Progressives always talk about mininum wage

[zeke]

Well ok then Mac. Didn't like my answers cause eh? You never said I had to agree with you to answer your questions.

But just what is it that scares you so much about low wage workers being paid more? And why do you keep repeating the same ole bullshit about; well if 15 dollars an hour is good, why not raise it to 100 dollars an hour. What a stupid comment. No one is advising 100 dollars an hour for unskilled workers.
Are you crazy? Just hung up on the hated "government".

You do know that if minimum wages had kept up with inflation, minimum wage would be around 15 bucks.

As to the "giving" of jobs. Are you agreeing with what I wrote? No one "gives" you a job? Your response was confusing.

And if you aren't concerned about low wage workers, (which you don't seem to be) and you aren't looking out for the millionaires (which there is a record number of now) just who is it that you are so concerned about?

And yea Mac, you have become a rethug. To bad. Sarcastic? Condescending? Me? Gee Mac, a sensitive rethug. What a rarity.

 

[P@triot]

The spending problems are because of the right wing trash. Reagan spent the nation into oblivion and W took the biggest surplus in US history, and turned it into the biggest deficit.

The GOP doesn't give a damn about fiscal responsibility.

Uh...Barack Obama added more to the national debt in his first THREE years than any president in U.S. history did in their 8 years!!!

 

[zeke]

the price of labor should be set by supply and demand, just like anything else. If your skills are minimal then you get minimal pay, if you have a lot of skills, you get top pay.

Why should an employer go out of business in order to pay a low skilled employee a wage that should be reserved for a highly skilled employee?

Where does it say that an employer is required to support his employees?

No one is forced to work for any rate of pay.

You are mixing two topics with your left wing bullshit about "looking out for our least fortunate". Thats what charities and churches are for, and they do a much better job of it than the government.

Where are employers going out of business because of excessive wages? They are able to pay their low wages because you and I make up the difference

GM and Chrysler were going out of business because of excessive UAW wages. Those companies were being destroyed by excessive wages and benefits---------sooooooo the great obozo saved the UAW by using our money to bail out those failing companies, and the excessive wages and benefits are still in play. How long before the next govt bailout is needed?

this is liberal lunacy in action.

You are just pissed off that the auto workers in Ohio gave the election to Obama.
That was the auto workers and their families way of saying "thank you" for saving their job.

Something a rethug would never think to do. Save some hourly workers job.

 

[P@triot]

Well ok then Mac. Didn't like my answers cause eh? You never said I had to agree with you to answer your questions.

But just what is it that scares you so much about low wage workers being paid more? And why do you keep repeating the same ole bullshit about; well if 15 dollars an hour is good, why not raise it to 100 dollars an hour. What a stupid comment. No one is advising 100 dollars an hour for unskilled workers.
Are you crazy? Just hung up on the hated "government".

You do know that if minimum wages had kept up with inflation, minimum wage would be around 15 bucks.

As to the "giving" of jobs. Are you agreeing with what I wrote? No one "gives" you a job? Your response was confusing.

And if you aren't concerned about low wage workers, (which you don't seem to be) and you aren't looking out for the millionaires (which there is a record number of now) just who is it that you are so concerned about?

And yea Mac, you have become a rethug. To bad. Sarcastic? Condescending? Me? Gee Mac, a sensitive rethug. What a rarity.

It's astounding how ignorant both sides are on this issue...

"if minimum wages had kept up with inflation"?!? What do you think is the CAUSE of inflation?!?

 

[Redfish]

Where are employers going out of business because of excessive wages? They are able to pay their low wages because you and I make up the difference

GM and Chrysler were going out of business because of excessive UAW wages. Those companies were being destroyed by excessive wages and benefits---------sooooooo the great obozo saved the UAW by using our money to bail out those failing companies, and the excessive wages and benefits are still in play. How long before the next govt bailout is needed?

this is liberal lunacy in action.

You are just pissed off that the auto workers in Ohio gave the election to Obama.
That was the auto workers and their families way of saying "thank you" for saving their job.

Something a rethug would never think to do. Save some hourly workers job.

you really don't get it. If those companies had gone through bankruptcy, they would have been broken up into smaller more efficient companies, the jobs would still be there but the UAW might not. Those new companies would have had union representation votes and the UAW could not risk being voted out. The auto bailouts were to save the UAW not the workers jobs.

