Started By
Message

re: The idea anyone is entitled to a "livable wage" is Ludacris

Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:01 pm to
Posted by saint tiger225
San Diego
Member since Jan 2011
37422 posts
Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:01 pm to
I agree. I think it's a combo of the extreme left politics of places like Cali and the cost of living as well.

Sad to see people don't want to better themselves though. I've always thought jobs like that should be something more for highschool and college kids, unless you're someone running it.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
67447 posts
Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:17 pm to
quote:

I've always thought jobs like that should be something more for highschool and college kids, unless you're someone running it.


you think jobs that happen during high school hours should be for high schoolers?
Posted by AwgustaDawg
CSRA
Member since Jan 2023
7427 posts
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:03 pm to
quote:

I agree. I think it's a combo of the extreme left politics of places like Cali and the cost of living as well.

Sad to see people don't want to better themselves though. I've always thought jobs like that should be something more for highschool and college kids, unless you're someone running it.


It has nothing to do with someone wanting to better themselves or not. The business model of low wage employers relies on subsidies from taxpayers to their employees to remain viable. There is no free lunch, regardless of whether or not a person wants to better themselves.

If you own a business that requires a tractor in order for your business to be viable you will be fully expected to pay for the cost of that tractors production from the revenue of your business. You will provide storage for that tractor when it is not being used. You will provide fuel for that tractor. You will provide maintenance for that tractor. You will, by necessity, pass the entirety of those costs onto your customers.

In the United States IF your business relies on labor to be viable you can decide to simply refuse to pay for a large amount of those costs and the taxpayers will subsidize your business because we like nice things like running water and sewers. It would be FAR better if the employee earned their entire cost of living and the employer managed their business in a manner that REQUIRED them to recover those costs from actual customers.

There is no free lunch, someone has to pay. If a business requires labor to be viable the business should be expected to pay for the entirety of the lunch.

If we truly are addicted to low wage employers paying low wages we are going to have to consider reducing our expectations for nice things like decent housing, sewers, police and fire protection, a viable military....all manner of shite that costs a heaping pile of money. We will have to have some housing that is affordable so we will have to stop looking down our noses at people living in tents under overpasses. Folks are going to frick and have babies so we will have to adjust our expectations and allow those babies to run amuk in the streets like kids did in the 19th century. We will have to grow to accept folks shitting in the gutters, pissing wherever their bladder gets full...it will be great....all so a McDonald's Franchisee can live a lavish lifestyle and sell big macs cheaper. There ain't no free lunch...if we expect people to live a certain way, in a structure and with plumbing etc, there is a cost associated with those expectations.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram