Democrat Rep on CNN: We don't want Small Businesses

[Cecilie1200]

Wages should be set according to the real productive value of the work done by the employee.

If a person is 'low skilled', but their labor producing large profits for their employer, then they should be well paid.

No I disagree with that even.

Because for example, the cost to opening a McDonald's store, averages around $2.5 Million dollars.

The average McDonald's store owner, has invested a million dollars of their own personal money... and they have borrowed another million and a half. And then you think that the burger flipper should paid well for what?

McDonald's stores fail all the time too. The store I worked at in high school is closed.

If that store closes, I being the owner now am $1.5 Million in debt, and I lost the $1 Million I invested... but you the burger flipper think you should be paid well? For what?

If the business fails you lost nothing. I lost millions. You will leave without any debt from the business. I'll end up with $1.5 Million in debt from the business.

You simply find another job. I end up in bankruptcy, or a lien on the house, and spending years paying bankers.

Not to mention the fact that in the event there is a problem, who do they call? You, the low-wage employee? Or me the owner of the store? You don't own the responsibility of anything. I do.

And lets not forget that the business owners and CEO, are often working 50 to 70 hours a week, while you put in 40 hours and leave.

So this idea that you should be paid tons of money for low value work.... just because it generates more wealth... no. I don't buy that at all.

Y'know, people always go on about "McDonald's is a big corporation, so I'm SURE they can afford to pay their burger flippers $15 an hour." Truth is, McDonald's Corporation actually operates very few of the McDonald's restaurants. Their primary business is franchising. Most of the stores are individually-owned and -operated. They are, in fact, small businesses working on a small profit margin with, most likely, not a lot of capital to act as a cushion.

So I was working at Wendy's back in high school. I remember talking with the manager of the store, who said the store had lost money that month.

Now obviously they didn't lose money every month, but we had a bad month, and we had gone over budget on food costs, and didn't make up for it with additional sales.

It just so happened that that very same month, there was a huge story in the papers about how Wendy's had posted record profits, and everyone in the store was talking about how they should get a pay raise, because Wendy's posted a huge profit.

I remember being confused about what to think, because I saw the story and knew Wendy's had posted huge profits, but here people were asking to get a raise when the store we were at posted a loss.

Of course I did not understand then, what I do now, that every franchise, and indeed even ever store, has it's own budget, it's own profit and loss, and it's own wages to pay.

Even if the store is owned by the the corporate itself, rather than a franchisee... it still is run like a completely separate business.
The company isn't going to pay out to keep a store open, that is losing money. If the store loses money, they close it. Why would you keep a business going that is losing money?

So this idea that X.corp made a profit, so I should get a pay raise when my store I work for is losing money... no. That's not a thing.

Exactly. What Wendy's the corporation made a profit on was franchising fees, not on selling burgers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Taxpayers are subsidizing some company's bottom lines.

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

Not true. How much Medicaid and food stamps would they collect if they had no job at all?

Odds are good that if a person is on welfare, they're not going to be able to transition directly into a job that can totally replace that welfare income, either because they don't have the skills to do a job like that or they have other factors limiting their employment options, such as being a single mother with kids to take care of. Or both.

Leftists look at businesses like Walmart and McDonald's and say, "Oh, you're using the welfare system to subsidize your business." No, they're using their business to help people transition out of welfare dependency. It's just not something one does all at once.

 

[Richard-H]

Wages should be set according to the real productive value of the work done by the employee.

If a person is 'low skilled', but their labor producing large profits for their employer, then they should be well paid.

No I disagree with that even.

Because for example, the cost to opening a McDonald's store, averages around $2.5 Million dollars.

The average McDonald's store owner, has invested a million dollars of their own personal money... and they have borrowed another million and a half. And then you think that the burger flipper should paid well for what?

McDonald's stores fail all the time too. The store I worked at in high school is closed.

If that store closes, I being the owner now am $1.5 Million in debt, and I lost the $1 Million I invested... but you the burger flipper think you should be paid well? For what?

If the business fails you lost nothing. I lost millions. You will leave without any debt from the business. I'll end up with $1.5 Million in debt from the business.

You simply find another job. I end up in bankruptcy, or a lien on the house, and spending years paying bankers.

