If all the teams did the same thing, then all the teams would be affected similarly. There would be no higher offer.
Ants work hard.
Wow. The mental gymnastics required to twist it this way is almost medal-worthy. Prohibiting abortion by law is a form of population control enforcement, just not in the direction being discussed.
âEnough to meet basic needsâ is the opposite of basing pay on whatâs fair. The superstars are what sell the tickets in the first place, not the dude boiling hotdogs; thereâs a half-dozen people in the world who can do what that superstar does, while thereâs a line of hundreds willing and able to pour soft drinks. Thatâs what determines âfairâ.
For some reason, people forget that jobs pay money to compensate you for your time spent at the job, not compensate you for all your life expenses. Fair pay is what itâd cost the owner to hire the next guy if you leave. Paying the ants enough to meet their basic living needs may be an effective method of recruiting and retaining competent labor in a competitive labor market, but itâs a choice and strategy of the owner, not in any way an entitlement of the worker.
Youâre describing the system as it is, not as it could or should be. It is possible to create a more egalitarian society by bringing bottom wages up at the cost of bringing top wages down. This reduces income and wealth inequality and ensures that those paid the least can live a decent life. It also increases happiness and social cohesion, something our society could really use.
Go Ron DeSantis. Trump who?
Diversity, equity and inclusion programs were abolished Tuesday from Walt Disney Worldâs governing district, now controlled by appointees of Gov. Ron DeSantis, in an echo of the Florida governorâs agenda which has championed curtailing such programs in higher education and elsewhere.
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District said in a statement that its diversity, equity and inclusion committee would be eliminated, as would any job duties connected to it. Also axed were initiatives left over from when the district was controlled by Disney supporters, which awarded contracts based on goals of achieving racial or gender parity.
At least you acknowledge that you want to ditch the reality we have and create a new system/society.
The problem is, âdecentâ is subjective, and mostly based on what other have. I think thereâd be more buy-in if âdecentâ means basic life-sustaining necessities. But whatâs necessary to have a decent life is often little more than an exercise in keeping up with the Joneses.
When I can afford 2, and am made to give one to someone else so they can have one as well, that does the opposite of increasing social cohesion. I want to chose to be generous however I want to be generous, Iâm bitter when someone else takes my resources to be generous for me.
So do some Chinese people. Yet, you were up in arms about anyone calling the Wuhan Flu a âChinese virusâ. IIRC, you insisted that it be called, a virus from China, if it had to be identified geographcially. Thus, I would think your ultra-sensitivity to victimhood would realize that the vast majority of ants are black. Slaves worked hard, too. That doesnât mean they were not slaves, but rather that they were slaves working hard for their Democrat owners.
So you want a law to require how owners behave? That does not sound like any kind of freedom to me. For that matter, I suspect the ruling class would love that idea - tell everyone how to behave and how much they can pay each âclassâ of person. Those were some of the ideas of Uncle Joe (the old criminal, not necessarily the current one)
So you
So if, by your definition, prohibiting abortion is mental gymnastics, providing abortion by law, is the same. You may call it mental gymnastics, but donât you think the victims would call it murder?
Working hard in a free, capitalist society pretty much means you can afford a decent life. Why we should afford that to those who choose not to work, for example, is beyond me and certainly isnât increasing my social cohesion via ever high tax rates on productive members to support the welfare voting class and their pandering political representatives.
Not quite, Iâm just proposing improvements. That shouldâve been obvious from the start.
Sure, Iâd settle for the first two steps in Maslowâs hierarchy of needs pyramid â physiological and safety needs. Once those are met, people who are not lazy will strive to achieve more all on their own. Itâs difficult to achieve the first two steps on the current minimum wage, especially if you have to support someone, like young children.
Your wages would be lower and theirs would be higher. You canât afford 2, only 1.5, and they could afford 0.5 and would have to save for longer before buying. You wouldnât know or feel that you were giving anything of yours to someone else, and that someone else wouldnât feel like theyâre taking anything from you.
This is because calling it a âChinese virusâ created negative sentiment toward Chinese Americans, who had nothing to do with it. Some of my best friends are Chinese Americans.
Are they? I thought they were mostly brown, but we also have some red ones. Iâve never heard of this being used in a derogatory way, which is why I donât see any issues with it.
Jeez goose. I said nothing of the sort. Prohibiting abortion is not mental gymnastics. Jumping from what I wrote earlier to suggesting that I oppose abortion is mental gymnastics.
Keyword here is âpretty muchâ. This isnât true. There are plenty of people who work full time at or near minimum wage and cannot afford a decent life. With housing and food costs having risen like 25-40% in the past three years and wages only up ~10% and minimum wage still $7-something/hr it became even more difficult.
Iâm OK with not letting the âchoose not to workâ subset afford that. Iâve been arguing about better wages, not government handouts.