The dems and the unions did a good job of lying about it to the workers and got them to vote for obama.

Now, you know the rest of the story.

 

[P@triot]

Where are employers going out of business because of excessive wages? They are able to pay their low wages because you and I make up the difference

GM and Chrysler were going out of business because of excessive UAW wages. Those companies were being destroyed by excessive wages and benefits---------sooooooo the great obozo saved the UAW by using our money to bail out those failing companies, and the excessive wages and benefits are still in play. How long before the next govt bailout is needed?

this is liberal lunacy in action.

You are just pissed off that the auto workers in Ohio gave the election to Obama.
That was the auto workers and their families way of saying "thank you" for saving their job.

Something a rethug would never think to do. Save some hourly workers job.

First of all stupid, it's not the government's responsibility to "save jobs".

Second, stupid, Obama has cost more jobs than any idiot libtard Dumbocrat in ever - including Jimmy Carter. Why do you think we've seen the longest period of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history sans the Great Depression?

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the WORLD do Statist Libtards get the idea that companies ONLY exist to give people jobs, and the EMPLOYEE dictates terms when they are not qualified to receive a payraise contrary to what the market dictates?

Nobody gives someone a job. They receive labor from which they derive profit. You make a profit off of every employee. It is the employee who is giving you something

What?

You make a profit off of every employee?

What, preciseliy, makes you thnk that?

And a business doesn't give someone a job? Does that mean that anyone should be able force someone to employ them?

Have you ever run a business? Have you ever come close to running a business?

And I sure would like an answer to my original question: Do you see any down side to arbitrarily doubling the minimum wage?

I also asked earlier where you heard that someone has to work for someone else, that they can't work elsewhere.

I've asked several reasonable questions, could you answer them for me?

I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

.

If you do not make a profit off of every employee, why does that employee continue to work for you?

 

[P@triot]

GM and Chrysler were going out of business because of excessive UAW wages. Those companies were being destroyed by excessive wages and benefits---------sooooooo the great obozo saved the UAW by using our money to bail out those failing companies, and the excessive wages and benefits are still in play. How long before the next govt bailout is needed?

this is liberal lunacy in action.

You are just pissed off that the auto workers in Ohio gave the election to Obama.
That was the auto workers and their families way of saying "thank you" for saving their job.

Something a rethug would never think to do. Save some hourly workers job.

you really don't get it. If those companies had gone through bankruptcy, they would have been broken up into smaller more efficient companies, the jobs would still be there but the UAW might not. Those new companies would have had union representation votes and the UAW could not risk being voted out. The auto bailouts were to save the UAW not the workers jobs.

The dems and the unions did a good job of lying about it to the workers and got them to vote for obama.

Now, you know the rest of the story.

The funny part is, the unions don't even need to lie. Libtards are so profoundly ignorant of basic economics, they don't comprehend that artificially propping up FAILED companies creates MORE FAILURE

Part of their profound ignorance is that they believe everything occurs in a vacuum. They are so stupid, they don't even realize that had GM been allowed to fail, all GM customers would NOT have started walking to work. They would have been forced to purchase their next vehicle from better run companies. That higher demand from additional customers would have forced those companies to hire new employees. Those new employees would have been the EXPERIENCED employees from GM. The ultimate end result would have been GM employees working for stronger, better companies with more stability and a much brighter future.

Yes folks, libtards really are this stupid...

 

[Mac1958]

Well ok then Mac. Didn't like my answers cause eh? You never said I had to agree with you to answer your questions.

But just what is it that scares you so much about low wage workers being paid more? And why do you keep repeating the same ole bullshit about; well if 15 dollars an hour is good, why not raise it to 100 dollars an hour. What a stupid comment. No one is advising 100 dollars an hour for unskilled workers.
Are you crazy? Just hung up on the hated "government".

You do know that if minimum wages had kept up with inflation, minimum wage would be around 15 bucks.

As to the "giving" of jobs. Are you agreeing with what I wrote? No one "gives" you a job? Your response was confusing.

And if you aren't concerned about low wage workers, (which you don't seem to be) and you aren't looking out for the millionaires (which there is a record number of now) just who is it that you are so concerned about?

And yea Mac, you have become a rethug. To bad. Sarcastic? Condescending? Me? Gee Mac, a sensitive rethug. What a rarity.

