To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Ray From Cleveland]

Businesses should be financially responsible for their employees families.

Why? Is it not the responsibility of the individual to take care of themselves and their family? The employer is only responsible for the well being of the employee via insurance, aka workers comp if the employee gets hurt while performing his job; and a wage they both agreed to.

We don't live on Islands.
An employee does a better job if his family is provided for. What is the point of having a job that doesn't provide a living wage, you might as well be a criminal or homeless. Why bother getting dressed and going to work if you aren't making a living wage? You should die or become a criminal instead.

It sure beats learning to do something so you can make a living wage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Businesses should be financially responsible for their employees families.

Businesses don't open up to provide for families, businesses open up to produce products or services for a profit. That's it. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation. If I decide to open up my own lawn care business, I do so because I no longer want to work for somebody else. I took my hard earned money so I can advance myself in life like everybody should. I'm taking a huge gamble that one day I might make enough to live well and possibly grow my lawn care business. I didn't open up my business to provide for others. I have work that needs to be done, and this is what I'm willing to pay to get that work done.

 

[Papageorgio]

Businesses should be financially responsible for their employees families.

Why? Is it not the responsibility of the individual to take care of themselves and their family? The employer is only responsible for the well being of the employee via insurance, aka workers comp if the employee gets hurt while performing his job; and a wage they both agreed to.

We don't live on Islands.
An employee does a better job if his family is provided for. What is the point of having a job that doesn't provide a living wage, you might as well be a criminal or homeless. Why bother getting dressed and going to work if you aren't making a living wage? You should die or become a criminal instead.

Are we not individuals? What is a "living wage"? A family of 4, husband and wife working, making minimum wage, are living above the poverty level, but when they start getting in debt due to wants instead of needs, I ask again who's fault is it?

If you can't afford rent, food, utilities you aren't receiving a living wage. Nothing to do with wants. When people, such as yourself, argue against the living wage, you throw out stupid shit like wants, big screen tv's, etc. The stuff required to live keeps getting more expensive. It's only the luxuries that are getting cheaper. I say make it more expensive to buy luxuries, by charging a living wage tariff on those countries that don't pay a living wage, by insuring Americans who make a living wage are the ones who make those luxury items, so that all Americans can afford rent, bed, and utilities. Car and College would be nice too.

Why is it the duty of an employer to furnish you with a living wage if you decide to have no children or 12? Is it not your own responsibility to live with in your means? I agree there are those less fortunate than others and should be helped out and need help, that is the responsibility of society as a whole, not the responsibility of an employer. If the employer becomes responsible for your choices then they should have a say in how you run your life, since he is footing the bill.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's not a question of morality.


A businessman goes into business to make money. But, if he does not pay his employees, then the taxpayer picks up the tab. That difference between what the employer pays his / her employees and that money it takes for them to sustain themselves comes at a cost to you and I.

The employer isn't responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

Case in point:

Georgia has something called Peachcare for children. It's like Medicare, only for the children of those people on limited incomes. Now, who do you suppose gets the lion's share of that money? Blacks? Whites? Maybe the children of those "illegal aliens?" No. The group that is the largest recipients of Peachcare is the children of Walmart employees. Who comes in second? That would be the children of Publix grocery chain.

Walmart chief Doug McMillon, who made $25.6 million last year. In 2006 alone, Walmart donated $272.9 MILLION DOLLARS to charities:

Wal-Mart keeps spot as top corporate charity

So, while Walmart is donating this to charity, virtually NONE of it is coming out of the pockets of the BILLIONAIRE Waltons. The Waltons donate less than 1 percent of their own money to charities:

Report: Walmart's Billionaire Waltons Give Almost None Of Own Cash To Foundation

So, Walmart takes this money out of their corporate profits and gets great PR and lots of positive advertising while their employees live below the poverty level. AND, adding insult to injury, while the BILLIONAIRE Waltons are donating less than 1 percent of their income to charities, the average middle class American donates 6 percent of their income.

So what.

So, here is the deal:

Walmart counters and says that they pay competitive wages. What they don't tell you is that they are the largest retail operation of their kind and they, more or less, get to set that competitive wage. That insulting wage comes at a cost to taxpayers who foot the cost for the difference between what people have to have to sustain themselves and what they get in wages.

Again, the employer is not responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

If a corporation does not pay people an adequate wage, they should pay more in taxes. What I put on the table is a quid pro quo solution. The employer gets to choose. In the instant example, Walmart has been convicted of knowingly hiring subcontractors that used undocumented foreigners. They pay insulting wages. By contrast, the children of the employees of Aldi Grocery stores DO NOT qualify for Peach Care because Aldi pays above poverty level wages. Aldi hires Americans. Aldi should get a tax break and Walmart should be paying higher taxes. Both companies keep to get running their businesses as they always have and life goes on.

A corporation should pay what the employee is willing to work for. The fewer employees available to the corporation the higher the corporation will pay or the better benefits they will offer. More available employees, the less the corporation needs to pay. The issue we have now is too many employees, not enough business needing employees.

