Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

Neally said:
Who said anything about him not paying the workers a days provisions? He pays his workers their minimum wage as he is morally obligated to do. There is not enough left over for his days provisions. Why is that not immoral in society?
Click to expand...

It does not benefit society to reward stupidity. He took a chance opening a business. His business plan sucks. Why penalize the laborer?

There will be someone to replace the drongo worker who couldnt develop enough skill to be paid a days provisions. Again, see how that works?
Click to expand...

So?
 
shuize said:
I still don't understand how paying someone less than minimum wage can lead to both parties coming out ahead when done as part of a "personal interaction" but not when the same transaction is called something else. The relative costs and benefits to the parties are exactly the same in both cases.
Click to expand...
The one case in which I allowed that it might be reasonable is if an impoverished and disabled person paid what little he could to someone who would otherwise have nothing. That is just the pooor helping each other out. If I am able-bodied and could do it myself, certainly, I owe him at least minimum wage.

The same goes for the entrepreneur.
 
i really do find it amazing that so many here have such contempt for workers, that they would deny them a decent wage.
since there are many more workers than there are employers, they should be the primary concern in a democracy.

it appears that conservatives are not really interested in democracy if it interferes with profits.
the hypocrisy is glaring.
 
leftysergeant said:
It does not benefit society to reward stupidity. He took a chance opening a business. His business plan sucks. Why penalize the laborer?
Click to expand...

Yet you find it perfectly moral to allow the business owner to go without a decent day's provisions.

You do realize businesses can struggle or fail even with solid plans, right?

But it's clear by your insistence to deny a right to a business owner that you all but demand for a worker, that this isn't really an issue of helping out the workers.
 
bikerdruid said:
i really do find it amazing that so many here have such contempt for workers,
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Oh please.
bikerdruid said:
that they would deny them a decent wage.
Click to expand...
Where has anyone argued this?
bikerdruid said:
since there are many more workers than there are employers, they should be the primary concern in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Kinda ***** on equality then don't it?

bikerdruid said:
it appears that conservatives are not really interested in democracy if it interferes with profits.
the hypocrisy is glaring.
Click to expand...
It is, but you're not really seeing it.
 
bikerdruid said:
throughout the thread, many are suggesting that $10 dollars /hr is too generous.
who can live for less than that?
........certainly no one in the u.s. or canada.
Click to expand...

Well, surely you can provide evidence for this statement.

Here's a hint: Suggesting I look around me isn't going to cut it as evidence.
 
bikerdruid said:
i really do find it amazing that so many here have such contempt for workers, that they would deny them a decent wage.
since there are many more workers than there are employers, they should be the primary concern in a democracy.

it appears that conservatives are not really interested in democracy if it interferes with profits.
the hypocrisy is glaring.
Click to expand...

A strange criticism from a guy who would prefer that unskilled workers not be able to work at all.
 
bikerdruid said:
could you live on less than $10/hr?
Click to expand...

It might take getting a second part time job, which is fairly standard for people not capable of making $10+ an hour. You and lefty would make it so they couldn't have any jobs, so what do you propose should be done with the large class of people you desire to make completely unemployable? Lefty refuses to answer the question, perhaps you will.
 
respect said:
It might take getting a second part time job, which is fairly standard for people not capable of making $10+ an hour. You and lefty would make it so they couldn't have any jobs, so what do you propose should be done with the large class of people you desire to make completely unemployable? Lefty refuses to answer the question, perhaps you will.
Click to expand...

it must be a lot cheaper to live where you live.
 
bikerdruid said:
it must be a lot cheaper to live where you live.
Click to expand...

You asked if I could live off of less than $10, not if I could continue my current lifestyle. I couldn't live off just $10 in my neighborhood, I would have to move for sure.

Why won't you guys explain what you want to be done with all of the people you want to make unemployable?
 
respect said:
A strange criticism from a guy who would prefer that unskilled workers not be able to work at all.
Click to expand...
That is simplistic balderdash. This country works just fine when there is a minimum wage and the burden of taxation falls mostly on the upper income earnersw.

Old jelly-brain upset that and the ecconomy tanked.

If every person who works a full day gets a day's provisions, there is more work available. If the entrepreneur is allowed to short thm in order to ensure that he makes his day's provisions and then some, all the wealthof a nation flows upward and never dribbles back down at a rate that will sustain a middle class. Soon you have only oligarchs and peons. We are moving that way now, and it must come to a stop.
 
leftysergeant said:
That is simplistic balderdash. This country works just fine when there is a minimum wage and the burden of taxation falls mostly on the upper income earnersw.

Old jelly-brain upset that and the ecconomy tanked.

If every person who works a full day gets a day's provisions, there is more work available. If the entrepreneur is allowed to short thm in order to ensure that he makes his day's provisions and then some, all the wealthof a nation flows upward and never dribbles back down at a rate that will sustain a middle class. Soon you have only oligarchs and peons. We are moving that way now, and it must come to a stop.
Click to expand...

LOL, a significant hike in the minimum wage would be met with a combination of price hikes and layoffs. It would not create more jobs, it would block people incapable of producing at that wage from the workforce, as has been explained to you many times.
 
respect said:
LOL, a significant hike in the minimum wage would be met with a combination of price hikes and layoffs. It would not create more jobs, it would block people incapable of producing at that wage from the workforce, as has been explained to you many times.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
 
leftysergeant said:
It does not benefit society to reward stupidity. He took a chance opening a business. His business plan sucks.
Click to expand...
But you do want society to reward inferior worker skills?
If a workers skill suck to the point that he's not worth minimum wage, or alternately, the job requires so little skill that it's not worth minimum wage why should the employer be forced to pay it?

bikerdruid said:
throughout the thread, many are suggesting that $10 dollars /hr is too generous.
who can live for less than that?
Click to expand...
If they can't, maybe they should you know, develop some skills that might earn them better wages. Not every buys into the "to them according to their needs" Marxist thing. Many of us are more "to them according to their ability" philosophy.
 
leftysergeant said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

That businesses will not pay labor more than they produce? That is just common sense, you hardly need an advanced degree in economics to understand that.

What specifically would happen here is that businesses would raise their prices to compensate for the higher (labor) input cost. Businesses with fairly inelastic demand like grocery stores would be able to do this as people will still need to eat even when prices are higher. Businesses that could not offset the higher input cost with higher prices would have to layoff employees who did not produce at least $10 an hour for the company. So unskilled labor that kept their jobs would largely see their benefit offset by higher retail prices, and unskilled labor that lost their jobs would be much worse off.

Your major mistake here (among many) is that you are conflating productivity with wages. If unskilled workers earned more because they became more productive that would stimulate economic growth. Unskilled workers earning more because the government demands it does not produce the same result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom