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.
Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?
Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?
A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo. A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire. The status quo is regulated capitalism.
Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?
A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo. A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire. The status quo is regulated capitalism.
So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.
Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.
Your are wrong in so many ways on this, because everything is fluid in these things, and no two businesses are alike, and no two businesses should pay alike, excpet for a start out pay that is set by a national labor standard (i.e. beginners pay only). After that the governments role should be only to look in on what could constitute abuse of the employee, and then to send a letter of concern out to the company that is doing the abuse. If the company doesn't budge, then just as we do other nations in the world on such things, we could put in place against them maybe "sanctions" that would or could get their attention about what they are doing in this respect. How is it that we know so much about how to tell other nations we are dis-pleased with them in such a way, and we do this without actually going to war with them, but we are dumb founded in how to adress the abuses that take place under our own roof ?Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
14 year olds working should only be working or helping out by their own choices in which is to hang out with mom or dad while they are working at home or on the family farms, and this in so that they may learn something about work or working from their moms or dads in that way, but the age should be at 16 to work for another, and it should be for part time work only while going to school or part time during the summer time maybe. 18 should be when a young person get's their first full time job as it has always been in the past to my understanding of these things.I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.
I'm not entirely opposed to 14 year olds working as long as the job is safe. 14 year olds are currently allowed to work certain jobs in my state and I don't see a problem with that.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky. Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested. And, especially for those companies that are making record business. Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
Says the fast food worker who lives with mom.
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested. And, especially for those companies that are making record business. Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo. A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire. The status quo is regulated capitalism.
So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.
Oh, don't sulk. You asked a rhetorical question and you're now upset that I answered it
Q "Is that a Conservative only concept?"
A "No, not really."
Q "What's wrong with paying your own way in life?"
A "No one suggested that was wrong; but I'm sure you'll claim they did and go on to justify paying a pittance to a 5 year old to mine coal with some anecdote about bootstraps and cowboy spurs."
Q "Why do we need to do either?"
A "Because we don't live under laissez-faire capitalism."
But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested. And, especially for those companies that are making record business. Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.
Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
