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.
What utter bullshit. You idiots always resort to this stupid uninfomred refrain 'if you can't pay people enough to live then you're not running your business right'? Nothing could be more factually incorrect. I'll ask again and see if you have the balls to answer this time. If I am entitled to enough to live, and you are entitled to enough to live on, and we are all entitled to enough to live on. Meaning none of us should have to do much of anything to attain that outcome, who does that leave left to provide it? How is it at all moral to say you're entitled to something with out any effort when obviously someone else has to do that for themselves before they can do it for you?
No. In my position, raising the min wage doesn't effect me one way or the other. I'm exactly the opposite actually. It is you that is for the immoral if it benefits you and that is really how you judge somone's moral character. If your moral compass happens to change depending on whether does or doesn't benefit you, your morals are obviously pretty lacking. The concept of the minimum wage is completely immoral. It is immoral to suggest that your entitled to that which someone else must first earn on their own to provide for you. It is immoral to pay two equally meritous employees different wages for the same work. It is immoral to transfer responsibility for taking care of yourself on to other people.
We are talking about paying someone for their work, so how did it get to them being entitled and not willing to work for it? If someone will work for poor wages, they'll work for better wages.
Over 90% of the countries in the world have minimum wage laws, so why don't you move to Somalia and take your friends with you? That's how backward a country has to be to not have minimum wage laws, with few exceptions were wages are naturally high. Raising the minimum wage would have to cause some inflation, so it will affect everyone, but the reality is, it will stop the social programs subsidizing those businesses that don't pay enough. It's also the way to treat people who are needed doing that job in society. People should have to work 3,500 hours per year just to get by. Overall, the economy would benefit from a minimum wage increase.
Stop making excuses and start answering my questions Dubya. Supporting your position with nothing more than 'they deserve it' is not a credible argument. Meanwhile I have posed to you multiple times the moral dilemas of your position and questioned them. Multiple times you have ignored them. Most likely because deep down you know the answer and it doesn't help your argument. Stop making up this bullshit. First there were 2000 hours in a week, now 3500? Are you exagerating for effect or do you not really know? Either way. neither helps your argument.
Ame®icano;6881263 said:I red first 4 pages and since things started repeating I'll just skip to the rest and give my opinion.
Maybe a year ago I stated on this forum, minimum wage should be a zero. Yeah, ZERO.
Why? Here is why: Min. wage increase always reduce number of jobs and increase unemployment, especially among young and unskilled. Raising min. wage also increase control over the access to available jobs.
I've never seen min. wage to be applied to high skilled jobs and it will never be. It's always set for the "introductory level" jobs, or trainees and it never stays at that level. Those tho are worth keeping get promoted and higher wage, those who are not productive are let go. If you understand this part, then you will most likely agree that what sets the wage is simply - marketplace. If there is demand for one kind of job, wage for that kind of labor will go up. If is too expensive to pay for worker's wage, worker will either lose the job or get lower wage.
If you involve government and artificially enforce higher pay, what will happen? Your work become more expensive for the employer, and if is not high demanding job (that is as I said above never paid low), you're most likely lose it.
Someone said that some states have higher min. wage then federal. If you look for those states you'll also find out that in those states the market sets pay at a higher wage than the laws demand. If your work is not worth how much government (or union) demand to pay for it, you become burden for the employer, simple as that.
Min. wage is subsidy to young, inexperienced, or unskilled workers that gov't levied on small businesses, just like the tax increase and every time gov't increase min. wage, unemployment rise as well. There could be short term benefit to those who get pay increase, but it wont last or it will last as long the employer find the solution to make up for the loses.
M2c.
Interesting question. Lets take a CEO that is in the news right now. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase..
The guy whose company lied to investors about the quality of the mortgage loans in the mortgage backed securities they were selling.
The guy who is getting a bonus of millions right now.
Could I have lied and committed fraud like he did and be paid tens of millions of dollars?
YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I COULD HAVE DONE THAT. What do you think is so hard about lying and cheating for million of dollars in gains?
where the hell do you think the banksters are getting all that front money......?
BO is printing it day and night....
Why don't you check the balance sheet for the Federal Reserve, because they can account for all the money. Making money by printing it is another conservative myth, which is a polite way of saying lie.
There is no moral dilemma posed by a federal minimum wage, because it isn't a mandate. Plenty of states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Life is a requirement of work and not a desire.
Except those things are not given, they are earned... and you are allowed to strive for more than the basics, earn to purchase them... much different than being given something for nothing
How does one 'earn' what the richest have? At that level, it only comes from siphoning off the fruits of other people's labor. I can see having 20 times normal. Maybe even 100 times normal for the real exceptions like Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison... How does someone like Mitt Romney do it? Vulture capitalism.
You think you can do the job of a CEO?? Go ahead and start a company and see what you got... Nothing is stopping you... You have a problem with compensation, but it is not like CEO skills are as common as VD in your family... You in your 'infinite wisdom' think you get to dictate a limit on what someone can or should make, and that is against the freedom this country is based on... and you can go fuck yourself
How does one 'earn' what the richest have? At that level, it only comes from siphoning off the fruits of other people's labor. I can see having 20 times normal. Maybe even 100 times normal for the real exceptions like Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison... How does someone like Mitt Romney do it? Vulture capitalism.
You think you can do the job of a CEO?? Go ahead and start a company and see what you got... Nothing is stopping you... You have a problem with compensation, but it is not like CEO skills are as common as VD in your family... You in your 'infinite wisdom' think you get to dictate a limit on what someone can or should make, and that is against the freedom this country is based on... and you can go fuck yourself
Do they give out certificates of acheivement to all the most useful idiots? I think you've found your calling. Oh, and fuck you too buddy.
There is no moral dilemma posed by a federal minimum wage, because it isn't a mandate. Plenty of states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Life is a requirement of work and not a desire.
Again you are dodging. This is about YOUR position that peole should earn LIVING wages. Thus the questions I've posed.
How do you morally justify paying two employees of equal merit the different wages your position would require?
How is it moral to insist that you are entitled to that which someone else must first earn in order to provide it to you?
Have you really looked at how much a person would need to survive? Are you sure the min wage isn't already there?
There is no moral dilemma posed by a federal minimum wage, because it isn't a mandate. Plenty of states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Life is a requirement of work and not a desire.
Again you are dodging. This is about YOUR position that peole should earn LIVING wages. Thus the questions I've posed.
How do you morally justify paying two employees of equal merit the different wages your position would require?
How is it moral to insist that you are entitled to that which someone else must first earn in order to provide it to you?
Have you really looked at how much a person would need to survive? Are you sure the min wage isn't already there?
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business.
There is no moral dilemma posed by a federal minimum wage, because it isn't a mandate. Plenty of states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Life is a requirement of work and not a desire.
Again you are dodging. This is about YOUR position that peole should earn LIVING wages. Thus the questions I've posed.
How do you morally justify paying two employees of equal merit the different wages your position would require?
How is it moral to insist that you are entitled to that which someone else must first earn in order to provide it to you?
Have you really looked at how much a person would need to survive? Are you sure the min wage isn't already there?
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business. The business should pay for that labor and bill the person buying from that business by the price they charge. The taxpayer shouldn't be involved in your choice to buy a hamburger, go grocery shopping or go to a restaurant. Pay for it yourself!
Again you are dodging. This is about YOUR position that peole should earn LIVING wages. Thus the questions I've posed.
How do you morally justify paying two employees of equal merit the different wages your position would require?
How is it moral to insist that you are entitled to that which someone else must first earn in order to provide it to you?
Have you really looked at how much a person would need to survive? Are you sure the min wage isn't already there?
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business.
Hmm... so, if a worker can't do a job well enough to warrant your proposed minimum wage, they should not be allowed to work?
Again you are dodging. This is about YOUR position that peole should earn LIVING wages. Thus the questions I've posed.
How do you morally justify paying two employees of equal merit the different wages your position would require?
