- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California’s $20 fast food minimum wage balloons menu prices
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:20 pm to AlterDWI
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:20 pm to AlterDWI
quote:That does not defeat them. These min wage increase supporters are ostensibly setting the bar roundabout the cost of living. The pay level below which a person working full time would still be a burden on the welfare/entitlement system (taxpayers). Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer?
This is every minimum wage debate in history.
The supporters are always defeated by reductio ad absurdum: "If we really want to help people - why stop at $20/hr? Why not $50/hr or $100/hr?
6
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:22 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer?
Because it will just be passed on to the consumer regardless. You liberals live in a fantasy land where businesses won't pass on costs to teh consumer. My taxes will not go down if these loser workers get paid more, and I will have to pay more on top of it.
Who would support that deal?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:24 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer
Is that a serious question?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:27 pm to Korkstand
quote:
The pay level below which a person working full time would still be a burden on the welfare/entitlement system (taxpayers). Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer?
If society agrees that a full time worker deserves some sort of bare minimum standard of living, then society should collectively pay for that via welfare, EITC, universal basic income, etc.
Why do you think employers should be mandated to pay more than the what the employee produces?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 3:27 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer?
Because its completely arbitrary and not quantifiable. If Karen chooses to blow her money on accessories and vodka thats on her.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 4:04 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why shouldn't that cost, the cost of the employee surviving to work another day, be borne by the employer?
Because the work they do is not worth that much if the government didn’t arbitrarily set it as such.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 4:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:
These min wage increase supporters are ostensibly setting the bar roundabout the cost of living.
Government interference in the market does nothing but manipulate the free-market, which then affects everything else.
So we don’t know what the “cost of living” would be in a true free market.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News