Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.
Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.
And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?
Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.
Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.
And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?
ALL private industries are colluding to hold wages down.
You have not given enough information to answer the question.. but like a typical progressive, you just want an arbitrary number than either makes you feel good or that you can use to mocjk the person who posted it
Not playing your silly reindeer game
A guy installs a desktop computer. Keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor, CPU... On a desk.
What more information do you need?
It was in Scottsdale, Arizona lets say.
From the looks of it you need a lot more information.
First of all, a CPU does not go on a desk. The CPU is relatively small chip that goes installed on the motherboard. The motherboard sits inside a case. Inside the case you will also find a power supply, hard drive(s), ram, possibly a dedicated video card(s), optical drive(s), a heatsink to cool the processor (CPU), and added fans to move hot air outside the case.
They are all connected to the motherboard.
Not everyone knows how to connect them, or how to troubleshoot a machine that isn't working. So I'd assume that those that do know would charge more for their knowledge and expertise.
Personally, I'd charge in the neighborhood of ~$100+ an hour.
That's not really on topic. We can argue about collusion laws if you like, but let's do it in another thread. I'm for, or against them, depending on how they're framed.
Anyway, you still don't seem to grasp my point. What someone else "should" be paid is none of my business (nor yours, nor the government's). It's an agreement between two people, nothing more. Neither should be forced into, or prohibited from, such an agreement by the state.
Ahh...so if it benefits the employer, you're willing to hear it. If it benefits the employee...it's needless governemtn intervention. I see.
What are you talking about?
Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.
Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.
And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?
Ahh...so if it benefits the employer, you're willing to hear it. If it benefits the employee...it's needless governemtn intervention. I see.
What are you talking about?
See bolded part above.
You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).
Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?
Something that seems to be glossed over in all this is the fact that minimum wage is a rather meaningless idea. Supporters seem to think that paying someone more for an identical product means that the worker ends up better off. This is flat out false.
The reality is that the dollar has no value other than the vale that the market assigns it. IOW, when it takes X dollars to produce a product and the investors in such production expect some ROI, that product's cost is set. As you demand more money be paid for the creation of said product, the cost raises and the workers end up in the EXACT same position with more paper in their pocket.
You feel good for awhile as the prices in the market adjust but in the end, you are in the same place. I fail to see how this concept is so damn hard for people to understand. It does not matter if you make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour, the people that work at McDonalds, sweep the floor and sell magazines are all going to be poor. they are not poor because of some bullshit arbitrary number you assign as the minimum wage. They are poor because the products that they produce and the number of available people that can produce them. The burger flipper can be replaced at any time by anyone, takes less than 15 minutes of training to be effective and produces a product that has little to no value. Paying him 100 dollars an hour does not change this. It just changes the end value of that dollar. The execs are not going to loose money on such a deal. Instead they are going to make more too as the products that are produced cost more.
You arbitrary numbers and minimum wage ideas are meaningless in the long run. There are always going to be people that are poor because they are replaceable and they do not produce products of value. Simple as that.
What are you talking about?
See bolded part above.
You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).
Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?
Well, like I said, collusion has nothing to do with the topic. But given that you seem to have no understanding or interest in the actual topic, and since most here don't get my point anyway, I'll play:
Voluntary collusion is fine. If a group of business owners want to get together and agree to cap the wages they offer, they should be free to do so. Of course, any company that wants to come along and scoop up their best talent, by offering higher wages, is free to do so as well.
On the other side, employees should be free to unionize and do the same thing - they can agree to not work for less than a certain amount. But, like with the business's collusion above, anyone who wants to undercut the union's colluded wages should be free to do so.
Anyway, you seem more interested in putting words in my mouth and playing other nonsensical games than having a serious discussion. If you can't stay on topic, or refrain from building strawmen, I'll not bother responding. Thanks.
Something that seems to be glossed over in all this is the fact that minimum wage is a rather meaningless idea. Supporters seem to think that paying someone more for an identical product means that the worker ends up better off. This is flat out false.