The reason Walmart is so successful is that everyone shops there because of price and convenience and in reality most Americans don’t think it is an issue, otherwise Walmart would fail. We can choose who to support or not support. If you think Walmart is unfair, doesn’t pay employees a fair wage, then use your dollar to not shop there, go to Aldi’s and spend your dollars.

If you don’t like Walmart wages, don’t apply there go somewhere else to work, if there are no employees then you will Walmart start paying more as they need employees because no one will work there for lower pay.

Having government decide who is paying the correct wage is a form of socialism. Giving tax breaks to corporation is government forcing their idea of what is moral to pay.

 

[JoeB131]

No, it means they are charging so much. The AFFORDABLE part is only affordable for lowlifes.

then you shouldn't have a problem, then.

 

[JoeB131]

Why is it the duty of an employer to furnish you with a living wage if you decide to have no children or 12? Is it not your own responsibility to live with in your means?

why should people's value only be based on their ability of the One Percent to make money off of them? Why not have a living wage for everyone, and just be done with it? You want to do business, provide a living wage.

Period. Done.

Or conversely, provide everyone with a basic income, and then if they want more, then WalMart or whoever can provide it.

You see, the real problem is the old model of "you work for a living' is really based on the system being able to produce job. That's simply not the case anymore. Time to do something different.

 

[Cellblock2429]

if the average employee is getting 15.00 hr. times? lets say 30 people in one day? that comes out to about 3500 a day in labor. and we are talking a larger/busier McDonalds. then u add the cost of the food that was sold, then the electricity/misc restaurant supplies/water/insurance. gee. what would that come out to per day? you have to sell quite a lot of happy meals just to break even!!!!

/----/ Most libtards couldn't run a Kool Aid stand without adult supervision and that includes Dem Senators

 

[JoeB131]

So let me get this straight

You think a guy who stuffs burgers in bags for living and has 6 kids should be paid more than a single guy with a Masters degree in engineering ?

Hey, if the ONe Percent can exploit the burger flipper, they'll exploit the engineer, too.

Case in point, we have adjunct professors on Food Stamps right now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it the duty of an employer to furnish you with a living wage if you decide to have no children or 12? Is it not your own responsibility to live with in your means?

why should people's value only be based on their ability of the One Percent to make money off of them? Why not have a living wage for everyone, and just be done with it? You want to do business, provide a living wage.

Period. Done.

Or conversely, provide everyone with a basic income, and then if they want more, then WalMart or whoever can provide it.

You see, the real problem is the old model of "you work for a living' is really based on the system being able to produce job. That's simply not the case anymore. Time to do something different.

Yeah let's just pay people not to work. The more kids you have the more money you'll get.

The only problem there is figuring out were all that money will come from. But then again you wacko progs have never been able to to math

 

[Skull Pilot]

So let me get this straight

You think a guy who stuffs burgers in bags for living and has 6 kids should be paid more than a single guy with a Masters degree in engineering ?

Hey, if the ONe Percent can exploit the burger flipper, they'll exploit the engineer, too.

Case in point, we have adjunct professors on Food Stamps right now.

Adjunct . The very definition of the word is unnecessary.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah let's just pay people not to work. The more kids you have the more money you'll get.

The only problem there is figuring out were all that money will come from. But then again you wacko progs have never been able to to math

we can do math just fine. THere's more than enough money, it's just that the top 20% are hoarding 87% of it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah let's just pay people not to work. The more kids you have the more money you'll get.

The only problem there is figuring out were all that money will come from. But then again you wacko progs have never been able to to math

we can do math just fine. THere's more than enough money, it's just that the top 20% are hoarding 87% of it.

Yeah there's more than enough money so no one has to work

 

[Humorme]

It's not a question of morality.


A businessman goes into business to make money. But, if he does not pay his employees, then the taxpayer picks up the tab. That difference between what the employer pays his / her employees and that money it takes for them to sustain themselves comes at a cost to you and I.

The employer isn't responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

Case in point:

Georgia has something called Peachcare for children. It's like Medicare, only for the children of those people on limited incomes. Now, who do you suppose gets the lion's share of that money? Blacks? Whites? Maybe the children of those "illegal aliens?" No. The group that is the largest recipients of Peachcare is the children of Walmart employees. Who comes in second? That would be the children of Publix grocery chain.

Walmart chief Doug McMillon, who made $25.6 million last year. In 2006 alone, Walmart donated $272.9 MILLION DOLLARS to charities:

Wal-Mart keeps spot as top corporate charity

So, while Walmart is donating this to charity, virtually NONE of it is coming out of the pockets of the BILLIONAIRE Waltons. The Waltons donate less than 1 percent of their own money to charities:

Report: Walmart's Billionaire Waltons Give Almost None Of Own Cash To Foundation

So, Walmart takes this money out of their corporate profits and gets great PR and lots of positive advertising while their employees live below the poverty level. AND, adding insult to injury, while the BILLIONAIRE Waltons are donating less than 1 percent of their income to charities, the average middle class American donates 6 percent of their income.

