The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend

[beagle9]

The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend
It is already here, many hospitals have their staff on this type of schedule.

Wow, unbelievable... Now how will they ever make that rich man quota, and make it to the finish line for him by the weekend? No way if they are working like that anymore now is there?

They are going to come up a few million dollars short for him aren't they ?

You mean to tell me that he will have to postpone that birthday present he promised his spoiled rotten kid, for whom is twenty eight and still living at home on what he wanted ? You know that new Ferrari ? Well I'm just torn about all of this now.. LOL

 

[Andylusion]

To this date...... In 20 years of being on forums, I have never once seen a conservative, or right-wing person claim that "wealth is a symbol of moral perfection".

In 20 years, I have never heard a conservative "reflexively defending obvious corruption".

This is the difference.

Okay. But I have. I see it on here all the time. To be fair, they're usually responding to equally inane charges in the other direction, but it does happen. We push each other into ridiculous corners and make claims we think are protecting our position, when in fact they just make it seem unreasonably biased.

You must be talking about the fruity fringe. I exclude those people on both sides. There is always some quack somewhere saying something, not because they are actually believer in some cause, but just to freak people out.

On the other hand, if you are referring to two people who just start spewing at each other, and in their spit exchange, they become more outlandish, I get you there. But that's just because they are in a slug fest, and usually one is just being absurd to mock the other.

In both cases, I tend to just move on, and find more rational discussions.

I would maintain that what you described as outlandish on the left, is actually normal. I've been in, where the other side wasn't being a troll, and wasn't in a slug fest, and they truly were advocating that if a CEO makes a million bucks, then he is a cruel slave master stealing from his employees. They honestly believe, as a normal part of their ideology, that being wealthy in and of itself, means you are a thief.

I've never seen the opposite claim, that wealth is a symbol of purity or anything. Never seen it.

 

[Slyhunter]

The non working poor have iPhones, flat screen tv's, and fat bellies. Anyone with a little initiative and basic intelligence can make it in the US. Get off your ass and make it happen. The illegal aliens stand in front of Home Depot and make $100 a day
All the fat asses I see have plenty of food. Walmart is packed every day with working poor buying all kinds of crap

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart, and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?

First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.

Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com

The lowest earns $35K.

We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You are not poor. Sorry. You are disqualified from that label.

This is 'poor' in America.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

That's poor the rest of the world knows. That's northern India I believe.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.

If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'. By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.

We are not a third world country.
Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.

 

[Andylusion]

Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart, and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?

First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.

Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com

The lowest earns $35K.

We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You are not poor. Sorry. You are disqualified from that label.

This is 'poor' in America.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

That's poor the rest of the world knows. That's northern India I believe.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.

If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'. By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.

Now why would you make a claim that you know what the average truck driver makes, and this especially if you are an advocate of the free market system ? You see if the free market system was running independently and great just as it is supposed to be, then you wouldn't be able to make such a claim as this would you, and why is this, because it wouldn't be true would it? Example if a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ? To be able to come up with such numbers like you do, means it doesn't fit well with the free market system does it, and it doesn't fit well with it operating free and independently like it is supposed to be, so who is in favor of rate controls here for all drivers regardless of their companies worked for, is it you or is it me ? If a certified truck driver lived in your first picture, then who would have caused that to happen ? I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it, and not you and your way of thinking about what he or she should be making, and this regardless of their company worked for.. Will the real socialist/communist please stand up.

Well... given that I drove an 18-wheeler back in 2008, for Swift Transportation... yeah I kinda do know what the average truck driver makes given I was one.

Your argument is incoherent, or it is not being described well enough for me to follow. I'm not sure which.

How would I know what an average truck driver makes if I am an advocate of the free-market?

What does one have to do with the other? In a socialized system, you would find the average the same way. You add together the wages of all in a given employment, and divide by the number in the given employment.

This basic mathematical formula is not changed based on economic system.

If a truck driver worked for FedEx, and another truck driver worked for J.B Hunt, do you think that the two would average out to your theory of a truck driver making on average $42,000 dollars a year ?

Well obviously, if you look at two specific individuals, you tend to get outliers, rather than averages. The whole point of an average, is to get a birds eye look, rather than an individual wage.

That said, I punched in JB Hunt salary, and FedEx Salary. JB Hunt, the average Driver earns $40.2K a year. FedEx, the average over-the-road driver earns $22/hr, which is roughly $45K.

So to answer your question, yes, I think it would be close to the average.

I bet you could come up with a million excuses as to why it would be the driver that caused it

Well... yeah. I learned a long time ago, that where you are in life, and what situation you are in, is nearly entirely due to the choices that *YOU* make.

And, I have discovered in my own life, that generally this is true. There are exceptions, and things you have zero control over, but even then, how you react to the things you can't change, also determine your ultimate outcome.

 

[Andylusion]

Ok, for some reason your in Wal-Mart, and you see me there with my truck driver fat belly buying some supplies, and you figure by my looks that I am poor and have to be there. Ok meanwhile according to you the illegals who are Mexicans, are over there at Home Depot mopping up on the cash-eola, and I am the fool in the whole deal, so that's how you see it all in your mind?

First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.

Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com

The lowest earns $35K.

We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You are not poor. Sorry. You are disqualified from that label.

This is 'poor' in America.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

That's poor the rest of the world knows. That's northern India I believe.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.

If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'. By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.

We are not a third world country.
Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.

That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.

I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life. At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.

That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you just said was disgusting.

 

[sameech]

There should be no such thing as working poor, If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family. That's the way it should be. The so called American dream is empty margin.

I disagree. We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes. People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise. It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others. Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to. That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.

 

[Slyhunter]

First off, the average truck driver, earns $46K.

Truck Driver - Tractor Trailer Salary | Salary.com

The lowest earns $35K.

We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

If you earn $34K.... you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You are not poor. Sorry. You are disqualified from that label.

This is 'poor' in America.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

That's poor the rest of the world knows. That's northern India I believe.

Notice the power lines? The Air Conditioning? The Car? The plethora of clothes? The Satellite TV? The Telephone wires?

Oh wait.... these people are ACTUALLY poor, and don't have such high tech devices as a "door" to their 'home'.

If you work a full 40 hours a week in America, there is no legitimate way to claim you are 'poor'. By any reasonable definition, you are not poor.

We are not a third world country.
Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.

That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.

I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life. At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.

That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you just said was disgusting.

If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.

 

[Slyhunter]

There should be no such thing as working poor, If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family. That's the way it should be. The so called American dream is empty margin.

I disagree. We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes. People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise. It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others. Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to. That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

 

[sameech]

There should be no such thing as working poor, If you are working full time then one should have enough to eat, own a reliable vehicle, own a house, and have enough to raise a family. That's the way it should be. The so called American dream is empty margin.

I disagree. We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes. People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise. It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others. Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to. That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

 

[Andylusion]

We are not a third world country.
Living like they do in third world countries is why I'm against uncontrolled immigration.
If you're that poor you shouldn't be having kids.

That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.

I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life. At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.

That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you just said was disgusting.

If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.

The rich can't help the poor regardless. That's a myth.

What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.

The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.

 

[Slyhunter]

I disagree. We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes. People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise. It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others. Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to. That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

You are doing something, you are taking a job a working. The minimum anyone should get for working any job is a living wage. Otherwise you might as well not work at all. If you want more than that then you improve yourself.

 

[Slyhunter]

That is extremely elitist, and extremely superficial and bankrupt.

I know a guy right now, whose wife grew up completely impoverished, and she was the most nice, gentle, sweet woman you could have ever met in your life. At the same time, she was very smart, and worked very hard at the things she did.

That anyone can say that this woman should not have been born because her parents were dirt poor, is absolutely repulsive to me. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you just said was disgusting.

If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.

The rich can't help the poor regardless. That's a myth.

What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.

The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.

Let them stave.
Let them die.

 

[Andylusion]

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

You are doing something, you are taking a job a working. The minimum anyone should get for working any job is a living wage. Otherwise you might as well not work at all. If you want more than that then you improve yourself.

Gah. Two problems, and we've covered this a hundred times.

First... a living wage, is exclusively dependent on the individual. If you buy a new car, buy expensive phones with massive plans, and cable TV, and this and that and go out to eat every day, and drink beer, and smoke, and on and on and on.......

$50,000K might not be a 'living wage'.

On the other hand, I've seen people, and I myself, have lived on the minimum wage. In 2011, had a taxable income of just $12,000.... I lived.

Second... and I don't understand why you people don't get this. Decades ago, $5/hr, was "the living wage" people were aiming for. They got it, and the result was the new "living wage" was $7/hr. Now they have that. Now the new "living wage" is $10/hr? $15/hr?

Have you not noticed how every single time we raise the minimum wage, suddenly the "living wage" goes up?

What part this are not grasping? Every single time you raise the minimum wage, the ability to live on that wage goes down.

Why? Because the minimum wage causes inflation.

If the cost of labor goes up, that cost is passed right on to customers. The rising prices, make it so that even the higher wage is less 'livable'.