No. You want change that is not compatable with the status quo. You are just smart enough to know that going all-in on a new system would mean disaster and collalpse, so youâre trying to be sneaky about it in the hopes that a few people will continue to work hard to prop up the rest.
No itâs not difficult. It is only difficult to do when you insist on living in a high cost area, keep pumping out more kids, blowing cash on frivilous impulses, etc, etc, etc.
As a one-off, maybe. But in reality, you are reducing the incrimental gains from working hard. Which only depresses the incentive to do so. Iâll work hard so I can have 2 nice cars; if Iâm working hard so I can have one nice car and my neighbor can have a car, Iâm much more inclined to not put in the effort and just let my other neighbor provide me a car as well.
So, yes, I guess you were correct - it would promote social cohesion, by means of more people sitting on the front porch drinking beer and roasting those morons who keep hustling off to work each day.
Maybe we need to take the money being earned by all the loudmouth busybodies railing against the economic inequities, and redistribute that? Theyâre the real problem; without them spewing their inciteful rhetoric, people would be much more content.
I donât see it that way and thereâs nothing sneaky about it. It is no more sneaky than how our current system exploits the poor and socializes losses. It is not right that a full time Walmart employee should be able to qualify for food stamps or Section 8, and not because those programs are too generous, but because Walmart is too greedy.
The high cost area has more jobs and higher wages. Itâs not necessary to pump more kids, whatever that means, or have frivolous expenses to not be able to afford basic necessities. $15/hr full time is ~$2600/mo before tax, and probably after tax (-FICA +Child Tax Credits, anything else?) Rent is at least $700/mo around here. Daycare for one kid is at least $600/mo. Good luck trying to fit everything else (car, insurance, utilities, fuel, food, etc) into whatâs left. 2 adults working full time might be able to pull it off. Unless â heaven forbid â they have 2 kids. Like I said, not easy.
Itâs because retail is low margin, and Walmart is only so profitable as a whole because they have 10,000 stores and a robust online outlet. A typical single Walmart location has an acceptable profit for the investment made in that location. An associateâs pay isnât the result of greed, itâs basic business economics. Whatâs greedy is the fry cook thinking they deserve more pay because McDonalds started selling cheeseburgers in China. If they need more to survive, they need to get a second job, find a better paying job (even within the company), or spend less.
There was a time when people knew minimum wage jobs --that require no skills-- werenât supposed to be careers. Those jobs used to be worked by teens and recent high school grads. At some point in the last generation, the powers-that-be told the populace that you should make enough income on these jobs to support themselves and their kid(s). Otherwise itâs the fault of greedy capitalists, companies, banks, etc.
Reality is that you need marketable skills to make a sufficiently high income and build a career that will afford you the car, phones, raising children, savings for retirement, and so on.
No, the low margin does not justify minimum wages for associates. You can increase the price of every item by a nickel to allow higher wages and the margin wouldnât change. Their prices are low because theyâre underpaying their associates, not because itâs a cut-throat business. You might argue that another store would sell the same crap for less if they could pay less, which is why minimum wage is necessary.
Sure, you need more if you want to make more, but anyone working full time should not have to rely on government subsidies. These businesses are literally taking advantage of the government (i.e., everyone else) by not paying sufficient wages.
Until you told me, I had not heard of âChineseâ used in a derogatory way, other than to identify people of Chinese origin. Now, you know that some black folks are offended, may be attacked, targeted, or triggered, by being referred to as ants, or when the term âantsâ is used to identify humans. I hope that you act accordingly. 
I presume youâre not trying to expand the attack to all âpeople of colourâ, and those are not your true feelings. 
Iâm shocked at your insensitivity. Are you now going after American Indians, or is it Nordic people (because they sunburn easily). 
Do you see how easy it is to offend when there are so many victims?
It seemed pretty obvious. It sounded like you opposed population control. Even Democrats, who refuse to admit that abortion is murder, admit that itâs population control, particularly population control of minorities. One of the reasons that Japan is in its death spiral of an aging/shrinking population is due to their liberalization of abortion after WWII.
Wait! I recall you provided a nebulous definition of decent life, for which I complimented you on, at least, a start. Why not provide a more finite definition? I suspect it is a more generous definition than many would use.
Are you saying it was difficult before this, but impossible now?
Whoa! We may be on the cusp of something important. Would that subset include people who refuse to, for minimum wage, clean houses, cut grass, trim hedges, weed lawns, dig ditches, pressure wash driveways, edge lawns, etc?
Their prices are low because theyâre competing with other businesses.
Do you seriously see Walmart underpaying compared to any other retail store? Let alone being the one that sticks out from the rest? Around here, all the retail shops and restaurants pay about the same. The big guys like Walmart actually pay more than the small independents. Because of basic business economics - employees do not give back wages on slow days, so big businesses can better absorb the commitment relative to the risks of fluctuating cash flow.
Go ahead and blame the industry. Go ahead and blame the consumer. But it shows a pretty clear agenda to single out one retailer as the problem.