So what.

So, here is the deal:

Walmart counters and says that they pay competitive wages. What they don't tell you is that they are the largest retail operation of their kind and they, more or less, get to set that competitive wage. That insulting wage comes at a cost to taxpayers who foot the cost for the difference between what people have to have to sustain themselves and what they get in wages.

Again, the employer is not responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

If a corporation does not pay people an adequate wage, they should pay more in taxes. What I put on the table is a quid pro quo solution. The employer gets to choose. In the instant example, Walmart has been convicted of knowingly hiring subcontractors that used undocumented foreigners. They pay insulting wages. By contrast, the children of the employees of Aldi Grocery stores DO NOT qualify for Peach Care because Aldi pays above poverty level wages. Aldi hires Americans. Aldi should get a tax break and Walmart should be paying higher taxes. Both companies keep to get running their businesses as they always have and life goes on.

A corporation should pay what the employee is willing to work for. The fewer employees available to the corporation the higher the corporation will pay or the better benefits they will offer. More available employees, the less the corporation needs to pay. The issue we have now is too many employees, not enough business needing employees.

The reason Walmart is so successful is that everyone shops there because of price and convenience and in reality most Americans don’t think it is an issue, otherwise Walmart would fail. We can choose who to support or not support. If you think Walmart is unfair, doesn’t pay employees a fair wage, then use your dollar to not shop there, go to Aldi’s and spend your dollars.

If you don’t like Walmart wages, don’t apply there go somewhere else to work, if there are no employees then you will Walmart start paying more as they need employees because no one will work there for lower pay.

Having government decide who is paying the correct wage is a form of socialism. Giving tax breaks to corporation is government forcing their idea of what is moral to pay.

Regardless, you pay a higher price. It just comes out in taxes.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah there's more than enough money so no one has to work

We already pay old people and children not to work, don't we?

So how about this. Everyone gets a basic allowance, and if they want to work for money beyond that, they can.

Certainly a lot better than having someone have to choose between food and medicine and turning to crime, isn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah there's more than enough money so no one has to work

We already pay old people and children not to work, don't we?

So how about this. Everyone gets a basic allowance, and if they want to work for money beyond that, they can.

Certainly a lot better than having someone have to choose between food and medicine and turning to crime, isn't it?

The government pays children not to work?

And those old people had money taken from them their entire working lives to fund their Social Security.

So tell me where is all this cradle to grave universal income going to come from?

 

[JoeB131]

The government pays children not to work?

And those old people had money taken from them their entire working lives to fund their Social Security.

So tell me where is all this cradle to grave universal income going to come from?

Take if from the rich. Problem solved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government pays children not to work?

And those old people had money taken from them their entire working lives to fund their Social Security.

So tell me where is all this cradle to grave universal income going to come from?

Take if from the rich. Problem solved.

Until the rich run out of money

like I said you suck at math

 

[Humorme]

Businesses should be financially responsible for their employees families.

Businesses don't open up to provide for families, businesses open up to produce products or services for a profit. That's it. Nobody opens up a business as a social obligation. If I decide to open up my own lawn care business, I do so because I no longer want to work for somebody else. I took my hard earned money so I can advance myself in life like everybody should. I'm taking a huge gamble that one day I might make enough to live well and possibly grow my lawn care business. I didn't open up my business to provide for others. I have work that needs to be done, and this is what I'm willing to pay to get that work done.

I agree with what you're saying here; however, the people on the right will still reject their own beliefs given the right set of circumstances. For example:

Given what you said, an employer ought to be able to hire undocumented foreigners. They should also be able to hire an all white workforce, an all black one, or one that does not accept gays. It's like you said, it's their business. Why do they owe anyone in the private sector a job? If the employer should be able to decide how much to pay, why not allow the employer to decide who they will and will not offer the job to?

 

[Humorme]

Yeah there's more than enough money so no one has to work

We already pay old people and children not to work, don't we?

So how about this. Everyone gets a basic allowance, and if they want to work for money beyond that, they can.

Certainly a lot better than having someone have to choose between food and medicine and turning to crime, isn't it?

Here is a reality check for you:

You AND your employers will pay into Socialist Security all of your working life. IF you live long enough, you MIGHT get a small check that maxes out at $1300 a month.

Now, bear in mind, Socialist Security is not even required to pay back the principal amount they extorted from you. Be that as it may, you get $1300 a month and the government then takes out federal income tax and you still owe for state income tax. You're still required to pay your property tax, purchase mandated insurance, put tags on your car and pay sales tax. That just cut that check in HALF!

So, how much of YOUR money do you really get back in retirement? The government is paying old people not to work????

 

[JoeB131]

Until the rich run out of money

like I said you suck at math

We're not burning the money, are we/

So let's look at that. We take the money from the rich and give it to working people. They are going to buy practical stuff. Stuff other people will get jobs to make or sell. You know, thousands of meals instead of one single dancing horsie.

In fact, our Food Stamp Program exists SOLELY to create agricultural jobs by keeping demand for food products up. that' why it exists.