Workers want pay boost

[flynnibus]

Another way to look at it is if your business is so close to bankruptcy that you can't absorb a modest increase in minimum wage then maybe the business is just a failure.

Wow... Imagine if you as dismissive of individuals who struggled to stay in the black. Is your 'they didn't deserve to continue' attitude apply to them as well?

Many legit businesses struggle to stay in the black. And every employer you write off as unworthy of caring about represents a link in the economic chain.

When you threw away that business... You just threw away everyone they had on payroll... And all the business they gave other companies.

Are you really that oblivious to what happened in what we now call the rust belt?

People are so dillusional about business now because of this 'us' and 'them' mentality people have stroked the mob with that they think all business is some evil parasite that needs to be squashed to be replaced by these idealistic companies that never have to face reality.

 

[GoofGoof]

Wow... Imagine if you as dismissive of individuals who struggled to stay in the black. Is your 'they didn't deserve to continue' attitude apply to them as well?

Many legit businesses struggle to stay in the black. And every employer you write off as unworthy of caring about represents a link in the economic chain.

When you threw away that business... You just threw away everyone they had on payroll... And all the business they gave other companies.

Are you really that oblivious to what happened in what we now call the rust belt?

People are so dillusional about business now because of this 'us' and 'them' mentality people have stroked the mob with that they think all business is some evil parasite that needs to be squashed to be replaced by these idealistic companies that never have to face reality.

Dude, relax. It was intended as a sarcastic post in response to someone who was saying that workers on minimum wage are all lazy and don't work hard. He was implying that if benefits were pulled from these people they would just find a way to survive. The same flawed logic should work for small businesses as well. If minimum wage is increased the owners should be able to just work harder to survive.

 

[jaklgreen]

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

Well if the lowest job that you can get will pay you a living wage to where you can pay rent and buy food then there would be no need for all of the government assistance. In theory

 

[slappy magoo]

I didn't say that at all. Let's try this; you have a guy on welfare, section 8, food stamps and now Obamacare - all paid by us. Now, this leech has no incentive to go out and get a job to support himself, does he? However, if you pull this leech from the host (us hard-working taxpayers) and provide him no housing, food, etc.., I will guarantee that this parasite will get off his butt and do something to survive. The same applies to the minimum wage worker but not as severe.

Actually he's on Medicare, but tomaytoh tomahtoh, and again you're ignoring people who work but still need government assistance because they can't afford rent and food and clothes on minimum wage. I know you're imagining the "welfare queens" who trade SNAP card benefits for jewelry and iPhones, but I'm talking about people who WORK, and are still dependent on the government. What you're saying is "give these people who are working a raise so they don't need minimum wage, they'll get lazy and shiftless and opt to stop working and just depend on the government." They depend on the government NOW WHILE WORKING.

 

[slappy magoo]

People are so dillusional about business now because of this 'us' and 'them' mentality people have stroked the mob with that they think all business is some evil parasite that needs to be squashed to be replaced by these idealistic companies that never have to face reality.

On the flip-flop, you readily accept that some people have to get paid starvation wages so other people's businesses can get by. After all, it's them or us.

Or maybe you're just thinking, it's them or you.

After all, no one's forcing the poor folk to accept those jobs. They can always test their fate on the free market.

Of course, the success of those small businesses depends on SOME PEOPLE willing to accept those jobs...and thus, apparently, the lousy fate those workers decided upon for themselves for not trying to get a better job.

Those small businessmen should really thank them. I know! Maybe give 'em a raise.

 

[lazyboy97o]

On the flip-flop, you readily accept that some people have to get paid starvation wages so other people's businesses can get by. After all, it's them or us.

Or maybe you're just thinking, it's them or you.

After all, no one's forcing the poor folk to accept those jobs. They can always test their fate on the free market.

Of course, the success of those small businesses depends on SOME PEOPLE willing to accept those jobs...and thus, apparently, the lousy fate those workers decided upon for themselves for not trying to get a better job.

Those small businessmen should really thank them. I know! Maybe give 'em a raise.

Jobs are not full time or nothing, nor is there always enough demand to make part time work into full time work.