How is it moral to insist that you are entitled to that which someone else must first earn in order to provide it to you?
Have you really looked at how much a person would need to survive? Are you sure the min wage isn't already there?
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business. The business should pay for that labor and bill the person buying from that business by the price they charge. The taxpayer shouldn't be involved in your choice to buy a hamburger, go grocery shopping or go to a restaurant. Pay for it yourself!
What the fuck are you talking about? None of this even remotely answers the above questions.The business is paying for labor, based on the market rate for that skill set. Try again. Hint: Maybe try taking it one question at a time.
FYI
Social security is NOT an expenditure.
It is a repayment of loans made to the government by the workers.
ex·pend/ɪkˈspɛnd/ Show Spelled [ik-spend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to use up: She expended energy, time, and care on her work.
2. to pay out; disburse; spend.
It requires more than a dictionary to understand what government spending is. Social Security is a transfer of funds and isn't spending.
ex·pend/ɪkˈspɛnd/ Show Spelled [ik-spend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to use up: She expended energy, time, and care on her work.
2. to pay out; disburse; spend.
It requires more than a dictionary to understand what government spending is. Social Security is a transfer of funds and isn't spending.
Seriously? You think there were enough funds brought in last year to cover the funding? And that they didn't have to cash in an iou from the government which had to borrow money to continue operating itself?
It requires more than a dictionary to understand what government spending is. Social Security is a transfer of funds and isn't spending.
Seriously? You think there were enough funds brought in last year to cover the funding? And that they didn't have to cash in an iou from the government which had to borrow money to continue operating itself?
Seriously, if Bush and you conservatives didn't trash the economy, there would have been surpluses like all those other years. Seriously, has the money ran out? Seriously, why do you conservative keep trying to steal that fund? Seriously, do you know who will have to pay for the elderly, who now have less people in poverty than work force aged people, when you succeed in destroying social security? Seriously, why are conservatives so dedicated to generating poverty in America?
Seriously, the issue is what is government spending and it isn't outlays of money for off-budget items, so let's look!
Table 1.1, pages 21 - 23: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf
Seriously, the last time off-budget items showed a deficit was 1984 and it was corrected, so what happened? The estimates for off-budget show surpluses through 2015, so seriously, what is your point? Isn't it a fact that receipts for social security were cut by 2% from 6.2% to 4.2% and that seriously cut receipts? Do you really seriously think we are stupid enough to let social security fall into your conservative hands, so you can screw it up like you did our health care system?
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business.
Hmm... so, if a worker can't do a job well enough to warrant your proposed minimum wage, they should not be allowed to work?
Are you void of thought? Let's say you have two people and one goes to a construction job and another to a retail job. The bosses try to get them to work out, but they just can't cut it. Neither are worth their pay, so they are let go. The next day, the two that were let go apply for the job the other had and they both work out fine. The point is just being bad a one job doesn't mean you are bad at all jobs. If someone sucks at everything, don't you think getting fired all the time will teach them not to suck? Unless someone is mentally retarded or has a very bad attitude, they are going to find some job they can do. Retarded people are supported by society to a degree, but a bad attitude is something the person has to change.
What the fuck are you talking about, fool? If the person can't do the job, then the business shouldn't hire them. The business isn't running a charity and it needs that labor to be in business. The business should pay for that labor and bill the person buying from that business by the price they charge. The taxpayer shouldn't be involved in your choice to buy a hamburger, go grocery shopping or go to a restaurant. Pay for it yourself!
What the fuck are you talking about? None of this even remotely answers the above questions.The business is paying for labor, based on the market rate for that skill set. Try again. Hint: Maybe try taking it one question at a time.
The market rate for minimum wage is what the minimum wage is. If labor isn't making a business money, then the business isn't going to survive by paying below minimum wage. Even slaves were given room and board so they could survive. Should a business survive by starving off a segment of the population? The taxpayer shouldn't assist a failed business model by subsidizing it with social programs.