If you knew where I stand on war, America as policeman of the world, gay rights, abortion, taxation and even minimum wage, you would not think I was a "rethug". Or maybe you still would, who knows. I don't mind being called names here, I realize this place is often like a grade school playground.

But this isn't about me. Let's now address your various straw man arguments above.

Nothing "scares" me about low wage workers being paid more. I'm just looking at three screamingly obvious issues: The effect of arbitrarily increased labor costs on businesses, increased cost barriers for businesses trying to enter an industrial space for the first time and what those businesses will clearly have to do to react; significantly increased costs for labor that is not proportionately increasing in value, output or efficiency; and the bizarre notion that a bottom-end job is somehow supposed to support a family, and the insult to these people that we don't think they can or will improve their skill set, which is what most of us do.

Again, not sure why the word "give" is so important. Provide, offer, supply, give, I don't care. If it's so important that I use your terminology, great, no one "gives" you a job. This, of course, has nothing to do with my points.

And I'm not concerned about low wage workers? I'm hopeful that this explanation will make sense to you, but it will require you to practice some intellectual elasticity (which I think you can) and look beyond the surface:

My concern is more than about business, it's cultural as well. My concern is finding an equilibrium amongst multiple issues: Motivating people to start businesses and not motivating them to NOT start businesses because of myriad regulations and arbitrary government-forced costs increases for which they simply cannot plan; arbritarily punishing existing businesses by those same regulations and unpredictable cost increases; punishing businesses by arbitrarily making them pay more for employees who are not providing proportionate value for the business; insulting Americans by assuming they are incapable of improving their skillset and advancing on their own; and vastly overpaying teenagers who are just trying to make some scratch for their pockets by somehow and simplistically equating them with adults who have chosen not to improve their skill set and feel entitled to income they do not deserve.

.

 

[dblack]

I have a really hard time taking someone's views on economic policy seriously if they've advocated for minimum wage laws

Agreed. Market forces. FED needs to keep their noses out of it.

Well, of course I agree, though I can understand how someone might think government has a role to play intervening in the economy - even if I'd argue to the contrary.

But if they buy into the idea that minimum wage laws improve the lot of the poor, it's hard to respect anything they have to say about economic matters. It's like arguing with a creationist about what should be taught in science class.

 

[P@triot]

So you are wondering if business makes a profit off every employee. Now maybe that wasn't worded correctly, but if an employee of mine IS NOT contributing to the profit of my jobs, they won't stay around as an employee.

In your business do you continue to pay an employee who is not contributing to your profit goals? Are you so altruistic that you continue to employee people who do not contribute to profitability? Not me, I'll fire your ass.

And why are you so confused about whether business's "give" people a job? They don't. When I hire someone, I am willing to pay for their labor and experience. In exchange, they are willing to use their labor and experience for my benefit in exchange for my dollars. I didn't "give" anyone anything.
I am an employer, not the government.

Now to doubling the minimum wage and what would happen. Don't know and haven't heard of anyone offering to double the minimum wage. One thing for sure, the people who work for minimum wage would be happier. And they would be spending more which would help the economy.

But I am sure you are all concerned that a multi millionaire business owner might not be able to pay himself that multi million dollar bonus IF the owner were to pay a higher minimum wage.

You rethugs sure cling to a failed idea. First it was tax cuts create jobs. You got you tax cuts, jobs didn't happen.
Now its that an increase in minimum wage will crash the economy and make millionaires poor.

All bullshit all the time with you rethugs.

Here's the bottom line, stupid. Your entire libtard Dumbocrat ideology is PROVEN (beyond a shadow of a doubt) to be a failed one. PROVEN.

Government regulations cost businesses money. The more money spent on regulations, the less jobs.

Unions create inflated, bloated, absurd salaries. Bloated salaries cost businesses money. The more money spent on union salaries, the less jobs.

Socialist programs like Social Security and Obamcare cost businesses money. The more money spent on socialist government programs, the less jobs.

All you guys do is kill jobs - and then cry about the lack of jobs and attempt to blame Republicans

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. And that's ALL you ignorant Dumbocrats do...

 

[Mac1958]

Nobody gives someone a job. They receive labor from which they derive profit. You make a profit off of every employee. It is the employee who is giving you something

What?

You make a profit off of every employee?

What, preciseliy, makes you thnk that?

And a business doesn't give someone a job? Does that mean that anyone should be able force someone to employ them?