 

[slappy magoo]

Things I've learned from this thread -
1: People who don't have a job are lazy. All of 'em. Can't be that they're looking, because otherwise they'd have a job. Can't be that their age or their health restricts jobs and jobs they can do aren't available. Lazy. Probably shiftless too.
2: People who DO have a job but can't live on the wage are also lazy. All of 'em. After all, if they weren't lazy, they'd have a better job. Or more than one. Or more than two. Whatever it takes. It can't be that the job they has is all that's available. If that's the way it is, move, find the place where the jobs are, uproot your family, sell your possessions, the history books are filled with stories of people who went out to seek their fortune and found it. And since the history books AREN'T filled with stories of people who went out to seek their fortunes and DIDN'T find it, dying penniless and riddles with consumption, it stands to reason that no one in history ever failed in a quest for a better life.

2b: And while they're working those low-paying jobs, if they're not looking to better themselves, either by getting an education or looking for ANOTHER job, they're STILL lazy.

2c: And if they're also parents, they better keep an eye on their kids, or else they're bad parents. Why aren't they there for their kids? Probably out somewhere, loafing. But don't expect the government to help with afterschool care programs, and certainly don't expect subsidized lunches. Maybe the schools should fire some janitors and make the kids clean the halls. Who do janitors think they are, providing services for a wage? Find a better job, Lazybones!

3: Small businessmen MUST have the right to pay people less than a wage they can support themselves on, but society MUST reserve the right to sneer at the workers who take those jobs, even though many small businesses would close without people willing to take those jobs at those wages. Thank you for keeping the economy going. And eff you, Losers.

4: Workers who take those low-paying jobs and can't afford to live on the wages do not deserve federal aid, even though it's that aid that keeps small businessmen that can't afford (or simply refuse) to pay their workers better in business. No one gets a free ride. Though some businesses pay a vastly reduced rate.

5: Workers have the right to look for a better paying job, as long as they keep working the job or jobs they have and be responsible citizens and parents. But they don't have the right to request, demand or organize for better wages for the jobs they have. Who do they think they are? their job can easily be replaced by kids who we'll force to work for a free (or reduced) school lunch.

I'm sure I missed some valid points but hopefully that'll be enough for my Makers Overlords to take me with them when they decide to "Go Galt," close their factories and live an isolated-yet-idyllic life in the paradise they deserve for THEIR hard work while the rest of the world burns. I can be one of their butlers.

Man, I hope I don't have to kill a poor schoolchild for the right to be one of their butlers...

 

[GoofGoof]

Jobs are not full time or nothing, nor is there always enough demand to make part time work into full time work.

A reaction to an increase in minimum wage could be to cut some people's hours back.

 

[slappy magoo]

Jobs are not full time or nothing, nor is there always enough demand to make part time work into full time work.

I think you meant NOT ALL jobs are full time or nothing. Which I believe is oft referred to as a "part time job." But if someone is working a part time job because it's all they can get, or they work two or three of them so they're ineligible for benefits at any of their employers, that's their fault. Because they're lazy. Otherwise they'd have a better job.

 

[Andrew C]

Things I've learned from this thread -
1: People who don't have a job are lazy. All of 'em. Can't be that they're looking, because otherwise they'd have a job. Can't be that their age or their health restricts jobs and jobs they can do aren't available. Lazy. Probably shiftless too.
2: People who DO have a job but can't live on the wage are also lazy. All of 'em. After all, if they weren't lazy, they'd have a better job. Or more than one. Or more than two. Whatever it takes. It can't be that the job they has is all that's available. If that's the way it is, move, find the place where the jobs are, uproot your family, sell your possessions, the history books are filled with stories of people who went out to seek their fortune and found it. And since the history books AREN'T filled with stories of people who went out to seek their fortunes and DIDN'T find it, dying penniless and riddles with consumption, it stands to reason that no one in history ever failed in a quest for a better life.

2b: And while they're working those low-paying jobs, if they're not looking to better themselves, either by getting an education or looking for ANOTHER job, they're STILL lazy.

2c: And if they're also parents, they better keep an eye on their kids, or else they're bad parents. Why aren't they there for their kids? Probably out somewhere, loafing. But don't expect the government to help with afterschool care programs, and certainly don't expect subsidized lunches. Maybe the schools should fire some janitors and make the kids clean the halls. Who do janitors think they are, providing services for a wage? Find a better job, Lazybones!

3: Small businessmen MUST have the right to pay people less than a wage they can support themselves on, but society MUST reserve the right to sneer at the workers who take those jobs, even though many small businesses would close without people willing to take those jobs at those wages. Thank you for keeping the economy going. And eff you, Losers.

4: Workers who take those low-paying jobs and can't afford to live on the wages do not deserve federal aid, even though it's that aid that keeps small businessmen that can't afford (or simply refuse) to pay their workers better in business. No one gets a free ride. Though some businesses pay a vastly reduced rate.

