McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[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.

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

should we drug test employers and deny them steak and lobster privileges, whenever there is any unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

false analogy. you need a better understanding of microeconomics.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that capital dilemma.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

 

[rightwinger]

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?

We have had advances in technology for the last 100 years, yet we managed to still pay low skilled workers a wage that they could live on

What is the matter with todays society?

 

[hadit]

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.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

If society demands a guaranteed income, then society should step up, write legislation, raise taxes, and distribute the welfare. If you make companies into welfare distribution centers, they will distribute that welfare to a smaller number of employees than before, because they will not pay a worker more than what his work contributes to the bottom line.

 

[hadit]

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?

We have had advances in technology for the last 100 years, yet we managed to still pay low skilled workers a wage that they could live on

What is the matter with todays society?

Every advance allowed fewer workers to do more work. Tractors, the cotton gin, the car. All of them idled low skilled workers. It's just accelerating today with ever greater efficiency gains.

Consumers demand low prices, and businesses find ways to supply them. If it's cheaper to put a self serve gas pump in than pay a teenager to pump your gas, check your tires, oil, water, and wash your windshield, guess who just lost a job?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

If society demands a guaranteed income, then society should step up, write legislation, raise taxes, and distribute the welfare. If you make companies into welfare distribution centers, they will distribute that welfare to a smaller number of employees than before, because they will not pay a worker more than what his work contributes to the bottom line.

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

 

[hadit]

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.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

If society demands a guaranteed income, then society should step up, write legislation, raise taxes, and distribute the welfare. If you make companies into welfare distribution centers, they will distribute that welfare to a smaller number of employees than before, because they will not pay a worker more than what his work contributes to the bottom line.

Your business is making a profit off of low cost labor. If society has to step in and support your worker, than you should have to contribute some of that profit to that fund.
Otherwise, pay a decent wage

Do you understand basic economics? A business makes a profit when it earns more money than it spends, and labor costs are a part of the money a company spends. You simply cannot raise that labor cost significantly without impacting that profit, and a company that operates on a 3% profit margin cannot double its labor costs without significant changes.

If labor cost more, the business has these choices:

1. Reduce profit to absorb the increased cost. Not likely to happen because the profit margin is not going to be that big, except in rare cases. Double labor costs for most companies and they would start losing money.

2. Raise prices to cover the added cost. Likely. prices would go up and the poor would no longer be able to afford the cheap stuff they can now. Is it better to be able to buy a cheap TV at Walmart and have a low MW or to have a high MW and have the poor pay a good deal more for that TV?

3. Reduce the number of workers to bring costs back in line with revenue. Very likely to happen, and the workers laid off would not be cheering the MW hike that cost them their jobs.

You do understand the basic economics here, right? You just can't double most company's labor costs overnight and expect nothing to happen.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Why not stop the war on poverty? It hasn't worked.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

We shouldn't have a minimum wage nor social services. If you want to help someone you deem worthy, it would be privatized because you would have to use YOUR money.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

That's two ways I'm not lazy. I support myself and have provided a valid argument why others currently not doing so should do the same.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Those low wages are due to low skills being offered. Stop having the people subsidize someone offering low skills. If their abilities aren't getting it done for them, let them either step up and improve or do without.

 

[Conservative65]

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

It's easy to solve. Stop having taxpayers make up the difference because some low skilled worker offers such low skills. If the worker with what they offer to an employer is getting paid an equivalent wage to those skills, they have two choice. Either step and improve those skills or do without.

 

[Conservative65]

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

That's what people went into business to do. Make a profit.

No one said they don't work. I said they offer a skill set that isn't worth much since most people already know how to do what they do.

Since the worker is the one offering the skills, the low skilled worker is at fault because they don't bring much to the table. Why is the employer at fault for what the worker brings to the table and for which the employer has nothing to do with when that worker brings it? The only role the employer has is to pay that worker what the skills that worker brings is worth. If the worker brings little, the worker gets little.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

1. There are many jobs that would be paid $15/hour under the bleeding heart Liberal plan that bring $0 to the bottom line.

2. Society shouldn't subsidize someone's PERSONAL responsibility. It's not an employer's place or the taxpayer's place to subsidize someone that brings a skill set one step above what a monkey could be trained to do.

3. Exactly. Automation is the best employee. It does the job, does it well, doesn't get pissed when you ask it to do something, and has a better work ethic than those constantly whining they should be paid a higher wage when they offer a lower skill set.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

All those that complain that automation has done what you clearly prove it has done should stop using technology and automation. They despise it. If they want things to be done like they were 100 years ago, why don't they live their entire life like people did 100 years ago.

 

[Conservative65]

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

should we drug test employers and deny them steak and lobster privileges, whenever there is any unemployment?

Why would you drug test someone using their own money?

 

[Conservative65]

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?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves that capital dilemma.

What solves that dilemma is those wanting $15/hour providing skills worth that much.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Business seems to be doing quite well. They have made over $10 trillion in the last eight years, yet still claim poverty when it comes to paying their workers
They can afford new corporate offices, monster executive compensation, increases in the cost of supplies
Yet, if it comes to raising the salary of their lowest paid workers...they claim it will bankrupt them

Government should step in and say....either support your workers or contribute to a fund that will

Government should stay out of it.

Those low paid workers aren't getting paid low wages for any reason other than they offer low skills.

Bleeding heart Liberals claim it won't bankrupt a business to pay more. That is, until bleeding heart Liberals are expected to pay more.

Judge Dismisses Ed Asner Suit Vs. Actors’ Equity; Small L.A. Theaters Must Pay Minimum Wage