Have you ever run a business? Have you ever come close to running a business?

And I sure would like an answer to my original question: Do you see any down side to arbitrarily doubling the minimum wage?

I also asked earlier where you heard that someone has to work for someone else, that they can't work elsewhere.

I've asked several reasonable questions, could you answer them for me?

I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

.

If you do not make a profit off of every employee, why does that employee continue to work for you?

Still no answers to my direct questions.

Okay. I'm happy to answer yours.

In a business (assuming we're talking about something larger than a Mom & Pop) the value of each person and position ranges. A salesperson deals with rejection and paperwork and competition and many other challenges and is also at the mercy of the value of the product they are selling vs. that of the competition. Yet they bring in the business and are usually compensated near the top of the heap, primarily because people of their skillset are very difficult to find and keep.

A low-end clerk or a janitor or a french fry specialist in the cafeteria is not bringing in business, their responsibilities are fewer and less important; their position -- not them personally, only their position -- is far easier to replace and does not generate revenue. Often, the very exisitence of their position is merely to take easier tasks off the plate of those who DO generate value and revenue. These people are easily replaced because there is a long line people who would be more than willing, based on their own financial needs, to take their position tomorrow, if not this afternoon. It would be stupid for a business owner to pay more than the market rate for this position.

What is the market rate for a position? That's easily determined by observing -- wait for it -- the market.

A janitor does not create revenue but still has to be paid.

Low-end employees don't generate revenue, so they are looked at by a business owner essentially as a fixed cost.

.

 

[Redfish]

Nobody gives someone a job. They receive labor from which they derive profit. You make a profit off of every employee. It is the employee who is giving you something

What?

You make a profit off of every employee?

What, preciseliy, makes you thnk that?

And a business doesn't give someone a job? Does that mean that anyone should be able force someone to employ them?

Have you ever run a business? Have you ever come close to running a business?

And I sure would like an answer to my original question: Do you see any down side to arbitrarily doubling the minimum wage?

I also asked earlier where you heard that someone has to work for someone else, that they can't work elsewhere.

I've asked several reasonable questions, could you answer them for me?

I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

.

If you do not make a profit off of every employee, why does that employee continue to work for you?

according to you, the company should keep the employee and give him a raise because the company owes him a living.

 

[Londoner]

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

My brother-in-law was a lobbyist for 15 years. His job was to apply financial pressure on Washington for the sole purpose of gaining access to subsidies, regulatory favors, competitive advantages and tax breaks. He worked in a relatively small sector compared to Pharma and Defense. But he was quite clear about the over-arching goal of the mega-lobbying firms that run Washington. To work with big government to get no-bid access to the largest wallet in the world: the American Tax Payer.

What amazes me is how little Republican voters are informed about the degree of government help that pours into the corporate and investment class.

Why don't Republicans know about the absurdly high number of congressman from both sides of the aisle that become drug lobbyists? The reason big Pharma pays MASSIVE salaries to former senators is for ACCESS to the legislative body that controls the checkbook.

Do you know what the drug companies and other corporations do with a portion of their profits (after their done bribing Washington)? They pour money into the Republican Machine (which is an overlapping set of think tank and mass media assets) which agitate morons making 50-80k to worry about welfare crumbs going to the homeless so they don't notice the trillions paid out to wealthy in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and monopoly control over everything from cable TV/Internet to Health Insurance.

To be honest, they benefit from people like you who - for instance - don't know that companies like Boeing would not exist but for MASSIVE government help through the defense budget. There is a reason why our largest corporations have built a lobby-city around Capital Hill.

And what about the 80's consumer electronics boom?. Do you know how much of this stuff was developed in and through the NASA and Defense agencies. Have you ever studied where our satellite technology comes from? The Space Race and our Military machine required and developed this technology long before it was handed to the private sector.

This is why I laugh at the Left when they want to reduce military spending. Because they don't understand the benefits of that spending.

Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell guys like you how much the State Sector has done and continues to do for the profit makers. This is why we as a nation need to do a better job educating people like you.

FYI: I want markets to allocate resources and set prices; I just haven't allowed a small group of idiot pundits to turn my opinions into simple "socialism versus freedom" narratives.

If you want to know who craves government power and tax payer money, look no further than our capitalist class, which flocks to Washington in numbers that would melt your brain.

You've been lied to.