Seriously? You think there were enough funds brought in last year to cover the funding? And that they didn't have to cash in an iou from the government which had to borrow money to continue operating itself?
Seriously, if Bush and you conservatives didn't trash the economy, there would have been surpluses like all those other years. Seriously, has the money ran out? Seriously, why do you conservative keep trying to steal that fund? Seriously, do you know who will have to pay for the elderly, who now have less people in poverty than work force aged people, when you succeed in destroying social security? Seriously, why are conservatives so dedicated to generating poverty in America?
Seriously, the issue is what is government spending and it isn't outlays of money for off-budget items, so let's look!
Table 1.1, pages 21 - 23: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf
Seriously, the last time off-budget items showed a deficit was 1984 and it was corrected, so what happened? The estimates for off-budget show surpluses through 2015, so seriously, what is your point? Isn't it a fact that receipts for social security were cut by 2% from 6.2% to 4.2% and that seriously cut receipts? Do you really seriously think we are stupid enough to let social security fall into your conservative hands, so you can screw it up like you did our health care system?
that's right you guys didn't have all of Congress for a couple of years, now did you? Always someone elses fault, according to you. Everyone spent too much but your guys had a huge hand in that. A huge hand.
Oh, and you can look at this link to see the shortage SS had, dear.
http://www.ssa.gov/finance/2012/Financial Statements.pdf
Seriously, if Bush and you conservatives didn't trash the economy, there would have been surpluses like all those other years. Seriously, has the money ran out? Seriously, why do you conservative keep trying to steal that fund? Seriously, do you know who will have to pay for the elderly, who now have less people in poverty than work force aged people, when you succeed in destroying social security? Seriously, why are conservatives so dedicated to generating poverty in America?
Seriously, the issue is what is government spending and it isn't outlays of money for off-budget items, so let's look!
Table 1.1, pages 21 - 23: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2011-TAB.pdf
Seriously, the last time off-budget items showed a deficit was 1984 and it was corrected, so what happened? The estimates for off-budget show surpluses through 2015, so seriously, what is your point? Isn't it a fact that receipts for social security were cut by 2% from 6.2% to 4.2% and that seriously cut receipts? Do you really seriously think we are stupid enough to let social security fall into your conservative hands, so you can screw it up like you did our health care system?
that's right you guys didn't have all of Congress for a couple of years, now did you? Always someone elses fault, according to you. Everyone spent too much but your guys had a huge hand in that. A huge hand.
Oh, and you can look at this link to see the shortage SS had, dear.
http://www.ssa.gov/finance/2012/Financial Statements.pdf
Bush had both houses of Congress for his first six years. What does any of that have to do with SS? Wasn't Reagan President in 1984 and who was in Congress?
You can't play the blame game with people who know more than you do. You brought up SS being in deficit and I showed you why. Why didn't you bring up the facts yourself?
Hmm... so, if a worker can't do a job well enough to warrant your proposed minimum wage, they should not be allowed to work?
Are you void of thought? Let's say you have two people and one goes to a construction job and another to a retail job. The bosses try to get them to work out, but they just can't cut it. Neither are worth their pay, so they are let go. The next day, the two that were let go apply for the job the other had and they both work out fine. The point is just being bad a one job doesn't mean you are bad at all jobs. If someone sucks at everything, don't you think getting fired all the time will teach them not to suck? Unless someone is mentally retarded or has a very bad attitude, they are going to find some job they can do. Retarded people are supported by society to a degree, but a bad attitude is something the person has to change.
None of my questions have anything to do with the employee fulfilling their job duties. Please answer my questions. How will you justify paying to of your employees that are of equal merit that do the same job, different wages? Ho do you morally justify the fact that someone else must earn for themselves plus you that which you think you are owed from them for the most basic of tasks?
P.S. Listen to yourself. You're practically making my argument. All I have to do is substitute a couple of words. "Unless someone sucks at everything don't you think just making minimum wage all the time might teach them to do something that earns more than minimum wage?" The attitude that it's your employers duty to provide you enough to live on is the attitude that has to change.