Not to mention the fact that in the event there is a problem, who do they call? You, the low-wage employee? Or me the owner of the store? You don't own the responsibility of anything. I do.

And lets not forget that the business owners and CEO, are often working 50 to 70 hours a week, while you put in 40 hours and leave.

So this idea that you should be paid tons of money for low value work.... just because it generates more wealth... no. I don't buy that at all.

Regardless of what choices you may have made in your business investments, it doesn't give you the right to take advantage of other people's economic desperation to pay them less than they deserve.

If your business can't survive when paying fair wages, then that's your problem. It's up to you to do your due diligence and to calculate the cost of fair wages before starting the business.

I've considered starting my own business, but I did calculate the cost of fair wages and found that the business that I wanted was not viable unless I cheated the people that worked for me. So I choose not to start the business.

BTW - Before the advent of Unions business owners were all crying that paying union wages would mean shutting down their businesses. Yet that did not happen. In fact union shops have flourished...and the entire economy with them.

The same thing happened in the Chemical industries...they all said that conforming to safety and environmental standards would make the American chemical industry unviable. Yet, once they were forced, they found better ways of operating and ultimately became more profitable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25.

That's not true.

You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time.

Why do you feel that?

Let's be honest here. First, no one is "making" anyone do anything. Employment is completely voluntary in this country. Second, if someone is doing a job that my 12-year-old could do just as well, then that person isn't worth more than $7.25 an hour, no matter HOW much "self-esteem" leftist teachers have taught him to have.

 

[Richard-H]

Wages should be set according to the real productive value of the work done by the employee.

If a person is 'low skilled', but their labor producing large profits for their employer, then they should be well paid.

No I disagree with that even.

Because for example, the cost to opening a McDonald's store, averages around $2.5 Million dollars.

The average McDonald's store owner, has invested a million dollars of their own personal money... and they have borrowed another million and a half. And then you think that the burger flipper should paid well for what?

McDonald's stores fail all the time too. The store I worked at in high school is closed.

If that store closes, I being the owner now am $1.5 Million in debt, and I lost the $1 Million I invested... but you the burger flipper think you should be paid well? For what?

If the business fails you lost nothing. I lost millions. You will leave without any debt from the business. I'll end up with $1.5 Million in debt from the business.

You simply find another job. I end up in bankruptcy, or a lien on the house, and spending years paying bankers.

Not to mention the fact that in the event there is a problem, who do they call? You, the low-wage employee? Or me the owner of the store? You don't own the responsibility of anything. I do.

And lets not forget that the business owners and CEO, are often working 50 to 70 hours a week, while you put in 40 hours and leave.

So this idea that you should be paid tons of money for low value work.... just because it generates more wealth... no. I don't buy that at all.

Y'know, people always go on about "McDonald's is a big corporation, so I'm SURE they can afford to pay their burger flippers $15 an hour." Truth is, McDonald's Corporation actually operates very few of the McDonald's restaurants. Their primary business is franchising. Most of the stores are individually-owned and -operated. They are, in fact, small businesses working on a small profit margin with, most likely, not a lot of capital to act as a cushion.

So I was working at Wendy's back in high school. I remember talking with the manager of the store, who said the store had lost money that month.

Now obviously they didn't lose money every month, but we had a bad month, and we had gone over budget on food costs, and didn't make up for it with additional sales.

It just so happened that that very same month, there was a huge story in the papers about how Wendy's had posted record profits, and everyone in the store was talking about how they should get a pay raise, because Wendy's posted a huge profit.

I remember being confused about what to think, because I saw the story and knew Wendy's had posted huge profits, but here people were asking to get a raise when the store we were at posted a loss.

Of course I did not understand then, what I do now, that every franchise, and indeed even ever store, has it's own budget, it's own profit and loss, and it's own wages to pay.

Even if the store is owned by the the corporate itself, rather than a franchisee... it still is run like a completely separate business.
The company isn't going to pay out to keep a store open, that is losing money. If the store loses money, they close it. Why would you keep a business going that is losing money?

So this idea that X.corp made a profit, so I should get a pay raise when my store I work for is losing money... no. That's not a thing.

Exactly. What Wendy's the corporation made a profit on was franchising fees, not on selling burgers.

Each of those franchises makes there money selling burgers. Increasing wages can be offset by passing the costs to the customer...and by lowering the cost of the franchise...and by reducing the standard of living of the franchise owner.

No more Cadallacs!!!!

 

[Andylusion]

Taxpayers are subsidizing some company's bottom lines.

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

Not true. How much Medicaid and food stamps would they collect if they had no job at all?

Odds are good that if a person is on welfare, they're not going to be able to transition directly into a job that can totally replace that welfare income, either because they don't have the skills to do a job like that or they have other factors limiting their employment options, such as being a single mother with kids to take care of. Or both.

Leftists look at businesses like Walmart and McDonald's and say, "Oh, you're using the welfare system to subsidize your business." No, they're using their business to help people transition out of welfare dependency. It's just not something one does all at once.

Right, which is why we need to end welfare. People have an incentive to not work.

And the sad part it, it takes time, sometimes years, to really move up the corporate ladder.

Every month you are on welfare, means it will be a month longer before you can move up.

And Left-wingers whining about Walmart, is one of the dumbest complaints. Walmart has a tuition reimbursement program. I know people who have worked Walmart, and used their tuition reimbursement program to get a degree, and better job.

Better to have welfare people working at Walmart, where they can use the benefits Walmart has, to move up.

 

[Andylusion]

Wages should be set according to the real productive value of the work done by the employee.

If a person is 'low skilled', but their labor producing large profits for their employer, then they should be well paid.

No I disagree with that even.

Because for example, the cost to opening a McDonald's store, averages around $2.5 Million dollars.

The average McDonald's store owner, has invested a million dollars of their own personal money... and they have borrowed another million and a half. And then you think that the burger flipper should paid well for what?

McDonald's stores fail all the time too. The store I worked at in high school is closed.

If that store closes, I being the owner now am $1.5 Million in debt, and I lost the $1 Million I invested... but you the burger flipper think you should be paid well? For what?

If the business fails you lost nothing. I lost millions. You will leave without any debt from the business. I'll end up with $1.5 Million in debt from the business.

You simply find another job. I end up in bankruptcy, or a lien on the house, and spending years paying bankers.

Not to mention the fact that in the event there is a problem, who do they call? You, the low-wage employee? Or me the owner of the store? You don't own the responsibility of anything. I do.

And lets not forget that the business owners and CEO, are often working 50 to 70 hours a week, while you put in 40 hours and leave.

So this idea that you should be paid tons of money for low value work.... just because it generates more wealth... no. I don't buy that at all.

Y'know, people always go on about "McDonald's is a big corporation, so I'm SURE they can afford to pay their burger flippers $15 an hour." Truth is, McDonald's Corporation actually operates very few of the McDonald's restaurants. Their primary business is franchising. Most of the stores are individually-owned and -operated. They are, in fact, small businesses working on a small profit margin with, most likely, not a lot of capital to act as a cushion.

So I was working at Wendy's back in high school. I remember talking with the manager of the store, who said the store had lost money that month.

Now obviously they didn't lose money every month, but we had a bad month, and we had gone over budget on food costs, and didn't make up for it with additional sales.

It just so happened that that very same month, there was a huge story in the papers about how Wendy's had posted record profits, and everyone in the store was talking about how they should get a pay raise, because Wendy's posted a huge profit.

I remember being confused about what to think, because I saw the story and knew Wendy's had posted huge profits, but here people were asking to get a raise when the store we were at posted a loss.

Of course I did not understand then, what I do now, that every franchise, and indeed even ever store, has it's own budget, it's own profit and loss, and it's own wages to pay.

Even if the store is owned by the the corporate itself, rather than a franchisee... it still is run like a completely separate business.
The company isn't going to pay out to keep a store open, that is losing money. If the store loses money, they close it. Why would you keep a business going that is losing money?

So this idea that X.corp made a profit, so I should get a pay raise when my store I work for is losing money... no. That's not a thing.

Exactly. What Wendy's the corporation made a profit on was franchising fees, not on selling burgers.

Each of those franchises makes there money selling burgers. Increasing wages can be offset by passing the costs to the customer...and by lowering the cost of the franchise...and by reducing the standard of living of the franchise owner.

No more Cadallacs!!!!

Do you know how much money it takes to open a store? Like take McDonald. Do you know how much money it takes to open a McDonald's store?

The average is $2.5 Million dollars.

