These employees are taking advantage of the government (ie, everyone else) by making a career of a minimum wage job and expecting someone else to make up the difference for them.
2 Likes
And I bet youâre even more bitter when someone takes your resources to get a cut for themselves and then to be less generous that you would have been on your own.
2 Likes
Boy howdy!!!
1 Like
Itâs not because Walmart is too greedy. It is exactly because the fed programs are either too generous, or because they are too easily manipulated/scammed.
1 Like
I specifically wrote that I oppose population control enforcement, i.e. by a government. Making abortion illegal is government-enforced population control. Making abortion legal leaves the choice to individuals.
For the sake of this discussion, I mentioned the bottom two levels of Maslowâs hierarchy of needs: physiological and safety/security. The hierarchy does not include the ability to work, but since Iâm advocating for wages to allow this decent life, then clearly the ability to work and earn enough for those levels is required. This means that if you have young children, you must be able to afford daycare so you can work.
Is there any difference between choosing not to work and refusing work?
And if all businesses were paying the same minimum wage to their minimum wage employees, then all prices would be affected the same way. The businesses would compete by squeezing somewhere else, not by squeezing their employees by relying on government assistance.
No, Walmart is just an example. I think I mentioned a few others, simply because theyâre the largest employers, and the largest beneficiaries of the government subsidizing their employees.
Thatâs a symptom, not the cause.
Thank you for replying. I was at the proverbial 3 post impasse.
Following your liberal setup, two people earning $15/hr is, napkin math, equal to $60k/yr. Your info indicates 8400 for housing. Daycare is irrelevant, as they can kill the kid at any time in CA. A beater car is $2.5k? Utils are nil in CA because of the greeness. Iâm seeing 50k, less beans and rice. Who in Godâs green acre spends 50k on beans on rice, especially Mexicans?
I suspect youâve never been in a position to need them. Maybe youâd have a different opinion if you had.
Like I said, 2 adults without kids can probably be fine earning $15/hr in places where that is the minimum. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 though. Beans and rice all around.
So youâre for population control, but not population control enforcement. Sounds very much like supporting laws, but not law enforcement. Try that line when a friend / relative is being raped/robbed/kidnapped/abused/killed. Iâm sure the support will be immeasurable.
Are those not quantifiable? If so, why not put numbers on them like you did here âŚ
Oops! Look like you added a qualifier âŚ
So, is this an addendum that says if I am fruitful, I get a free pass to lay on my back, pump out chillâen, and get a âdecentâ wage for my pump-a-bility?
No, but you, nonetheless, avoided answering the question. In fact, your response was, very, roughly 25x more characters than necessary to answer the question. Thus, in addition to avoiding answering the question, you polluted the planet, thus increased global warming, by wasting electrons. A simple yes, or no, would have sufficed, unless that would limit your chance to crawfish.
Iâve been in a position to access them, and could have used them, but did not. Your definition of need is probably a whole lot different than mine.
1 Like
So, what was the complaint?
End the government subsidies! Thatâll force those evil businesses to pay their workers a living wage. 
2 Likes
Yes! I sure do get sick of the olâ gobernet makin me keep banging all these chics.
Yes, and you know this. Looking at your options and the consequence, and determining that not working is the most advantageous is choosing not to work. Simply not working regardless of the consequences is refusing. Refusing is a choice, but the choice isnt always a refusal.
1 Like
Yes, itâs a symptom of people being brainwashed into thinking theyâre always the victim, even under circumstances of their own making.
And yet they are the targets of the âenhancedâ welfare as much as those making the minimum. Itâs still considered âminimum wageâ; around here those âminimum wageâ type jobs are paying $10-12/hr, if not more, anyways. One large mostly seasonal employer was offering $20/hr and still couldnt convince enough people to leave their couches.
People who are trying to live/raise a family on a true minimum wage are either impaired in some way, or are chosing to do so.
Have we all forgotten about âfixing the glitchâ (no relation)?
1 Like
No. I wrote that population growth can be limited by providing better education â no laws needed.
The numbers depend on area / cost of living. I donât have enough data to propose such numbers.
I donât see the âfreeâ pass.
I just wanted to confirm whether you knew that your question was pointless.
You were in a position, but you did not need them. I think our definitions of âneedâ are the same.
The complaint was about people trying to raise children and people who donât live in areas where minimum wage is $15.
I doubt it.
I do not. Refusing and choosing to answer in the negative are the same thing. I think youâre trying to get at the underlying reasons for refusal â some may refuse because theyâre lazy while others because it doesnât make financial sense for them. But for the purposes of this discussion, the reasons make no difference â Iâm OK with not affording the same basic needs for people who choose not (or refuse) to work. Iâm only arguing that someone working full time should have sufficient wages to afford those needs.
At least we agree that itâs a symptom. I think itâs a symptom of the system, which is set up to allow business to take advantage of the government. Not a symptom of people being brainwashed into thinking theyâre always the victim. Once everyoneâs basic needs are met, and the opportunity to pursue higher needs exists, then nobody is a victim. I think Iâve arrived at another requirement I didnât think of earlier â the opportunity to pursue higher needs must exist for everyone regardless of their financial situation.
How do you know how many people are on their couches? An employer not being able to hire as many workers as they wanted does not imply that thereâs a sufficient supply of qualified people.
50% of the population is dumber than the other 50%. Statistical impairment.
1 Like
Me thinks you are putting the cart before the horse. Most government assistance came to be as a response to a perceived unfulfilled need. Businesses didnt start cutting in response to that government assistance. Businesses couldnât care less what the government provides, itâs irrelevant when an employee is on the clock, and off the clock the employee isnt the businessâs concern. A business only cares how payroll fits into their budget.
See, you do agree and Iâm not sure why you keep arguing otherwise. A business is going to pay what it pays, it doesnât matter what the government is or isnât subsidizing in the employeeâs personal life.
What would happen (if eliminating all govt assistance) is people would no longer be able to settle into those minimum wage jobs as a career. Which brings us to the real problem - the fact that most of the âbetterâ jobs donât exist any more since they moved overseas.
Iâm sure you also blame the evil greedy business for that too, but itâs little more than the governmentâs own doing. Far too many people seem shocked that when put in competition (via free trade), those 10 years old Chinese kids sewing soccer balls together with their teeth for 53-cents/week arenât suddenly making the American factoryâs $40,000/year, and instead those $40,000/yr American jobs are now being done by those chinese kids making 53-cents/week. All this BS is about our standards regressing to the new global standard of the global economy we just had to create/be part of. It was an obvious consequence, and inevitable no matter how strenuously we keep trying to fight it.
1 Like
This may be true, but they are certainly benefiting from it. The bigger the business, the more they benefit. Thatâs why I mentioned Walmart and Amazon â theyâre the biggest beneficiaries.
Payroll could stay fixed â the increases at the bottom come from decreases at the top, as we already discussed using NBA as an example. Of course this would have to happen everywhere at the same time to prevent the top from going to competition. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do this. It doesnât have to lead to increased prices or inflation, it should lead to lower income inequality.
Companiesâ revenues or profits did not decline as a result of outsourcing. The money supply did not shrink or disappear. The problem is how the money is distributed â those at the top benefit more than those at the bottom, more so now than before globalization. While those âbetterâ factory jobs went overseas, we could make the âbadâ jobs that canât be outsourced âbetterâ.