Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[paulitician]

Did you ask them? Because i seriously doubt the Minimum Wage has caused them to go under. They're going under because they failed. Minimum Wage isn't to blame for that. They are.

When you can't pay your workers,what is there to ask?

Minimum Wage isn't to blame. They are. They failed. That's all on them.

And when a business that currently nets $1000 a month has to raise wages by $2000 a month, idiots like you will still claim no business goes under because of the minimum wage. Because you're an idiot.

Maybe they can refuse service to more customers to cut costs?

Firing idiots like you would be a better idea.

Well then quit your bitching and go for it. Do the work yourself. No one forced you to hire workers.

 

[paulitician]

It will cause some businesses to go under. It will cause more to reduce head count. People who think it will be a boost to the economy are morons. Especially the op.

Yet you 'Sky is Falling' whiners have yet to present even one example of a business going under due to the Minimum Wage. So, once again you'll be proven wrong. Just like all the other times you predicted the sky falling over the Minimum Wage. You guys just don't have the credibility to make such predictions.

Legendary Palace

Borderlands Books

Zpizza

Chicken of the Sea, American Samoa

The evidence for the negative impact of the minimum wage is massive. Hundreds of examples. But the left hide themselves in an echo chamber, and pretend nothing outside their tiny little world exists.

It s the Final Nail to the Coffin Chinatown Businesses Struggle Over Oakland s New Minimum Wage NBC Bay Area

By the way, I had to point this one out. The minimum wage went from $9.25 to $12.50.

That's only about $6,000 a year that the employee would see in higher pay.

But.... Notice what the business man said. The cost of labor, would increase on the business by $10,000 per employee. We've been saying this over and over. The cost to employees is massively more than the flat wage.

You left-wing fruits have added on cost after cost, and then you wonder why business isn't hiring more, why more jobs are not created? Why is this business is closing, and laying off all it's employees who will now earn the real minimum wage of zero?

This is why. You idiots are the cause.

Ha, i'll bet anything none of those businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage. Absolute Bullshite.

"Prove" it, Cupcake.

You lie. Any business that fails due to Minimum Wage, should fail. Wasn't meant to be. But that's not the workers' fault. That's all on the failed business owner.

 

[LOki]

Ha, i'll bet anything none of those businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage. Absolute Bullshite.

But it is a convenient excuse for them.

So in your world, drastically raising the cost of doing business...... could not possibly be a reason the business closes? You really don't know anything about business at all, do you?

Prove the businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage.

"Prove" they didn't.

 

[dblack]

When you can't pay your workers,what is there to ask?

Minimum Wage isn't to blame. They are. They failed. That's all on them.

And when a business that currently nets $1000 a month has to raise wages by $2000 a month, idiots like you will still claim no business goes under because of the minimum wage. Because you're an idiot.

Maybe they can refuse service to more customers to cut costs?

Firing idiots like you would be a better idea.

Well then quit your bitching and go for it. Do the work yourself. No one forced you to hire workers.

And no one forced the workers to take the jobs. But you want to government to prevent them from doing so. Seems fucked up to me.

 

[paulitician]

Workers don't exist to be personal slaves.

Of course not. Workers whose work is worth more than the statutory minimum wage should not have their productivity taken at gunpoint to subsidize the wages of those whose work is worth less than the statutory minimum.

And no one is forced to hire workers.

Of course not.

And no one should be forced to pay an employee more than what their work is worth... after all no one is forcing workers to work either.

You don't wanna pay em, do the work yourself. Or get family members to volunteer their time to better your business.

No one is talking about not paying workers for their work, Princess.

Workers are people too.

Not in dispute.

They have bills and families to support.

How will your "statutory minimum wage or nothing" be of help to those who don't get the statutory minimum?

Where two consenting adults voluntarily and mutually agree to what some bit of work is worth; upon what moral authority do you declare such an agreement illegal if it says the work is worth less than what you think it's worth?

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?

Workers don't exist to make you wealthier.

Of course not.

They're not slaves.

I'm not the one enslaving anyone... those who demand that work worth less than the statutory minimum be subsidized by the wages of those whose work is work more than the statutory minimum are the slave holders.

So, pay em a survivable wage or simply do the work yourself. It's as simple as that.

Why can't I just pay them what their work is worth?

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

 

[LOki]

Yet you 'Sky is Falling' whiners have yet to present even one example of a business going under due to the Minimum Wage. So, once again you'll be proven wrong. Just like all the other times you predicted the sky falling over the Minimum Wage. You guys just don't have the credibility to make such predictions.

Legendary Palace

Borderlands Books

Zpizza

Chicken of the Sea, American Samoa

The evidence for the negative impact of the minimum wage is massive. Hundreds of examples. But the left hide themselves in an echo chamber, and pretend nothing outside their tiny little world exists.

It s the Final Nail to the Coffin Chinatown Businesses Struggle Over Oakland s New Minimum Wage NBC Bay Area

By the way, I had to point this one out. The minimum wage went from $9.25 to $12.50.

That's only about $6,000 a year that the employee would see in higher pay.

But.... Notice what the business man said. The cost of labor, would increase on the business by $10,000 per employee. We've been saying this over and over. The cost to employees is massively more than the flat wage.

You left-wing fruits have added on cost after cost, and then you wonder why business isn't hiring more, why more jobs are not created? Why is this business is closing, and laying off all it's employees who will now earn the real minimum wage of zero?

This is why. You idiots are the cause.

Ha, i'll bet anything none of those businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage. Absolute Bullshite.

"Prove" it, Cupcake.

You lie.

Prove it.[/QUOTE]

Any business that fails due to Minimum Wage, should fail.

On what basis, exactly, Cupcake?

Wasn't meant to be.

"Prove" it.

But that's not the workers' fault.

Of course not.

That's all on the failed business owner.

Nonsense. They had no say in the matter. The fault lie in YOU (or your proxy). Neither the employees nor their employer are allowed to assert what the work is worth in the determination of wages... YOU won't allow it.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth? If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny me that employment?

 

[paulitician]

Ha, i'll bet anything none of those businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage. Absolute Bullshite.

But it is a convenient excuse for them.

So in your world, drastically raising the cost of doing business...... could not possibly be a reason the business closes? You really don't know anything about business at all, do you?

Prove the businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage.

"Prove" they didn't.

Ha, nice try. You're the one claiming the Minimum Wage Boogeyman drove em all out of business. So the burden of proof is on you. But hey, i know you're either a liar, or just plain stupid. Let's just say, you've been less than convincing on everything so far.

 

[LOki]

Of course not. Workers whose work is worth more than the statutory minimum wage should not have their productivity taken at gunpoint to subsidize the wages of those whose work is worth less than the statutory minimum.

Of course not.

And no one should be forced to pay an employee more than what their work is worth... after all no one is forcing workers to work either.

No one is talking about not paying workers for their work, Princess.

Not in dispute.

How will your "statutory minimum wage or nothing" be of help to those who don't get the statutory minimum?

Where two consenting adults voluntarily and mutually agree to what some bit of work is worth; upon what moral authority do you declare such an agreement illegal if it says the work is worth less than what you think it's worth?

Why do you object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what that worker's work is worth?

Workers don't exist to make you wealthier.

Of course not.

They're not slaves.

I'm not the one enslaving anyone... those who demand that work worth less than the statutory minimum be subsidized by the wages of those whose work is work more than the statutory minimum are the slave holders.

So, pay em a survivable wage or simply do the work yourself. It's as simple as that.

Why can't I just pay them what their work is worth?

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

 

[LOki]

Ha, i'll bet anything none of those businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage. Absolute Bullshite.

But it is a convenient excuse for them.

So in your world, drastically raising the cost of doing business...... could not possibly be a reason the business closes? You really don't know anything about business at all, do you?

Prove the businesses cited, went under due to the Minimum Wage.

"Prove" they didn't.

Ha, nice try. You'e the one claiming the Minimum Wage Boogeyman drove em all out of business. So the burden of proof is on you.

No. Those businesses make the claim. You said it NEVER happened. Now you're denying reality (again) with nothing to validate your claim.

But hey, i know you're either a liar, or just plain stupid. Let's just say, you've been less than convincing on everything so far.

Just more baseless denial of reality.

And cowardice; since you've had plenty of opportunity to answer these inconvenient questions, but just refuse to acknowledge them:

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth? If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?​

 

[Weedlyfe427]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?


He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?

He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?

Did anyone say moving was free?

Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.

Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.

Schools and businesses have cut a lot of workers to part time due to the the change where full time employees must receive full benefits such as obamacare. What makes you think that an increase in minimum wage won't cause businesses to cut workers? I've seen workers spread too thin due to cutbacks in businesses. I don't feel like an increase in minimum wage jobs is smart. Also, most jobs that require a degree pay around 15$ an hour. Do you really think that a job where no degree is present should get the same pay? People with degrees have loans to pay off before they can start their lives. People without degrees don't have loans to pay off.

 

[paulitician]

Spot On. And i swear, i'll never get why angry white Republican dudes especially, are so angry. I mean they've always had it much better than non-white Americans have. They're so upset and panicked because someone at McDonalds might get $15. It's ridiculous. Such greedy hateful little wankers.

Which brings up racism. That's right; the minimum wage is racist. In this country minimum wage means being white is worth no less than $7.25/hr. How does this work? Like this: If 2 prospective employees--one black, one white, but otherwise equal--apply for a minimum wage job, Mr. AryanFront employer can hire white guy with a crew cut and golf shirt at no financial cost--none. He doesn't even have to worry about his competitors picking up the aspiring black worker for less, because they too have to pay him $7.25/hr. If this black worker were allowed to contract his labor for $5.00/hr, or $7.24 even, choosing the white guy would cost RacistJackass $2.25/hr (or $0.01 depending). Moreover, his competitors, if not racist, have the opportunity to hire the black worker at a cost advantage.

If you think this is not the case, you should check out how the white dominated unions in apartheid South Africa complained that the lack of minimum wage regulations led employers to hire cheap black laborers over better trained and better paid white folks. Which, coincidentally was exactly the same argument (check the congressional record) used by Robert Bacon when he wrote the Davis-Bacon Act (the first minmum wage law) in response to Southern contractors bringing black labor to a federal project in his Long Island district; a labor regulation which forces contractors engaged in government contracts to pay employees union wage scale (unions, which incidently were, at the time, usually exclusively white); effectively barring Southern blacks and immigrants from working on plush, government funded construction projects.

Minimum wage doesn't neccessarily have to be racist; on it's best day, minimum wage is only a state sponsored protection for older, higher paid workers from the competition of anyone who would accept less pay for the same work. The surprise for me was that though I understood that minimum wage and Davis-Bacon were, in observable and measurable effect, racist policies--I just had no idea that they were racist in intent.

So why is it that proponents for statutory minimum wage object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what the worker's work is worth? Why won't they explain their objection to us? Why don't they tell us the reason for refusing to explain their objection?

Maybe the answer is that they're racists. Maybe the're just ashamed to be outed so. Seems legit.

Angry greedy white Republican dudes are just plain ole assholes. Who cares if a McDonalds worker gets $15? Good for them. All the bitchin & moanin coming from the angry white dudes is ridiculous. Get a life for God's sake.

Entitled whiny libs want to be paid top dollar even when they have ZERO skills and can be replaced in about 10 seconds

Why don't all you burger baggers aspire to bigger and better things?

That's especially hilarious coming from entitled fat greedy old white Republican dude. No one in this country is more entitled than you. So quit your bitchin and pay up.

Sorry little sheep but I am not a republican.

And no one ever gave me anything. I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time right through my 30s. I paid my own bills and never sucked onthe public tit.

I risked everything we had to start a business 10 years ago and I do mean everything if we failed we would have been sleeping in our car.

So yeah I have a problem with whiny fucks like you who do absolutely nothing to improve themselves who risk nothing and yet cry that they deserve more.

If you want more get off your acre wide ass and get it yourself.

It's you folks who are doing all the whining. You don't wanna pay, don't hire workers. Do the work yourself. Problem solved. Case closed.

 

[hadit]

Which brings up racism. That's right; the minimum wage is racist. In this country minimum wage means being white is worth no less than $7.25/hr. How does this work? Like this: If 2 prospective employees--one black, one white, but otherwise equal--apply for a minimum wage job, Mr. AryanFront employer can hire white guy with a crew cut and golf shirt at no financial cost--none. He doesn't even have to worry about his competitors picking up the aspiring black worker for less, because they too have to pay him $7.25/hr. If this black worker were allowed to contract his labor for $5.00/hr, or $7.24 even, choosing the white guy would cost RacistJackass $2.25/hr (or $0.01 depending). Moreover, his competitors, if not racist, have the opportunity to hire the black worker at a cost advantage.

If you think this is not the case, you should check out how the white dominated unions in apartheid South Africa complained that the lack of minimum wage regulations led employers to hire cheap black laborers over better trained and better paid white folks. Which, coincidentally was exactly the same argument (check the congressional record) used by Robert Bacon when he wrote the Davis-Bacon Act (the first minmum wage law) in response to Southern contractors bringing black labor to a federal project in his Long Island district; a labor regulation which forces contractors engaged in government contracts to pay employees union wage scale (unions, which incidently were, at the time, usually exclusively white); effectively barring Southern blacks and immigrants from working on plush, government funded construction projects.

Minimum wage doesn't neccessarily have to be racist; on it's best day, minimum wage is only a state sponsored protection for older, higher paid workers from the competition of anyone who would accept less pay for the same work. The surprise for me was that though I understood that minimum wage and Davis-Bacon were, in observable and measurable effect, racist policies--I just had no idea that they were racist in intent.

So why is it that proponents for statutory minimum wage object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what the worker's work is worth? Why won't they explain their objection to us? Why don't they tell us the reason for refusing to explain their objection?

Maybe the answer is that they're racists. Maybe the're just ashamed to be outed so. Seems legit.

Angry greedy white Republican dudes are just plain ole assholes. Who cares if a McDonalds worker gets $15? Good for them. All the bitchin & moanin coming from the angry white dudes is ridiculous. Get a life for God's sake.

Entitled whiny libs want to be paid top dollar even when they have ZERO skills and can be replaced in about 10 seconds

Why don't all you burger baggers aspire to bigger and better things?

That's especially hilarious coming from entitled fat greedy old white Republican dude. No one in this country is more entitled than you. So quit your bitchin and pay up.

Sorry little sheep but I am not a republican.

And no one ever gave me anything. I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time right through my 30s. I paid my own bills and never sucked onthe public tit.

I risked everything we had to start a business 10 years ago and I do mean everything if we failed we would have been sleeping in our car.

So yeah I have a problem with whiny fucks like you who do absolutely nothing to improve themselves who risk nothing and yet cry that they deserve more.

If you want more get off your acre wide ass and get it yourself.

It's you folks who are doing all the whining. You don't wanna pay, don't hire workers. Do the work yourself. Problem solved. Case closed.

IOW, don't create new jobs because they are too expensive, which is exactly what we've been saying all along. There's your impact of raising the MW. Business owners look at the cost and decide they don't want to pay it.

 

[paulitician]

Workers don't exist to make you wealthier.

Of course not.

They're not slaves.

I'm not the one enslaving anyone... those who demand that work worth less than the statutory minimum be subsidized by the wages of those whose work is work more than the statutory minimum are the slave holders.

So, pay em a survivable wage or simply do the work yourself. It's as simple as that.

Why can't I just pay them what their work is worth?

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

You fat greedy old white Republican dudes have had it very well for many many years. Better than anyone else has. So now you gotta give a little back. Oh well, deal with it.

You're doing a good thing. I mean, when's the last time you guys did any good for anyone other than yourselves? So you'll pay workers a survivable wage now. It's about time.

 

[hadit]

Of course not.

I'm not the one enslaving anyone... those who demand that work worth less than the statutory minimum be subsidized by the wages of those whose work is work more than the statutory minimum are the slave holders.

Why can't I just pay them what their work is worth?

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

You fat greedy old white Republican dudes have had it very well for many many years. Better than anyone else has. So now you gotta give a little back. Oh well, deal with it.

You're doing a good thing. I mean, when's the last time you guys did any good for anyone other than yourselves? So you'll pay workers a survivable wage now. It's about time.

Now the real motivations, envy and revenge, come to light.

 

[LOki]

Of course not.

I'm not the one enslaving anyone... those who demand that work worth less than the statutory minimum be subsidized by the wages of those whose work is work more than the statutory minimum are the slave holders.

Why can't I just pay them what their work is worth?

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

You fat greedy old white Republican dudes have had it very well for many many years. Better than anyone else has. So now you gotta give a little back. Oh well, deal with it.

You're doing a good thing. I mean, when's the last time you guys did any good for anyone other than yourselves? So you'll pay workers a survivable wage now. It's about time.

Nothing but mawkish, ad-hominem, appeals to emotion.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

 

[LOki]

Already been explained numerous times.

No. You all present rationalizations for basing wages on anything but what the work is worth, but NOT ONCE have you explained why a workerscwages should not simply be based upon what the worker's work is worth.

So, you either pay, or just do the work yourself.

Who is talking about NOT paying?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

No one's pointing a gun to your head forcing you to hire workers.

No one is pointing a gun at people and forcing them to work.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Answer me Cupcake.

That's your call.

No. Apparently that is YOUR call.

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

Stop whining and just do the work yourself. Don't hire any workers. We'll see how far that gets you. Good luck.

If I wish to accept wages below the level you deem proper, upon what moral authority do you declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do you deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do you deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed is worth?