Additionally, raising the minimum wage kills jobs. So now they have a new higher wage, and unemployed. Sorta defeats the purpose.

 

[Andylusion]

If you're living on handouts you shouldn't breed more leaches. The rich can't help the poor if the poor keep multiplying and become an bottomless pit of helplessness.

The rich can't help the poor regardless. That's a myth.

What allows a person to be a leech, is society giving them stuff, which allows them to remain a leech.

The solution is not to say "You should be allowed to live"... the solution is simply to not give them stuff, and encourage them to work for a living.

Let them stave.
Let them die.

I didn't die. I didn't starve. Don't be an idiot.

Back in the 90s, the left said the same thing. We can't cut welfare and food stamps, people will die, people will starve.

Oops.... they got off their butts, and got jobs, just like the rest of us.

Show me the lines of people in the 90s that starved. Show me the dying people in the streets during the 90s.

In the 90s, welfare rolls dropped by not quite half. From just under 30K, to just over 15K.

They didn't die. They didn't starve. They got to work, and became productive members of society.

I don't where you people come up with this fabricated crap, but it's not true. People don't just die, if you kick them off handouts. Work or starve, is oddly a good motivator.

 

[beagle9]

I disagree. We should foster people having as much opportunity as we can afford to put out there, but we should not dictate outcomes. People should succeed or fail on their own merit otherwise. It is not up to society to micromanage the affairs of others. Some people just do not aspire to the same things that you think they should aspire to. That you apparently see success in mostly material things is the same mentality that causes so many people to fail--unending, ramped materialism.

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

 

[sameech]

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

"Fair" is subjective and meaningless. The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform. I started off making minimum wage. Some of the people I worked with still work there. They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make. Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer? They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.

 

[Slyhunter]

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

"Fair" is subjective and meaningless. The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform. I started off making minimum wage. Some of the people I worked with still work there. They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make. Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer? They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.

People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.

 

[dblack]

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

"Fair" is subjective and meaningless. The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform. I started off making minimum wage. Some of the people I worked with still work there. They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make. Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer? They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.

People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.

I suppose they should. Is it the responsibility of government to ensure these outcomes?

 

[sameech]

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

"Fair" is subjective and meaningless. The only thing "fair" is that they get paid what they agreed to be paid when they took the job and perform the work they agreed to perform. I started off making minimum wage. Some of the people I worked with still work there. They are making more than minimum wage, but I am make significantly more than MW and more than what they make. Why should what they think is "fair" count more than the fact that I went to college and then grad school while they drank beer? They should not be entitled to have what people who worked their way through college have because they sat on their hands.

People who went to college and got a degree, as long as it is in something employers want, should get paid more than those who don't. But the minimum anyone should get paid to work is a living wage.

sure because an 18 year old should at least be paid enough to mow grass to be able to afford a house in the suburbs, a new Volvo, and have enough left over to support a family of 4 just because somewhere some former Hostess factory worker now mows grass for a living

Give me a break.

 

[Andylusion]

What is the point of working if you don't earn a living. You may as well quit your job and live completely on handouts if that was your choice in life. You need incentive to work and that is a living wage.

Your post makes perfect sense if you believe that you are entitled to something, particularly other people's money, instead of having to improve yourself and your lot in life by your own efforts. Why bother going to college or working overtime, or getting additional training when all one needs to do is sit around all day whining about needing a living wage? Nothing like American democrats to turn Maslow's hierarchy into a single tier.

How do you get that the person is saying that they are entitled to something ? He is just saying that if he works a good day's work for someone, then he should at least get a fair days pay for it.

If he can't get a fair days pay for it, and this because their has become a trend of not paying a fair days pay for a fair days work even when it can be paid, then he is saying that it would be better for him to just go on welfare and such instead of getting crapped on by someone who is playing him for a fool.

Even the rich have learned the system, and they had begun paying in some situations way less, and it was all because they knew the government would subsidize the rest of the money if the employee was to stay around for them.

"A good day's work".

You can work really hard at something, and still earn nothing.

"Working" done not mean your work has value.

Who determines the value? The customer does.

How much the customer is willing to pay, determines how much the work is worth.

"A good day's work", does not have a pre-determined value.

It is incumbent on the worker, to move from doing work that has a low value, to work that has a higher value.

When you demand that people are paid more money, than the value of their work, one of three things will happen.

One: The customers refuse to pay for the higher labor costs, and the store or business closes.

Two: The business replaces the high cost labor, with low cost machines.

Three: The cost is passed on to consumers, the resulting inflation makes those with higher wages, just as poor as before.