 

[Londoner]

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

My brother-in-law was a lobbyist for 15 years. His job was to apply financial pressure on Washington for the sole purpose of gaining access to subsidies, regulatory favors, competitive advantages and tax breaks. He worked in a relatively small sector compared to Pharma and Defense. But he was quite clear about the over-arching goal of the mega-lobbying firms that run Washington. To work with big government to get no-bid access to the largest wallet in the world: the American Tax Payer.

What amazes me is how little Republican voters are informed about the degree of government help that pours into the corporate and investment class.

Why don't Republicans know about the absurdly high number of congressman from both sides of the aisle that become drug lobbyists? The reason big Pharma pays MASSIVE salaries to former senators is for ACCESS to the legislative body that controls the checkbook.

Do you know what the drug companies and other corporations do with a portion of their profits (after their done bribing Washington)? They pour money into the Republican Machine (which is an overlapping set of think tank and mass media assets) which agitate morons making 50-80k to worry about welfare crumbs going to the homeless so they don't notice the trillions paid out to wealthy in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and monopoly control over everything from cable TV/Internet to Health Insurance.

To be honest, they benefit from people like you who - for instance - don't know that companies like Boeing would not exist but for MASSIVE government help through the defense budget. There is a reason why our largest corporations have built a lobby-city around Capital Hill.

And what about the 80's consumer electronics boom?. Do you know how much of this stuff was developed in and through the NASA and Defense agencies. Have you ever studied where our satellite technology comes from? The Space Race and our Military machine required and developed this technology long before it was handed to the private sector.

This is why I laugh at the Left when they want to reduce military spending. Because they don't understand the benefits of that spending.

Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell guys like you how much the State Sector has done and continues to do for the profit makers. This is why we as a nation need to do a better job educating people like you.

FYI: I want markets to allocate resources and set prices; I just haven't allowed a small group of idiot pundits to turn my opinions into simple "socialism versus freedom" narratives.

If you want to know who craves government power and tax payer money, look no further than our capitalist class, which flocks to Washington in numbers that would melt your brain.

You've been lied to.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You are just pissed off that the auto workers in Ohio gave the election to Obama.
That was the auto workers and their families way of saying "thank you" for saving their job.

Something a rethug would never think to do. Save some hourly workers job.

you really don't get it. If those companies had gone through bankruptcy, they would have been broken up into smaller more efficient companies, the jobs would still be there but the UAW might not. Those new companies would have had union representation votes and the UAW could not risk being voted out. The auto bailouts were to save the UAW not the workers jobs.

The dems and the unions did a good job of lying about it to the workers and got them to vote for obama.

Now, you know the rest of the story.

The funny part is, the unions don't even need to lie. Libtards are so profoundly ignorant of basic economics, they don't comprehend that artificially propping up FAILED companies creates MORE FAILURE

Part of their profound ignorance is that they believe everything occurs in a vacuum. They are so stupid, they don't even realize that had GM been allowed to fail, all GM customers would NOT have started walking to work. They would have been forced to purchase their next vehicle from better run companies. That higher demand from additional customers would have forced those companies to hire new employees. Those new employees would have been the EXPERIENCED employees from GM. The ultimate end result would have been GM employees working for stronger, better companies with more stability and a much brighter future.

Yes folks, libtards really are this stupid...

well one of the top dems said the other day

that increasing the minimum wage will create more jobs

 

[Londoner]

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

My brother-in-law was a lobbyist for 15 years. His job was to apply financial pressure on Washington for the sole purpose of gaining access to subsidies, regulatory favors, competitive advantages and tax breaks. He worked in a relatively small sector compared to Pharma and Defense. But he was quite clear about the over-arching goal of the mega-lobbying firms, which goal was work with big government to get no-bid access to the largest wallet in the world: the American Tax Payer.

What amazes me is how little Republican voters are informed about the degree of government help that pours into the corporate and investment class.

Why don't Republicans know about the absurdly high number of congressman from both sides of the aisle that become drug lobbyists? The reason big Pharma pays MASSIVE salaries to former senators is for ACCESS to the legislative body that controls the checkbook.

Do you know what the drug companies and other corporations do with a portion of their profits (after their done bribing Washington)? They pour money into the Republican Machine (which is an overlapping set of think tank and mass media assets) which agitate morons making 50-80k to worry about welfare crumbs going to the homeless so they don't notice the trillions paid out to wealthy in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and monopoly control over everything from cable TV/Internet to Health Insurance.

