D
deleted15807
Guest
If you want to blindly assume that employers are going to understand the struggles of their employees and pay them accordingly then more power to you.
What a delusion............
Hard times for workers
If you want to blindly assume that employers are going to understand the struggles of their employees and pay them accordingly then more power to you.
The surprise for the Democrats in 2012 will be that the "Conservatives" are no longer only the religious right. They are a group of people, undefined, without a specific leader that believes in the foundation of the US Constitution, individual liberties AND responsibilities. There are many things that I disagree with Ayn Rand about but the one thing she did understand is that each individual should have the right to contract a job, a relationship or anything else as an individual and not as a "collective." Ayn Rand's philosophy is impossible because information is not free and most individuals are not willing to put their asses on the line to accept the responsibilities of their actions.
I don't assume that they will understand. I assume, rightly, that if workers agreed, the hand of the employer would be forced to meet their demands (ie, the basic concept of a labor union).
Those who demand more will be out of luck, and those who are willing to settle will prevail. That may not fully protect the workers, but then they're not in charge - the people who pay out the money are. And make no mistake: employers will pay what it takes to keep those who are worth it to them. If that weren't true, no one would make more than minimum wage in a system that imposes one.
And don't exaggerate. While the lack of a set minimum wage was part of the "child labor" era, that one factor wouldn't necessarily re-create that entire picture automatically. An inability to judge the parts separate from the whole is just as bad as the inverse.
And just as much evidence that others do a beautiful job and don't need to be regulated.
If I'm choosing to believe things I want, you're doing just as much of it yourself.
Ultimately, I think you want guarantees and I want to be free of the burdens guarantees can create on the way.
In many cases it is the government that has to pick up the balance when people don't have enough to make ends meet, either directly (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) or indirectly (through increased expenditures on things like law enforcement due to increases in poverty-related crime).But you assume certain things, especially that it's a given for the government to pick up the remainder of the bill.
Well, part of the idea is that having a civilization is what allows us to rise above the state of being mere animals, and "being civilized" includes things like not leaving people to fend for themselves.Maybe part of the problem is that we teach survival of the fittest in public schools but are too bashful to let it be part of our reality. Harsh but true.
It's hard to say. On the one hand, a minimum wage shouldn't be needed because employers, looking at the long term/big picture, would see that underpaying employees is a false economy because of all of the problems that poverty creates and would thus, acting in their own self-interest, pay their employees enough to lift them out of poverty. On the other hand, publicly traded companies are legally bound to pursue short-term profits - which usually means cutting wages and benefits - so a minimum wage requirement helps to ensure that certain minimum standards of living are being met - and thus helps to reduce the problems created by poverty. So, in an ideal world, a minimum wage wouldn't be needed, but under the current system, it is.And I can see that you feel it's better to pay the $9, but do you think it should necessarily be a requirement on employers that the $9 be paid? It starts getting Orwellian at that point.
I foresee the use of a carpet and a broom.Back at the original topic. How will the American religious right deal with the reality that their economic guru is a follower of a philosopher who thought that religion is complete fallacy and a waste of time?
Back at the original topic. How will the American religious right deal with the reality that their economic guru is a follower of a philosopher who thought that religion is complete fallacy and a waste of time?
Like I said, you assume the government has to carry people who can't make it on their own. That's the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Life can be pretty harsh.While yes if you remove the minimum wage more jobs would be created in the us they wouldn't pay enough to live in the us thus forcing the government to subsidized the lives of the workers being paid $3 an hour. which isnt sustainable as the corporations benefiting from the cheep labor usually dont pay much in the way of taxes.
Which is ironic, because in college I couldn't stand the liberal equivalent. You know what they say about joining them if you can't beat them.vance88 sounds like a typical college aged over educated Ron Paul acolyte.
Like I said, you assume the government has to carry people who can't make it on their own. That's the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Life can be pretty harsh.
Then what? The poor people shoot the rich people, form a benevolent co-op state, and live happily ever after?Unless the right to bear arms is removed along side the minimum wage or at least curtailed to income restrictions uprisings could become a very real possibility.
Then what? The poor people shoot the rich people, form a benevolent co-op state, and live happily ever after?
What do you suppose the lesson of happily ever after not coming true is?