Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

No i answered it. Its not about prestige. Its about a fair days work for a fair day's pay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It sure has evolved, it's evolved into a bunch of takers and people that no longer have any integrity.

if you will not look after number 1, then who will?

If we look at what's good for the community? Isn't that a bit subjective, or do you actually believe that you are the sole arbiter?

I happen to think that most of our social programs are destructive--not good for the community. I think they promote laziness, irresponsibility, and they remove the incentive for people to be the best they can be in this life.

"If you pay people not to work, why is anybody surprised when they don't?
Rush Limbaugh

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

I'm so sick of the labels... Dems love dependents, Dems love big government... No, thats bullshit. The Liberal or Democratic ideology wants to help the poor and focus funds and programs towards giving them better education and more opportunity. I'm all for reforming our welfare programs so people get resources and not simply a check... Make it less comfortable and more motivating for them to get off of government assistance because a job will give them more money and more freedom and a better life. This should be the focus of our welfare programs. Then there's people like you and Rush who just bitch and bash on the entire concept of the program instead of presenting ideas to improve them. Makes you all part of the problem

They sure got you hook, line and sinker, didn't they? The Democrats want to help people? If that's so, why did they fight welfare reform back in the 90's?

It has nothing to do with labels, it has to do with record. It has to do with what we see with our own eyes such as those episodes in the grocery store line with the food stamp people. I myself had to evict a family from one of my apartments because of late rent payments. The male worked but refused to work one hour past 40. The female didn't work supposedly home-schooling the kids, but she could have taken a job on the weekends to make up for lost income. She refused my suggestion because she was getting 250 dollars in food stamps a month, and working would only decrease their stipend.

Yes, they had cable, they had the three cats and the large dog, they and one of their children all smoked cigarettes, they had the Obama Phone to boot.

Yes, the Democrats love government dependents. Do you really think Commie Care was an effort to make sure every American had health insurance? Think again, it was to create as many new government dependents as possible.

Hook line and sinker? Your an idiot. I think for myself and don't identify myself with any party. good and dumb moves have been made on both sides. I respect the Dems a little more because they actually try and do shot while the Reps spend most of their time bitching and blocking.

I'm not denying that people take advantage of the system like the family you evicted... But people also need it and benefit from it. Focus on reform not pointless whining about eliminating something that is here to stay. Youre just wasting your breath.

First of all, the elimination of all social programs is something you created......not me. Secondly, my point was that Democrats allow the system to be abused, expanded, and used as a vote buying tool at the expense of the taxpayer.

How do you propose that we "fix" the system when you support people that don't want it fixed, but continued for their political advancement? If "you" really want to fix or reform the system, don't you think the first step would be to remove the people that don't want it reformed in the first place?????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why not? Because the employers of those jobs moved overseas or otherwise replaced humans with machines, that's why.

Another reason of course is that Americans will not support well paid monkey jobs any longer. When American consumers go to shop, their priorities are price--not where a product is made. That's why Walmart is number one today and has been for some time now.

Your stance is that employers should overpay employees because it's the nice thing to do. But business doesn't work on nice. Business works on profits and investors.

 

[bripat9643]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

 

[Slade3200]

Rush is one of the biggest BS blowholes out there, you really shouldn't quote him if you want to be taken seriously. It adds no credibility to your arguments.

I agree that our welfare programs need serious reform. They do good for those who need it and are taken advantage by those who try to game the system. We can work to make these programs better but bitching about all the "takers" and proposing we cut them all is idiotic and unrealistic. You will never get anywhere with that argument. So it's your choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

So where was Rush incorrect? We are paying people not to work and currently, have over 93 million Americans of working age that are not only unemployed, but not looking for a job either.

People can't take advantage of something that isn't designed to be taken advantage of. Democrats love government dependents. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters.

So it's really less the people than it is the politics. DumBama doubled the food stamp recipients in this country. He and the Democrats created (by their accounting) 14 million more government dependents on Commie Care alone. They love it!

So how do working people fight the politicians that love dishing out the money?

I'm so sick of the labels... Dems love dependents, Dems love big government... No, thats bullshit. The Liberal or Democratic ideology wants to help the poor and focus funds and programs towards giving them better education and more opportunity. I'm all for reforming our welfare programs so people get resources and not simply a check... Make it less comfortable and more motivating for them to get off of government assistance because a job will give them more money and more freedom and a better life. This should be the focus of our welfare programs. Then there's people like you and Rush who just bitch and bash on the entire concept of the program instead of presenting ideas to improve them. Makes you all part of the problem

They sure got you hook, line and sinker, didn't they? The Democrats want to help people? If that's so, why did they fight welfare reform back in the 90's?

It has nothing to do with labels, it has to do with record. It has to do with what we see with our own eyes such as those episodes in the grocery store line with the food stamp people. I myself had to evict a family from one of my apartments because of late rent payments. The male worked but refused to work one hour past 40. The female didn't work supposedly home-schooling the kids, but she could have taken a job on the weekends to make up for lost income. She refused my suggestion because she was getting 250 dollars in food stamps a month, and working would only decrease their stipend.

Yes, they had cable, they had the three cats and the large dog, they and one of their children all smoked cigarettes, they had the Obama Phone to boot.

Yes, the Democrats love government dependents. Do you really think Commie Care was an effort to make sure every American had health insurance? Think again, it was to create as many new government dependents as possible.

Hook line and sinker? Your an idiot. I think for myself and don't identify myself with any party. good and dumb moves have been made on both sides. I respect the Dems a little more because they actually try and do shot while the Reps spend most of their time bitching and blocking.

I'm not denying that people take advantage of the system like the family you evicted... But people also need it and benefit from it. Focus on reform not pointless whining about eliminating something that is here to stay. Youre just wasting your breath.

First of all, the elimination of all social programs is something you created......not me. Secondly, my point was that Democrats allow the system to be abused, expanded, and used as a vote buying tool at the expense of the taxpayer.

How do you propose that we "fix" the system when you support people that don't want it fixed, but continued for their political advancement? If "you" really want to fix or reform the system, don't you think the first step would be to remove the people that don't want it reformed in the first place?????

Yes I agree, anybody that thinks the status quo is good I would not agree with, we need reform, but not slashing funding which is the proposed solution from the right. Many Cons on this board want nothing to do with entitlements. Apologies if I got you confused with those guys, I recall you having those sentiments.

 

[Papageorgio]

Bernie Sanders will never make it into the White House. The Dems love the lying and corrupt Clinton.

 

[bripat9643]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

No i answered it. Its not about prestige. Its about a fair days work for a fair day's pay.

Who said anything about "prestige?"

The question is what the minimum moral level of inequality is. You don't answer the question. All you do is bleat more vague meaningless platitudes.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why not? Because the employers of those jobs moved overseas or otherwise replaced humans with machines, that's why.

Another reason of course is that Americans will not support well paid monkey jobs any longer. When American consumers go to shop, their priorities are price--not where a product is made. That's why Walmart is number one today and has been for some time now.

Your stance is that employers should overpay employees because it's the nice thing to do. But business doesn't work on nice. Business works on profits and investors.

I know all that. And its bad.

 

[Slade3200]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

 

[Yarddog]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

Just because someone is a billionare doesnt take away from someone else. I dont buy that theory.

 

[The Great Goose]

It is wrong.

when i was a kid, a family could have two cars and their own home on one unskilled worker's wage.

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

No i answered it. Its not about prestige. Its about a fair days work for a fair day's pay.

Who said anything about "prestige?"

The question is what the minimum moral level of inequality is. You don't answer the question. All you do is bleat more vague meaningless platitudes.

There is no minimum gap. There is only a fair days pay for a fair days work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

What you're talking about is business having some sort of social obligation. They don't have that requirement. A business is started to create products and services at a cost acceptable to the customers they sell to. That's their only obligation.

Social obligations belong to charities and government unfortunately--but not businesses.

 

[Yarddog]

We could afford to do everything Sanders wants to do if paranoid right wingers would stop believing the terrorists will take over the United States if we don't spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. The money is there. War profiteers and crooked politicians have fucked up its distribution.

we spend more than the rest of the world because we're taking the burden off of our allies to foot their own militaries. It enables them to live their socialist dream when they dont have to spend all that money on defense, anyway, we really spend too much because the government is wastelul in their military funding. Just ask our Marines and Navy seals who cant even get the proper equipment. Nobody believes Terrorists will "take over"
but they pose a threat to innocent civilians. Well sure we have 400 Million or so so who cares if we lose a few hundred potentially? right? And again to say Terrorism is not the reason for our spending. Its politicians who know nothing about th emilitary
The F-35 is "a failure waiting to happen"

theres a good example. The cost of this new fighter puts a huge strain on the rest of our aircraft fleet, maintenance wise and also discontinuing more versitlie aircraft

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

No i answered it. Its not about prestige. Its about a fair days work for a fair day's pay.

Who said anything about "prestige?"

The question is what the minimum moral level of inequality is. You don't answer the question. All you do is bleat more vague meaningless platitudes.

There is no minimum gap. There is only a fair days pay for a fair days work.

So what is a fair days pay? Who makes that decision?

To me, a fair days pay is one what a person accepts the job for. If you don't like the pay offered, you go somewhere that offers better pay. If nobody is offering you better pay, it's not the problem of the business---it's your problem because you are not worth the money you think you are worth.

