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.
Only right wingers don't seem to understand that social welfare programs are more expensive from a taxpayer point of view than simply and merely raising the minimum wage to reduce the need for such services.Your first question is at the crux of the debate. The concept of a living wage is that if a person is working full time then that time should be compensated enough for them to support themselves without the need of welfare.
Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?
As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.
What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
www.shrm.org
Not if she wants to be a "horrible boss". That should cost a bit more. Capitalism should be wonderful.Massage Jenifer Aniston?
Yes, it does. It is why Your guy lost most of his legal battles to fund the general malfare.We don't have a general malfare clause, it is a general welfare clause. They can only fund anything that promotes and provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense.If the government decides they need money, for anything, they will fund it.
That has nothing to do with what I said and i stand by what I said, if the government really wants money, they will fund it, one way or the other.
The government forced those businesses to close so they should be compensatedSpecial pleading?what fast food company ever got a bailout?
If you include (forgivable) loans?
Main Street bailout rewards U.S. restaurant chains, firms in rural states
Over two frantic weeks, the U.S. government pledged $350 billion to Main Street businesses across America desperate for cash after coronavirus lockdowns.www.reuters.com
I already said thatYou might want to think that one through a bit longer. The cost of living is directly related to what you just described... the price consumers are willing to pay for productsWho determines what the value of labor is? You don’t think that the cost of living is a factor in the value of labor?Your first question is at the crux of the debate. The concept of a living wage is that if a person is working full time then that time should be compensated enough for them to support themselves without the need of welfare.For perspective we are talking about somebody standing in a kitchen serving people food for 8 hours a day. Walking with about $50 a day, $250 a week, $1000 a month, $12,000 a year. That’s what this full time employee will have to support themselves. Meanwhile the restaurant is making millions. Sound good to you?What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profitThat’s what I’m askingDo you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
Since when is any job wage based on what it costs for a person to support himself?
And FYI no single franchised fast food store makes millions a year.
In fact most franchise owners make less than 100K a year
And a person sells his labor to an employer and that labor is only worth what the market will pay for it. If a person wants to get more for the labor he is selling then he has to make his labor worth more by increasing its value to an employer.
This is what entry level jobs are for.
Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?
As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.
What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
No cost of living is not a factor.
And many factors contribute to what a person's labor is worth to an employer.
All products have a cost to bring to the market. The consumer's willingness to pay a price for that product is also relevant.
When the cost of bringing a product to the market exceeds the price a consumer is willing to pay then the business providing that product has 2 choices: Reduce the cost of production or close shop.
The cost of living has no bearing on the what it takes for a business to bring a product to the market but it might have an effect on how many people will pay for that product.
I'm not having this argument with you again.The government forced those businesses to close so they should be compensatedSpecial pleading?what fast food company ever got a bailout?
If you include (forgivable) loans?
Main Street bailout rewards U.S. restaurant chains, firms in rural states
Over two frantic weeks, the U.S. government pledged $350 billion to Main Street businesses across America desperate for cash after coronavirus lockdowns.
Inefficient Government policies create poverty and individuals should be compensated for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Any time right wingers immorally and unethically complain about the cost of social services by holding the point of view you right wingers do.Since when is any job wage based on what it costs for a person to support himself?
And FYI no single franchised fast food store makes millions a year.
In fact most franchise owners make less than 100K a year
And a person sells his labor to an employer and that labor is only worth what the market will pay for it. If a person wants to get more for the labor he is selling then he has to make his labor worth more by increasing its value to an employer.
This is what entry level jobs are for.
Labor must be able to afford our first world economy so that a rising tide can lift all boats. That means wages keeping up with inflation.
Because they don't own your lawn.Simple question. If a corporation wants to take a massive dump on your lawn, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
If someone offers it $7 and it accepts, it should be paid that.If a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, why shouldn't it be paid $7?
Yes, it does. It is why Your guy lost most of his legal battles to fund the general malfare.We don't have a general malfare clause, it is a general welfare clause. They can only fund anything that promotes and provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense.If the government decides they need money, for anything, they will fund it.
That has nothing to do with what I said and i stand by what I said, if the government really wants money, they will fund it, one way or the other.
Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?
As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.
What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
- Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
- Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
- Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
- Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
- Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
- Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
- Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profitThat’s what I’m askingDo you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?
As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.
What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
- Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
- Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
- Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
- Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
- Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
- Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
- Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.
How to Establish Salary Ranges
Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.
If they freely accept a dollar for compensation, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I've done work for free before.For the same reason they shouldn’t be working for $1 an hour
How old are you?Not my fault right wingers want to be taken seriously with nothing but appeals to ignorance. What part of the first post in this thread is unclear?
Prove it. UC has already been measured with a multiplier of 2. For comparison and contrast regular government spending including defense spending only generates a multiplier of around .8.I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
Incentivizing your sloth is a negative multiplier.
Simple question. If a potential employee agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
So if someone complains about welfare, someone else can't freely accept a job for $7/hr?Because right wingers complain about taxes for social services.
Capitalism isn't advertised.We have statutory minimum wages because Capitalism doesn't work as advertised.
And out comes the psychobabble again. It's your tell when your intellect has failed you.Tell right wingers to start loving the taxes they pay for our endless war on poverty merely so the Rich corporations can enjoy higher profits while having right wingers pay for it via taxes for social services. Or, they should just admit they are nothing but ignorant hypocrites like usual.
the value of the job is a factor of market based arbitrage
IOW, the money first has to be taken out of the economy by taxes and borrowing. Until you stop pretending there is no opportunity cost associated with taking money out of the economy, you will never grasp why grand socialist schemes like that always fail. Every dollar spent in the economy has a multiplier effect, we know that from economics. Therefore, every dollar taxed out of the economy ELIMINATES the multiplier effect it would have had if the person who lost it would have spent it. Are you following me so far? I would hate to lose you so soon. Now, you want to trumpet the multiplier effect of an existing program and think you can drastically change it without effecting that multiplier. That is another FALLACY. Here's reality:You appeal to ignorance of the multiplier generated by UC, 2. Most other government spending including defense spending only generates a multiplier of .8. And, I have answered this question several times. Only right wingers are annoying enough to continually appeal to ignorance instead of actually reading my mostly one liners or paragraphs, usually at most.And this is why no one takes the left seriously about economics, because they are ignorant of, and refuse to consider, the opportunity cost of taxation. They refuse to consider where the money will come from to create their socialist utopia. LOOK IT UP. Opportunity cost is a real thing, and you have to first STOP capital from circulating by taking it from someone who earned it in order to START it circulating by giving some of it to someone who didn't earn it.
Now, again I ask, where do you think the money will come from that you think will be circulating?
The money could come from general taxes so that anyone, even someone on unemployment can help contribute to that fund. The rest could come from relatively safe bond issues. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency in the particular manner implied by our Commerce Clause.
From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),