Do you know how much money you can make investing in the stock market, in just a regular nothing fancy, index fund?

You can make about 7%.

7% of $2.5 million is $175,000. That means for the cost of opening a McDonald's, you could sit at home doing nothing, and collect $175,000 a year.

Why would anyone open a McDonald's, instead of just sitting at home collecting money from your investments? Why would spend $2.5 Million dollars on a McDonald's?

Because you do know that restaurants close all the time. Why would you risk $2.5 million dollars on opening a store, if you could sit at home collecting $175,000 a year on your investments?

You want to know why? Because you can make a ton more by running a store.

And if you make it so that people can't make a ton more running a store.....

Then they won't run the store. They won't open the stores. Won't create jobs. Won't serve customers. They'll close. They lay off all the workers, and go invest in the stock market, and make money there.

Do you see the problem? No one is going to provide jobs, unless they can buy a luxury car. No one is going to lower their standard of living. They will just lay you off, and do something else.

What you are saying is not going to happen. You can say that until the end of time, but it isn't going to happen. Never has by the way. In 2007 when they jacked up the minimum wage, no employer anywhere in the entire world, was saying "aww bummer. Gotta sell the BMW now..."

Never happened. And never will.

That's why investors are rich by the way. If you make it so that it isn't profitable to do something... they just stop doing it, and invest somewhere else where it is profitable.

If you make it so employers can't live the life style they want... they don't stop living that way... they find something else to do, and lay everyone off.

When Hostess went bankrupt, the company didn't cut wages to all the executives. The executives just filed for bankruptcy, laid everyone off, and then left to do other things. They are fine today. Still driving BMWs. You know who didn't fair so well? The employees who wanted hire wages, and were laid off to earn zero wages.

That's how this works.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

 

[Slade3200]

You

You just defended that practice by saying that families needed the income.

Yes, back in the 1800s, lots of families needed their kids to work.

Ok so why change it and make a law restricting child labor?

Why?

Because I’m curious about your thoughts on the subject

Why did they change it and make a law restricting child labor?

For the same reason some now what to change the min wage... because of “feelings” as you so eloquently put it.

To keep people poor. If you teach kids to work, they end up rich.
Warren Buffet was buying stock, and working a paper route, and making money by age 10.

Left-wingers hate successful people, and the best way to keep the under class poor and impoverished, is to prevent them from working as much as possible.

Left-wingers were gleeful about the lock downs and destroying people's businesses and lives in 2020. They were giddy with happiness.

Newsome was screaming that we had to lock down, and ban indoor gatherings, and of course that didn't phase him going to an elite exclusive restaurant to meet up with his own friends.

Left-wingers LOVE making people poor. Taxing away their income, and then giving pennies back, and demanding we pretend they saved us, while they made us poor.

They banned the poor from working their jobs, but declared their left-wing Hollywood elites as being essential services.

That's the reason. It's that simple. Left-winger love making people poor. That's why they regulate as much as they can, to benefit the wealthy, and keep the poor impoverished.

you are so full of shit! How can I now have a respectable conversation with you after those outrageous claims?!

Im sure you consider me a left winger... yet I do not hate successful people (shocking), I am it gleeful for lock downs (shocking), I do not love making people poor (shocking). You're now in the right wingnut hack category whose posts aren’t worth anything more than a skim and a mock. Too bad, I was starting to think you were one of the smart opposition, guess not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Taxpayers are subsidizing some company's bottom lines.

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

Not true. How much Medicaid and food stamps would they collect if they had no job at all?

Odds are good that if a person is on welfare, they're not going to be able to transition directly into a job that can totally replace that welfare income, either because they don't have the skills to do a job like that or they have other factors limiting their employment options, such as being a single mother with kids to take care of. Or both.

Leftists look at businesses like Walmart and McDonald's and say, "Oh, you're using the welfare system to subsidize your business." No, they're using their business to help people transition out of welfare dependency. It's just not something one does all at once.

Right, which is why we need to end welfare. People have an incentive to not work.

And the sad part it, it takes time, sometimes years, to really move up the corporate ladder.

Every month you are on welfare, means it will be a month longer before you can move up.

And Left-wingers whining about Walmart, is one of the dumbest complaints. Walmart has a tuition reimbursement program. I know people who have worked Walmart, and used their tuition reimbursement program to get a degree, and better job.

Better to have welfare people working at Walmart, where they can use the benefits Walmart has, to move up.

Exactly. I know a person who was a single mother on welfare. She got an entry-level job at Walmart. Eventually ended up in store management. But she wasn't qualified for that when she first got hired, and it took time and hard work to get there.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

You tell me. If I had a grocery store I’d pay people more than $7.25 to stock my shelves

 

[bripat9643]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

You tell me. If I had a grocery store I’d pay people more than $7.25 to stock my shelves

Unless you force them to pay more, why would they pay it?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You want to earn low wages I suggest you move to Mississippi or Louisiana.

Yeah because cost of housing/living plays no part in personal finances...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This reminds me of a video I watched recently wherein a college knowitall brainwashed kid was talking about how he wants to go to Sweden because their average income is higher than America.
So.... yeah.... Sweden also has the 2nd highest rent cost in the world.
Sweden also has a tax rate double our own.
Eating out in Sweden is painfully expensive, with the average per person cost at $23 for low-end restaurants.
Overall Sweden has a 20% higher cost of living than New York City!! One of the highest cost in America!

Dolts like this is who votes.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

You tell me. If I had a grocery store I’d pay people more than $7.25 to stock my shelves

Unless you force them to pay more, why would they pay it?

Because it’s the right thing to do. Personal responsibility. When those in power abuse that power and take advantage of others it makes the government step in. That’s how regulations happen

 

[Andylusion]

You

You just defended that practice by saying that families needed the income.

Yes, back in the 1800s, lots of families needed their kids to work.

Ok so why change it and make a law restricting child labor?

Why?

Because I’m curious about your thoughts on the subject

Why did they change it and make a law restricting child labor?

For the same reason some now what to change the min wage... because of “feelings” as you so eloquently put it.

To keep people poor. If you teach kids to work, they end up rich.
Warren Buffet was buying stock, and working a paper route, and making money by age 10.

Left-wingers hate successful people, and the best way to keep the under class poor and impoverished, is to prevent them from working as much as possible.

Left-wingers were gleeful about the lock downs and destroying people's businesses and lives in 2020. They were giddy with happiness.

Newsome was screaming that we had to lock down, and ban indoor gatherings, and of course that didn't phase him going to an elite exclusive restaurant to meet up with his own friends.

Left-wingers LOVE making people poor. Taxing away their income, and then giving pennies back, and demanding we pretend they saved us, while they made us poor.

They banned the poor from working their jobs, but declared their left-wing Hollywood elites as being essential services.

That's the reason. It's that simple. Left-winger love making people poor. That's why they regulate as much as they can, to benefit the wealthy, and keep the poor impoverished.

you are so full of shit! How can I now have a respectable conversation with you after those outrageous claims?!

Im sure you consider me a left winger... yet I do not hate successful people (shocking), I am it gleeful for lock downs (shocking), I do not love making people poor (shocking). You're now in the right wingnut hack category whose posts aren’t worth anything more than a skim and a mock. Too bad, I was starting to think you were one of the smart opposition, guess not.

I don't know if you are left-winger or not. But if you support the policies that left-wing people do, that routinely make the public poor in the name of helping them, and have for decades now.... then if the shoe fits.. sucks to be you man. Tough snot.

The truth is the truth. I can't help what the truth is.

 

[Andylusion]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

You tell me. If I had a grocery store I’d pay people more than $7.25 to stock my shelves

Unless you force them to pay more, why would they pay it?

Because it’s the right thing to do. Personal responsibility. When those in power abuse that power and take advantage of others it makes the government step in. That’s how regulations happen

If Bripat agrees to a wage, and I agree to a wage, and we both agree to a wage.....
By definition no one is abusing power, no one is taking advantage, and everyone is in fact taking personal responsibility.

Just because you personally think you need to shove your nose up our butts, because you don't like what me and Bripat agreed to.... does not mean anyone is abusing power, or taking advantage.

The only thing it really means, is that you are a busy body that shoves your nose up everyone's butts, and get into other people's business that none of your concern.

You are actually the one abusing power. By interfering with things that are none of your business.... that is abuse of power.

You are the one abusing power. Not either of us.

 

[Lesh]

That’s a good thing especially when wages have a floor of $7.25 an hour.