You fat greedy old white Republican dudes have had it very well for many many years. Better than anyone else has. So now you gotta give a little back. Oh well, deal with it.

You're doing a good thing. I mean, when's the last time you guys did any good for anyone other than yourselves? So you'll pay workers a survivable wage now. It's about time.

Now the real motivations, envy and revenge, come to light.

And the desire to lord over their fellows.

 

[Mr Natural]

IOW, don't create new jobs because they are too expensive, which is exactly what we've been saying all along. There's your impact of raising the MW. Business owners look at the cost and decide they don't want to pay it.

Business owners don't hire workers because they want to.

 

[hadit]

IOW, don't create new jobs because they are too expensive, which is exactly what we've been saying all along. There's your impact of raising the MW. Business owners look at the cost and decide they don't want to pay it.

Business owners don't hire workers because they want to.

Correct. They hire workers because the work those workers do makes the company more money than the cost of hiring that worker. Cost is much more than just what's in the paycheck, BTW. If the employer is forced to pay that worker more than the value of his work, he won't get hired.

 

[dblack]

IOW, don't create new jobs because they are too expensive, which is exactly what we've been saying all along. There's your impact of raising the MW. Business owners look at the cost and decide they don't want to pay it.

Business owners don't hire workers because they want to.

???

 

[LOki]

Which brings up racism. That's right; the minimum wage is racist. In this country minimum wage means being white is worth no less than $7.25/hr. How does this work? Like this: If 2 prospective employees--one black, one white, but otherwise equal--apply for a minimum wage job, Mr. AryanFront employer can hire white guy with a crew cut and golf shirt at no financial cost--none. He doesn't even have to worry about his competitors picking up the aspiring black worker for less, because they too have to pay him $7.25/hr. If this black worker were allowed to contract his labor for $5.00/hr, or $7.24 even, choosing the white guy would cost RacistJackass $2.25/hr (or $0.01 depending). Moreover, his competitors, if not racist, have the opportunity to hire the black worker at a cost advantage.

If you think this is not the case, you should check out how the white dominated unions in apartheid South Africa complained that the lack of minimum wage regulations led employers to hire cheap black laborers over better trained and better paid white folks. Which, coincidentally was exactly the same argument (check the congressional record) used by Robert Bacon when he wrote the Davis-Bacon Act (the first minmum wage law) in response to Southern contractors bringing black labor to a federal project in his Long Island district; a labor regulation which forces contractors engaged in government contracts to pay employees union wage scale (unions, which incidently were, at the time, usually exclusively white); effectively barring Southern blacks and immigrants from working on plush, government funded construction projects.

Minimum wage doesn't neccessarily have to be racist; on it's best day, minimum wage is only a state sponsored protection for older, higher paid workers from the competition of anyone who would accept less pay for the same work. The surprise for me was that though I understood that minimum wage and Davis-Bacon were, in observable and measurable effect, racist policies--I just had no idea that they were racist in intent.

So why is it that proponents for statutory minimum wage object to simply basing a worker's wage upon what the worker's work is worth? Why won't they explain their objection to us? Why don't they tell us the reason for refusing to explain their objection?

Maybe the answer is that they're racists. Maybe the're just ashamed to be outed so. Seems legit.

Angry greedy white Republican dudes are just plain ole assholes. Who cares if a McDonalds worker gets $15? Good for them. All the bitchin & moanin coming from the angry white dudes is ridiculous. Get a life for God's sake.

Entitled whiny libs want to be paid top dollar even when they have ZERO skills and can be replaced in about 10 seconds

Why don't all you burger baggers aspire to bigger and better things?

That's especially hilarious coming from entitled fat greedy old white Republican dude. No one in this country is more entitled than you. So quit your bitchin and pay up.

Sorry little sheep but I am not a republican.

And no one ever gave me anything. I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time right through my 30s. I paid my own bills and never sucked onthe public tit.

I risked everything we had to start a business 10 years ago and I do mean everything if we failed we would have been sleeping in our car.

So yeah I have a problem with whiny fucks like you who do absolutely nothing to improve themselves who risk nothing and yet cry that they deserve more.

If you want more get off your acre wide ass and get it yourself.

It's you folks who are doing all the whining. You don't wanna pay, don't hire workers. Do the work yourself. Problem solved. Case closed.

If I wish to accept wages below the level YOU deem proper, upon what moral authority do YOU declare it illegal for me to accept such wages? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny someone else my services? Upon what moral authority do YOU deny me that employment?

Upon what moral authority do YOU decide for OTHERS what their work (either offered or performed) is worth?