the bankers complain to the Republicans in Congress (Wall Street is largely Republican) and the Republicans, who pay lip service to limiting welfare, make sure that there is enough welfare support so as to not steal jobs from the real workers.
That is the real story behind welfare. It will never go away and it will never be allowed to steal jobs.
Yep. I was amused when I read the comment that it's the liberals who won't let people on welfare do some labor. I suspect what the OP and the first few commentators had in mind was punishing people on welfare by making them do hard and demeaning jobs. Typical hate the poor stuff. What they fail to realize is that a job is exactly what the welfare people would like, and Wall Street does NOT want to have to compete with the government any more than it has to to provide them.
Makes no sense why we give people money for nothing. There are sidewalks that need swept, fruit that needs picked, and we throw money down the drain instead of getting productive work done with the money? Why can't we replace the welfare system with some type of government jobs program? Maybe reopen some of our factories and have people work for $4/hr or whatever the equivalent is that they receive for doing nothing.
How about making childcare more affordable. That would work for many. If your weeks salary has to go to pay childcare....how do you have enough money left over to pay rent, food, etc. Do you have any idea how much childcare costs these days. Many of these people want to work, they don't like handouts.
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.