 

[Slade3200]

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

What you're talking about is business having some sort of social obligation. They don't have that requirement. A business is started to create products and services at a cost acceptable to the customers they sell to. That's their only obligation.

Social obligations belong to charities and government unfortunately--but not businesses.

can you give me an example of "what i'm talking about"?

 

[bripat9643]

The current 'system'' is wages based on the market value of the employee's job skills. The market value is determined by the lowest possible amount the the most desperate worker is willing to work for. The less workers are paid the more desperate they are. So employers do everything they can to make sure that workers are absolutely desperate.

The current 'system' does not take into account the value of the workers productivity, which is ALWAYS much higher than their wages. If it weren't there would be no profit for the employer.

Wages should be set relative to the value of an employee's productivity. There must be enough difference between the wages and productive value so that the employer has incentive to hire, but in many cases the difference is obscene.

Workers should be treated as business partners or private contractors. The fact that most are desperate (i.e. living pay check to pay check), mean that they have no defacto negotiating power. Employers take advantage of that which is basically immoral. It is a form of thievery.

Of course, as was proven in the 1970s and since, is that the workers are a bunch of idiots who, if given higher wages and the opportunity for credit, immediately start living beyond their means...they go into debt without a second thought. Workers need to learn to live within their means, to save for the things they buy and to not go into debt. Having a 'keeping up with the Joneses' society means that the economy keeps spiraling no matter what workers are paid.

That doesn't excuse employers from underpaying workers, but it is a two edge sword of an issue.

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards.

Says who? You? The mob? Who put you or the mob you in charge of determining the obligations of business? How did you acquire such authority over anyone?

That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with maintaining a high standard of living. That is accomplished by keeping out of the way of the productive members of society, not by throwing obstacles in their path. It has nothing to do with the so-called "general welfare." You theory of society makes businesses into welfare agencies. You just admitted it by claiming your arbitrary rules are supposedly to promote the general welfare.

 

[bripat9643]

Nice analysis, I agree with it in part and under the right conditions. Fact is there are many jobs/positions out there that are not dependent on productivity. Not everybody is in a sales or production position. If a business owner fails to bring in business and the workers do not have the ability to produce because of lack of resources should they suffer? This is a risk that the business owner takes and in many cases the owner may have a swallow a few months of compensation to make salary because workers need job security. The reward is make up for on the other side should the business be productive and the owner can fill the tanks with the profits.

I am very much for businesses that have a profit sharing model, much like you laid out. It is just so variable depending on the type of business and duties of the workers.

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

What you're talking about is business having some sort of social obligation. They don't have that requirement. A business is started to create products and services at a cost acceptable to the customers they sell to. That's their only obligation.

Social obligations belong to charities and government unfortunately--but not businesses.

Actually, businesses are started to make a profit for their owners. That's their only obligation.

 

[bripat9643]

What level of inequality would be right, and what principle would make it right?

People who work fulltime should be paid a livable income. Enough to support a family and get a homeloan.

Why not? We used to have that.

Why should they be paid what you call "a living wage" if they don't produce enough revenue to justify it?

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. You answered some other question.

No i answered it. Its not about prestige. Its about a fair days work for a fair day's pay.

Who said anything about "prestige?"

The question is what the minimum moral level of inequality is. You don't answer the question. All you do is bleat more vague meaningless platitudes.

There is no minimum gap. There is only a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Then why did you say "it is wrong" in response to the statement "Bernie Sanders : This Grotesque Level of Income and Wealth Inequality is Wrong?"

If you claim the current level is wrong, then you must believe there is some level that is right. What is that level? You keep trying to avoid an answer to that question.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think American business is a welfare agency. It isn't.

Furthermore, American businesses already do take it in the shorts for quite long periods of time when profits go negative. That's because it's normally cheaper to retain trained employees than train new ones when the business cycle is on the upswing.

American business a welfare agency??? No

You seem to believe businesses are obligated to provide their employees with some minimum standard of living. That's the function of a welfare agency, not a business.

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare... This is very different than a welfare agency.

What you're talking about is business having some sort of social obligation. They don't have that requirement. A business is started to create products and services at a cost acceptable to the customers they sell to. That's their only obligation.

Social obligations belong to charities and government unfortunately--but not businesses.

can you give me an example of "what i'm talking about"?

Certainly, when you wrote this:

Yes if a business is to operate in this country it needs to meet certain standards. That how we maintain a higher standard of living then other countries and protect the general welfare

To me, what you wrote is that business has these unfounded social obligations. If that's not what you meant, then what "certain standards" are you referring to?

 

[The Great Goose]