To be honest, they benefit from people like you who - for instance - don't know that companies like Boeing would not exist but for MASSIVE government help through the defense budget. There is a reason why our largest corporations have built a lobby-city around Capital Hill.

And what about the 80's consumer electronics boom?. Do you know how much of this stuff was developed in and through the NASA and Defense agencies. Have you ever studied where our satellite technology comes from? The Space Race and our Military machine required and developed this technology long before it was handed to the private sector.

This is why I laugh at the Left when they want to reduce military spending. Because they don't understand the benefits of that spending.

Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell guys like you how much the State Sector has done and continues to do for the profit makers. This is why we as a nation need to do a better job educating people like you.

FYI: I want markets to allocate resources and set prices; I just haven't allowed a small group of idiot pundits to turn my opinions into simple "socialism versus freedom" narratives.

If you want to know who craves government power and tax payer money, look no further than our capitalist class, which flocks to Washington in numbers that would melt your brain.

You've been lied to.

(How about this. Just study the 2003 Drug Bill, specifically the deal Eli Lilly got, and who gave it to them. Because we're sick of hearing the same old garbage about welfare. FYI: I agree with you. I don't want to pay for my lazy neighbor's shit either. You're not enlightening us. You're point is well taken but it's old. You're information sources have trained your mind on nickels as bejamines are flying out the window.)

 

[dblack]

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

I have a somewhat different take on this - and I think it's one that many libertarians share. I actually DO think we have a responsibility to help out those in need. It's simply an extension of our responsibility to look out for family members - in as much as we're all bound as fellow countrymen. But I don't believe such a responsibility can, or should, be the purview of law and government.

 

[rightwinger]

What?

You make a profit off of every employee?

What, preciseliy, makes you thnk that?

And a business doesn't give someone a job? Does that mean that anyone should be able force someone to employ them?

Have you ever run a business? Have you ever come close to running a business?

And I sure would like an answer to my original question: Do you see any down side to arbitrarily doubling the minimum wage?

I also asked earlier where you heard that someone has to work for someone else, that they can't work elsewhere.

I've asked several reasonable questions, could you answer them for me?

I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

.

If you do not make a profit off of every employee, why does that employee continue to work for you?

Still no answers to my direct questions.

Okay. I'm happy to answer yours.

In a business (assuming we're talking about something larger than a Mom & Pop) the value of each person and position ranges. A salesperson deals with rejection and paperwork and competition and many other challenges and is also at the mercy of the value of the product they are selling vs. that of the competition. Yet they bring in the business and are usually compensated near the top of the heap, primarily because people of their skillset are very difficult to find and keep.

A low-end clerk or a janitor or a french fry specialist in the cafeteria is not bringing in business, their responsibilities are fewer and less important; their position -- not them personally, only their position -- is far easier to replace and does not generate revenue. Often, the very exisitence of their position is merely to take easier tasks off the plate of those who DO generate value and revenue. These people are easily replaced because there is a long line people who would be more than willing, based on their own financial needs, to take their position tomorrow, if not this afternoon. It would be stupid for a business owner to pay more than the market rate for this position.

What is the market rate for a position? That's easily determined by observing -- wait for it -- the market.

A janitor does not create revenue but still has to be paid.

Low-end employees don't generate revenue, so they are looked at by a business owner essentially as a fixed cost.

.

Does a janitor generate profit directly? No
But the lack of a janitor will lead to loss of profit

You keep employees because the create wealth for you. The amount of that wealth that you give to those employees is the topic of discussion.

 

[P@triot]

There is no such thing as a substandard wage.

No individual member of a free society owes any other member of that society the means to support themselves or their families. It is the responsibility of every person to provide for their own support and the support of their own families.

No half way intelligent, sane individual would ever believe that they can support a family on a minimum wage job. It is not possible with the minimum wage at $7.50, and it would not be possible with the minimum wage at $15.00 or even $20.00.

In the Fifties, skilled workers made between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Now, skilled workers make $40,000 to $50,000 per year, and they do not live one damn bit better than they did in the Fifties.

Does that give you a clue as to why raising the mimimum wage is a dumb idea? If not, look up the term "wage inflation".

One of the most accurate and exceptional posts I have ever seen...