Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The facts are that business, big corporate businesses, are actually doing quite well. That is why the 1% you hear about are doing so well. Its just the rest of America, including many smaller businesses, that are not doing so well.
Which is the exact reason why regulations have to be cut. Thank you for making my point for me. Regulations are written so they either directly benefit the big businesses or indirectly because the big businesses already have the lawyers and manpower to comply with those regulations. Furthermore, higher regulations make it harder for new businesses to enter the marketplace, which just allows those that already exist to become even more powerful. And this is all because the government decides they have to get involved in every facet of the marketplace instead of letting it run.
[/quote]
The problem with your argument is that the market place in no way shape or form provides for the common good. It provides for increase of wealth for individuals. So, claiming that if the government just steps back, everything will work out for the best is patently wrong.
And, that's not speculation. If the market truly fixed things on its own, we would not have ever had the need for unions, would not have had shirtwaste, would never have had slavery in this country even. We certainly would not have had Love Canal, Silkwood, Massy Energy.. BP Oil, or the many other disasters our country has seen.. never mind what is happening overseas right now in countries without much regulation.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:By the way, how is your story relevant? It's the businesses job to pay the employees the amount those employees agree to work for. If a person doesn't like their pay or their hours, they will find another job. If they don't have the skills to get another job, it's not the employers role to pay them more simply because the employee can't do something else. You do not get a job and pay out of pity.
You made the statement that employers pay their workers, not stockholders. When employers are not really paying people what those people need to survive, then those jobs are not adding to the economy, it is a deficit. Paying stockholders so you can cut wages of employees..and then turning around and complaining because too many of your tax dollars are going to support things like the childcare subsidies your workers need in order to work for you.. is exactly what the Republicans have been cheering for some time now.
Anwyay, the point is that healthcare is currently part of employee pay. Deciding to just hire part-timers becuase you "cannot afford to pay more" is legitimate when the business is going under. Darden is not. Even then, at some point.. businesses that cannot afford to pay their real expenses don't need to stay in business. Paying employees a real wage, even if what they are doing doesn't "seem" "worthwhile" is part of the real expenses of business. We have had too much of this back-handed corporate subsidies masquerading as entitlements for the lower class. No one WANTS to work for less than it takes them to live on, but they have to take what they can get. Businesses need to bear the burden of their real expenses, not other taxpayer and not the workers... particulary not so company executives can take home huge salaries and authorize huge dividends.
As long as healthcare is mandated compensation, it is part of that package. What we REALLY need is a universal, aka "socialized" medicine program, but you have proven yourself incapable of even understanding what that really might mean.
Who defines what a "real wage" is? Shouldn't it be the employer's role to define what they "real wages" are of the jobs they provide?
If that were true, slavery would still be legal, as would employing children, etc.. etc. Part of what determines what an honest wage is definitely whether that job provides enough to live upon or not. Relying on government aka other taxpayers to support your employees and claiming that is justifiable is wrong, particularly when you then turn around and demand cuts in those very subsidies so you can put more money in your pocket.
Night Strike wrote: A job is not charity! You do not deserve whatever you want to be paid if you do not provide a skill to that company worthy of that level of pay. It would be great if everybody could get paid a minimum of $20 per hour, but not every job is worth that much money to the company. That's reality, not the fictional world you want us to live in.
Jobs are not charity.. and workers are neither free, nor robots. If you cannot afford to pay your employees, then you cannot afford to pay nice stock dividends, CEO bonuses, etc, etc.. yet, that is exactly what happens.
The idea that its perfectly OK for a CEO to take millions or excecutives to take 6 figure salaries, but its greedy of employees to expect to be paid enough to provide food and shelter for their families is insane. Employee costs are not "optional" and "debatable" until you get ABOVE that point. I mean, if you were talking about someone having 10 kids.. maybe, but to claim that someone has no right to expect to get enough to even support themselves, never mind a child is plain ridiculous.
Uh, no... you put forward nothing other than blanket statements that you want to do away with welfare, seriously cut it... and no real details. I have ALWAYS said that welfare needs reform. In fact, I am actually aware that "welfare" as you call it actually doesn't exist any more. Its all a variety of other payments, mostly food assistance, housing subsidies, etc. Very few get cash assistance any longer.. and that is as it should be.Night Strike wrote:
And by the way, I've been all for the government to stop providing endless welfare to people because then people will demand they get more pay from their employer, but you refuse to support any cuts to welfare.
[/quote]Night Strike wrote: Perpetual welfare (aka, government) provides these cover-ups to employers who don't pay high wages, but you demand the government keeps handing out money.
No, I demand that EMPLOYERS actually pay workers the minimum it takes them to just live.
If you want to have a business in San Francisco, where landlords with studios and one bedroom apparments won;t even consider the application of someone making $10 an hour, then you have to pay more than you do if you are located in Alabama or PA where a nice 3 bedroom can be OWNED for under $400... under $300 even if you look well and are able to do a few repairs on your own. Economics works not just when you take in money, it also operates when you pay OUT money. Living in a nice place like San Francisco has a lot of benefits.. but it also means you have to pay the piper for those niceties. Saying that you only have to pay those workers real costs when you decide you have taken enough profit yourself first is not what makes our country strong.. its what creates dependency and need.
You act as if the need for food and clothing were something created by the government. Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but those needs are set by biology. The government steps in to help fill those biological needs, so people don't have to turn to crime or worse just to survive.
)
