McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Conservative65]

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

they just want the poor to work harder for less, so they can get richer faster.

I want the poor to actually do something to better themselves instead of constantly demanding someone take care of them.

i want the rich to be able to get into Heaven by taxing them into solving simple poverty.

My morals are better than yours.

If you think one can buy their way into heaven, you have no morals and damn sure have no understanding of what it takes.

 

[Conservative65]

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

 

[danielpalos]

let me know,when you get some morals.

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

you Are lazy; you only have appeals to emotion not valid arguments. don't kid yourself.

Since I'm not poor, I can't be lazy.

only in right wing fantasy; we have a mixed market economy. you are simply too lazy to come up with valid arguments, slacker.

 

[elektra]

Now that Trump is in charge, loosening regulations that drive up the cost of housing, food, and plain old living, we won't need a minimum wage.

 

[hadit]

Employment IS at will. Unemployment compensation, though, IS means tested, and should be.

The only "means testing" is whether or not the employment was at-will, and not for-cause.

You are simply wrong. You've been clinging desperately to a myth.

i am not wrong; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Then why do you repeat things that are wrong?

i don't; you are simply ignorant.

You have not established that. I, OTOH, have established that you have nothing significant to say. You just simply cycle through the same phrases over and over again. You are no longer entertaining.

 

[hadit]

So welfare costs $14/hr. If society wants to guarantee a $14/hr income, then society needs to step up and make up the difference between the wage and the welfare standard. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Pay a wage where your workers don't have to go on welfare

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Apparently you don't bother to read what you're responding to, or you would have made an effort to either agree with my statements or make your own that related to mine.

 

[hadit]

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

 

[danielpalos]

The only "means testing" is whether or not the employment was at-will, and not for-cause.

You are simply wrong. You've been clinging desperately to a myth.

i am not wrong; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Then why do you repeat things that are wrong?

i don't; you are simply ignorant.

You have not established that. I, OTOH, have established that you have nothing significant to say. You just simply cycle through the same phrases over and over again. You are no longer entertaining.

you have nothing but fallacy. why should you be taken seriously?

 

[Conservative65]

Sure, if the work justifies that much pay. To do otherwise is to turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

 

[Conservative65]

Since I don't promote laziness, sloth, and general freeloading, my morals are just fine.

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

you Are lazy; you only have appeals to emotion not valid arguments. don't kid yourself.

Since I'm not poor, I can't be lazy.

only in right wing fantasy; we have a mixed market economy. you are simply too lazy to come up with valid arguments, slacker.

You are simply too lazy to do for yourself. That makes you a waste and worthless to society.

 

[Conservative65]

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

Since people like rightwinger think someone with low skills getting an equivalent wage to those skills should get more, he should provide that difference himself.

 

[danielpalos]

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

why not cost shift from our drug war?

 

[danielpalos]

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. that is why we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage; to privatize costs instead of socialize costs.

 

[danielpalos]

you don't have any. it takes morals, to have moral forms of indignation. that is why, You need a valid argument, instead.

My morals don't allow me to accept laziness and freeloading. Your lack of morals allow you to enable it by being a lazy freeloader.

you Are lazy; you only have appeals to emotion not valid arguments. don't kid yourself.

Since I'm not poor, I can't be lazy.

only in right wing fantasy; we have a mixed market economy. you are simply too lazy to come up with valid arguments, slacker.

You are simply too lazy to do for yourself. That makes you a waste and worthless to society.

being too lazy to come up with a valid argument, is work ethic moral.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

Since people like rightwinger think someone with low skills getting an equivalent wage to those skills should get more, he should provide that difference himself.

CEOs are getting richer faster, by paying low wages and having people sign up for welfare benefits, subsidized by the People.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

 

[rightwinger]

Why should taxpayers pay to support your workers just because you don't pay a decent wage?

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

 

[hadit]

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

Then if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, society needs to pass legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between a worker's pay and whatever arbitrary (and infinitely increasing) value is deemed sufficient.

That is what we are doing now
The taxpayer makes up the difference in low pay and subsidizes rents, food and healthcare that an employer used to pay

Our society has changed. It used to be a low skilled worker could support a family on the wages being paid. They didn't live well, but could provide the basics
Employers no longer do that and keep the added profit while taxpayers support their workers

1. How long can a business stay open if it is forced to pay workers $15/hr for work that contributes $5/hr to the bottom line?

2. Why should a business subsidize society's responsibility? If society demands that every person receive a guaranteed income, then it should write legislation, raise taxes, and make up the difference between worker pay and the arbitrary level.

3. Those low skilled, high paying jobs simply are no longer. They have been replaced by automation that doesn't take sick time, doesn't work 8 hours then quit for 16, doesn't go on strike, never has a bad attitude, and does a better job.

 

[hadit]

Let's be logical about this. If society insists that everyone should have a certain level of support, where do you think that support will come from? Here's a hint. The consumers who buy a company's products are the same taxpayers who will be forced to supply welfare benefits.

Now, we have to agree on the purpose of a company.

I say it is to sell products and/or services to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, we have to agree on the purpose of a job.

I say it is to provide value to the company in exchange for payment to the employee. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you agree with those two statements, then it's clear that there are two completely separate things going on here. One is business, in that a company simply cannot pay an employee more than what he/she contributes to revenue. Think about it. Would you pay your kids so much to mow the lawn that you couldn't make your mortgage payment? No. You would pay them some amount that you think their mowing the lawn is worth to you. Someone else may pay their kids more or less than you do, and it's none of your business what they would pay. The other thing is society deciding that everyone should have a guaranteed income. That is NOT the same as saying that every job should pay that amount. Like I said, if society demands that everyone have a guaranteed income, then society needs to pony up the welfare to do it. Don't turn businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Here are your choices

1. Employers pay for their workers
2. employers pay substandard wages and taxpayers make up the difference
3. Poor families suffer

I think I already know your choice

Here are the choices:

1) Employers pay their workers what the employers believe the job is worth since it's their money
2) A worker can either better their skills or continue to make a lower wage but taxes shouldn't make up for a worker's slack skill level
3) Someone suffering should blame people like you because you think they deserve to be handed something for nothing.

Once again you provide a microeconomic solution to a macroeconomic problem

Yes, an individual worker may be able to improve job skills and get a better job

But that doesn't solve the problem of 30 million low wage workers who need government assistance due to low wages
There are not 30 million "better jobs" available for them to move up to.

All you offer is to hand those low wage workers who get that low wage because they are LOW SKILLED money someone else earned. That isn't a solution at all because it solves NOTHING. That's why I expect those of you that propose useless answers to use your own money. You expect those of us that know it won't work to support doing something that has failed. In the last 50 years the U.S. has done that to the tune of $22 trillion dollars. The result. The same percentage of Americans in poverty.

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Our "job creators" are making record profits

Regardless of what you dream about, our labor pool has always contained a percentage of low skilled workers. It always will and those workers are needed in our economy. These workers are not deadbeats, most work very hard. They used to be able to perform low skilled jobs and a single wage earner could support a family on that wage. Now, they need to rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference

You blame the worker....I blame the employer

Blame advances in technology. Low skilled, high paying jobs are no more. How can they be, when you can get that same job done cheaper and better by an automated system?