The reality is that the dollar has no value other than the vale that the market assigns it. IOW, when it takes X dollars to produce a product and the investors in such production expect some ROI, that product's cost is set. As you demand more money be paid for the creation of said product, the cost raises and the workers end up in the EXACT same position with more paper in their pocket.
You feel good for awhile as the prices in the market adjust but in the end, you are in the same place. I fail to see how this concept is so damn hard for people to understand. It does not matter if you make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour, the people that work at McDonalds, sweep the floor and sell magazines are all going to be poor. they are not poor because of some bullshit arbitrary number you assign as the minimum wage. They are poor because the products that they produce and the number of available people that can produce them. The burger flipper can be replaced at any time by anyone, takes less than 15 minutes of training to be effective and produces a product that has little to no value. Paying him 100 dollars an hour does not change this. It just changes the end value of that dollar. The execs are not going to loose money on such a deal. Instead they are going to make more too as the products that are produced cost more.
You arbitrary numbers and minimum wage ideas are meaningless in the long run. There are always going to be people that are poor because they are replaceable and they do not produce products of value. Simple as that.
See bolded part above.
You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).
Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?
Well, like I said, collusion has nothing to do with the topic. But given that you seem to have no understanding or interest in the actual topic, and since most here don't get my point anyway, I'll play:
Voluntary collusion is fine. If a group of business owners want to get together and agree to cap the wages they offer, they should be free to do so. Of course, any company that wants to come along and scoop up their best talent, by offering higher wages, is free to do so as well.
On the other side, employees should be free to unionize and do the same thing - they can agree to not work for less than a certain amount. But, like with the business's collusion above, anyone who wants to undercut the union's colluded wages should be free to do so.
Anyway, you seem more interested in putting words in my mouth and playing other nonsensical games than having a serious discussion. If you can't stay on topic, or refrain from building strawmen, I'll not bother responding. Thanks.
You have no problem with employers all colluding to keep the price of labor artificially low and you have no problem with employees colluding to keep the price of labor artificially high. At least you're honest about it. Good show.
One other question, the example was skilled labor; registered nursing. If Wal*Mart wanted (in some small towns the largest employer) to pay $1.50 an hour to it's associates, if I understand you correctly, you'd be fine with that; right?
Sure. Though I doubt they'd have much luck finding people to work for that much. Depends on the market I suppose.
If the government wasn't nearly as powerful, they wouldn't have to buy it.
You apparently want to fix the issue by giving the government even more power. Do you honestly think they will do stuff to benefit the poor workers, when the corporations have BILLIONS invested in the government?
C'mon.
Sure. Though I doubt they'd have much luck finding people to work for that much. Depends on the market I suppose.
And if they're the largest or only employer of means in town? Are you ok with government picking up the slack with food stamps and section 8 housing, since no one can remotely live on $1.50/hour? And when all the other businesses that actually survive Wal-Mart moving into town lower their wages to match Wal-Mart's what then? Then you have a whole town making slavery wages. What do you do then?
If the government wasn't nearly as powerful, they wouldn't have to buy it.
You apparently want to fix the issue by giving the government even more power. Do you honestly think they will do stuff to benefit the poor workers, when the corporations have BILLIONS invested in the government?
C'mon.
No, the government was SUPPOSED to work for and protect the people. The corporations have paid big money to control the government it to ensure that the government now protects THEM from us. Just look at the Monsanto case being heard by the Supreme Court right now.
Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?
That's a pretty ridiculous scenario. I started trying to answer your questions, but it's a pointless exercise.
Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?
We do not want to "give" government ever more power. We want to take back the government control from corporate interests & the moneyed puppetmasters. We do not want a plutocracy. The government is not some phantom entitiy... it is us. WE need to protect ourselves from the private sector. Right now, the private sector has hijacked our own government to insulate itself against US, and well, you can see what dire straits that has gotten us into.
Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?
We do not want to "give" government ever more power. We want to take back the government control from corporate interests & the moneyed puppetmasters. We do not want a plutocracy. The government is not some phantom entitiy... it is us. WE need to protect ourselves from the private sector. Right now, the private sector has hijacked our own government to insulate itself against US, and well, you can see what dire straits that has gotten us into.