Not good for workers who aren't worth the higher wage.

Make anybody do anything for you for 8 hours a day 5 days a week and they are worth more than $7.25. You don’t seem to place much value on other peoples time. Too bad

You can't "make" anybody do anything.

This isn't socialism. This is capitalism. If I refuse to work, how are you going to "make me" do work for you?

Second, if their time is worth more.... then they should be able to find a job that pays more for their time.

If you are saying that your time is worth more money than you are earning, then you should be able to prove that, by getting a job that pays more for your time.

If you can't...... then again, by definition, your time isn't worth more.

I’m sure some assholes don’t value other peoples time at all and would pay them $1 an hour if they could. I’m sure there are people poor and desperate enough to work under subpar conditions. This is why regulations get made... because assholes take advantage. If our businesses were responsible and respectful then we wouldn’t need to regulate. If businesses paid low wage earners livable wages then there wouldn’t be a problem with the min wage requirement going up

That assumes that you know what is best for people, whose lives you know nothing about.

And the truth is, that some people time is not worth that much, no matter what you think. You are just wrong.

I remember we had a guy who was mentally handicapped. He barely did much of anything. But what little he did was worth the minimum wage we paid.

If you think you are going to have people paid $15/hour, when they are barely producing $7 worth of value per hour... no. He will just not be employed.

And for everyone else... again businesses are NOT going to pay a livable wage because you say they should, or because you make a law that they should.

Again, back to the lawn mowing example. I can't pay you $30 for your labor, if the customer isn't willing to pay $30 for your labor.

You can whine about how businesses ought to, and how government should regulate all you want. That doesn't change the fact that the math doesn't add up.

If you pass that law, then those people will just be unemployed. If you pass a law that I must pay you $30 for your labor, and the customer isn't willing to pay me more than $30 for the service...... then I lay you off. And you are unemployed, and now your wage is zero.

How are you better off earning zero?

I have no problem carving out exceptions for dependents and learning positions. I would suggest an internships and paid internships that qualify under different standards.

What is the point of an internship to stock grocery shelves?

You tell me. If I had a grocery store I’d pay people more than $7.25 to stock my shelves

Unless you force them to pay more, why would they pay it?

Hence the minimum wage

 

[Cecilie1200]

You

You just defended that practice by saying that families needed the income.

Yes, back in the 1800s, lots of families needed their kids to work.

Ok so why change it and make a law restricting child labor?

Why?

Because I’m curious about your thoughts on the subject

Why did they change it and make a law restricting child labor?

For the same reason some now what to change the min wage... because of “feelings” as you so eloquently put it.

To keep people poor. If you teach kids to work, they end up rich.
Warren Buffet was buying stock, and working a paper route, and making money by age 10.

Left-wingers hate successful people, and the best way to keep the under class poor and impoverished, is to prevent them from working as much as possible.

Left-wingers were gleeful about the lock downs and destroying people's businesses and lives in 2020. They were giddy with happiness.

Newsome was screaming that we had to lock down, and ban indoor gatherings, and of course that didn't phase him going to an elite exclusive restaurant to meet up with his own friends.

Left-wingers LOVE making people poor. Taxing away their income, and then giving pennies back, and demanding we pretend they saved us, while they made us poor.

They banned the poor from working their jobs, but declared their left-wing Hollywood elites as being essential services.

That's the reason. It's that simple. Left-winger love making people poor. That's why they regulate as much as they can, to benefit the wealthy, and keep the poor impoverished.

you are so full of shit! How can I now have a respectable conversation with you after those outrageous claims?!

Im sure you consider me a left winger... yet I do not hate successful people (shocking), I am it gleeful for lock downs (shocking), I do not love making people poor (shocking). You're now in the right wingnut hack category whose posts aren’t worth anything more than a skim and a mock. Too bad, I was starting to think you were one of the smart opposition, guess not.

I don't know if you are left-winger or not. But if you support the policies that left-wing people do, that routinely make the public poor in the name of helping them, and have for decades now.... then if the shoe fits.. sucks to be you man. Tough snot.

The truth is the truth. I can't help what the truth is.

If it looks like a leftist, wears a pink pussy hat like a leftist, and spouts inane bullshit like a leftist . . . it's a leftist.