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.
You do realize that if all of the so-called unskilled people get themselves a skill, that will mean even fewer workers willing to work for low wages for fast food, etc. places, right?
Then what?
Fast food workers should have been replaced by automation long ago. That's what.
You do realize that if all of the so-called unskilled people get themselves a skill, that will mean even fewer workers willing to work for low wages for fast food, etc. places, right?
Then what?
Am I the only one that has noticed the more work a person does the lower their pay grade?
Many high schools have all kinds of vocational training. A properly advised kid can graduate high school in my district with enough skill in mechanics and some other trades to get an above entry level job.
There is a shortage of plant nursery staff, they are paying $11.50 to move and water plants. According to my morning paper there is a shortage of tanker truck drivers. And that pays up to 100K a year for driving a potential bomb. IMO, the labor shortage will increase wages, no legislation is required.
Many on welfare are working, that is the problem. Why should taxpayers have to subsidize employers because they can't pay a decent wage?
Many of those who are collecting benefits from Uncle Sam are working part-time jobs and will refuse more hours or full-time work because they will lose their government benefits. To answer your question with a question. Why should my tax dollars subsidize someone's government benefits because they don't want to work full time or better themselves? I think many of these people are too lazy to try to better themselves because they are getting a free ride from the Uncle with deep pockets. Don't like working for min wage then go back to school or enter the trades, they will pay you while you learn. There is no reason for anyone to stay on min wage unless you are mentally/physically handicapped and can't do any better. If you are physically and mentaly able then there is no reason for you to be working for min wage.
Walmarts business model involves taking advantage of employees and being subsidized by taxpayers in order to sell products made in China at low prices.
Is this what you all are defending?
Well, if we had enforced our foreign tariffs and closed loopholes for companies that outsourced their plants, then maybe we wouldn't be having this problem. In Europe, unless it's absolutely necessary, they make sure companies are conducting businesses in that country.
Also, don't you think it's odd, Nike can afford to pay LeBron James, Michael Jordan or Colin Kaepernick a multimillion dollar shoe deal, have the shoes made with China sweat labor, and their stores here in the states will only dish out minimum wage while charging full price for those signature sneakers. And it's even more odd that people who struggle to pay rent or put food on the table magically have money to buy those $200 sneakers.
All I can say is, China leaders are starting to shift sides. They did what they had to do to get those corporate dollars moving in. Over the decades, while corporate CEO's are using their money to buy mansions and yachts, China has been using their money to buy lands with valuable resources. Now that they own most of those lands, no need to cater to those corporate CEO's. Just a matter of time before China starts to kick them out and they will no longer have a place to outsource their plants. Could be a reason why the politicians here in the USA are trying to flood the country with all these immigrants. They make a good cheap labor force, but even they are beginning to wake up. Not soon enough though.
Many of those who are collecting benefits from Uncle Sam are working part-time jobs and will refuse more hours or full-time work because they will lose their government benefits. To answer your question with a question. Why should my tax dollars subsidize someone's government benefits because they don't want to work full time or better themselves? I think many of these people are too lazy to try to better themselves because they are getting a free ride from the Uncle with deep pockets. Don't like working for min wage then go back to school or enter the trades, they will pay you while you learn. There is no reason for anyone to stay on min wage unless you are mentally/physically handicapped and can't do any better. If you are physically and mentaly able then there is no reason for you to be working for min wage.
I did my friends taxes years back and noticed a cut off just below working full time at minimum wage. Anyone who tried to benefit themselves by picking up OT or working full time would have screwed themselves. It should never be that someone working is worse off than someone who doesn't. That's why I liked Bernie's proposal of 4% AGI for healthcare.
This is exactly it. It's easier to "spread" the welfare to all taxpayers rather than incorporate it into an overall business model. Given the option between having all of society pay your employee's cost of living or you having to provide it - it's a no brainer. And given the opportunity many of us here would make the same decision. Most here would use any resource available to advance our business.
Some people here talk up business like all businesses are benevolent, altruistic entities. That is, take away "all" regulation and left unchecked business will "do the right thing". Others, view business as what's wrong with America and that wealth should be "spread".
The truth is somewhere in between. I have no problem with the market setting the prevailing wage, however, when welfare is a crutch, relied upon both by the recipient and the business owner, then the average taxpayer, like me, is the one paying the bills and reaping no benefits.
Edited to add...I don't know what the answer is, but as a society we need to make a clear distinction between "minimum wage" and what that entails and "minimum liveable wage". I could be wrong but I don't believe the minimum wage was ever enacted to provide a liveable wage for a person.
Many scam the system also. Let's say a woman goes to work for min wage and she has three kids. She is getting sec 8, food stamps and cash subsidy to help provide(clothes etc.) for the kids. She has a boyfriend(kid's father) and she supposedly doesn't know where he is. What the government doesn't know is he is living there full or part time either working and supplementing or just being a leech. This has been going on for years and costing the taxpayer quite a bit of money to subsidize irresponsible people. Maybe we need to pay for these people to go to school and learn a job that provides a living wage or lose their 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.