5: Workers have the right to look for a better paying job, as long as they keep working the job or jobs they have and be responsible citizens and parents. But they don't have the right to request, demand or organize for better wages for the jobs they have. Who do they think they are? their job can easily be replaced by kids who we'll force to work for a free (or reduced) school lunch.

I'm sure I missed some valid points but hopefully that'll be enough for my Makers Overlords to take me with them when they decide to "Go Galt," close their factories and live an isolated-yet-idyllic life in the paradise they deserve for THEIR hard work while the rest of the world burns. I can be one of their butlers.

Man, I hope I don't have to kill a poor schoolchild for the right to be one of their butlers...

You could have used the energy it took you to write this to help someone find a better job. Just saying...

 

[Nubs70]

On the flip-flop, you readily accept that some people have to get paid starvation wages so other people's businesses can get by. After all, it's them or us.

Or maybe you're just thinking, it's them or you.

Unless you have a contract (collective or individual) or work in Montana, both parties are allowed to part ways for any or no reason at all. If starvation wages are causing you to starve, you are free to part ways for a position that will allow you to prosper.

On the flip side, if your employer needs to let you go, he can do so without cause.

 

[slappy magoo]

You could have used the energy it took you to write this to help someone find a better job. Just saying...

I'm on the train home after earning my wage, thankyouverymuch. I've earned a haughty internet rant.

 

[GoofGoof]

Unless you have a contract (collective or individual) or work in Montana, both parties are allowed to part ways for any or no reason at all. If starvation wages are causing you to starve, you are free to part ways for a position that will allow you to prosper.

On the flip side, if your employer needs to let you go, he can do so without cause.

What happens in Montana?

 

[slappy magoo]

Unless you have a contract (collective or individual) or work in Montana, both parties are allowed to part ways for any or no reason at all. If starvation wages are causing you to starve, you are free to part ways for a position that will allow you to prosper.

On the flip side, if your employer needs to let you go, he can do so without cause.

On the flip-flop-flip if people organize and refuse to work for that low wage, the business could go out of business.

But of course, that's not fair.

 

[flynnibus]

Unless you have a contract (collective or individual) or work in Montana, both parties are allowed to part ways for any or no reason at all. If starvation wages are causing you to starve, you are free to part ways for a position that will allow you to prosper.

On the flip side, if your employer needs to let you go, he can do so without cause.

Sorry Nubs70 - you must missed the first part of the thread where we were told all workers struggling to make ends meet are stuck in those jobs because they are the modern equivalent of endentured servants. Bound to work in their current job because there is no other work in their job market and it's impossible for them to be anywhere else but where they are now. It is known...

 

[Andrew C]

What happens in Montana?

Stays in Montana...

 

[Magenta Panther]

A reaction to an increase in minimum wage could be to cut some people's hours back.

Same deal with that overtime pay deal Obama ordered today. It's nothing but political grandstanding, and will likely only hurt workers and consumers in the long run.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A reaction to an increase in minimum wage could be to cut some people's hours back.

You're right, it would be a strategy and is one being employed to avoid the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, but my focus is more on jobs that inherently lack sufficient demand.

I think you meant NOT ALL jobs are full time or nothing. Which I believe is oft referred to as a "part time job." But if someone is working a part time job because it's all they can get, or they work two or three of them so they're ineligible for benefits at any of their employers, that's their fault. Because they're lazy. Otherwise they'd have a better job.

You have repeatedly made comments, some more specific than others, that it is exploitative to hire persons for less than 40 hours/week at $25/hour. Part time work falls right into that. The reason a person is able to work multiple part time jobs is because employers do not limit hiring for part time positions only to those needing only part time work, but all qualified candidates. Unless you ban part time work, employers will still be able to hire people at less than the ≈$50,000/year you have declared as the threshold for exploitation.

 

[Andrew C]

Pulitzer may own the world, but he don't own us!

 

[englanddg]

On the flip-flop-flip if people organize and refuse to work for that low wage, the business could go out of business.

But of course, that's not fair.

No. It's perfectly fair. And, if the employer, as a result, decides not to rehire them, that is also fair.

Additionally, if others decide to seize the opportunity to take those now open positions, this is also fair.

And, if the "organized workers" who decided to leave decide to go off and start up a competing enterprise and attempts to put the original company out of business, that is also fair.

However, demanding something, even at the expense of the business, and then being rejected, is no reason to then turn to the government to enact laws to make it happen. This goes for employers, as well. That is not fair.