- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: The idea anyone is entitled to a "livable wage" is Ludacris
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:41 pm to LSUAlum2001
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:41 pm to LSUAlum2001
quote:
Minimum wage jobs were always menial jobs that never were a path to a livable wage.
They were always a stepping stone, not an island to plant your flag on.
But, here we are, with a large percentage of our population with zero skills to move higher up the job chain.
The problem has NOTHING to do with skills, education, drive. It is merely an economic issue. IF your business relies on unskilled, low life, no drive, no educated people those people have a minimal cost of living in order to produce whatever it is they produce for your business and your customers. You and your customers SHOULD be fully expected by the rest of us to foot those costs yourself. You should be ashamed to come to us, hat in hand, and ask us to help a brother out. Instead, you, the low wage employer (not you, a generic low wage employer), enjoy our largesse.
3
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:42 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
You and your customers SHOULD be fully expected by the rest of us to foot those costs yourself.
End all entitlement programs and get back to me on this.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:57 pm to stuckintexas
quote:
So... slavery. Spoken like someone who has never owned or operated a business. I provide plenty of opportunities to employees, and a TON of benefits as a choice. I foot the bill for all of that. If a lower paid employee chooses to buy starbucks/beer/cigarettes/scratchoffs every day and can't afford his utility bill, thats not my problem. By your example, breakfast and lunch should be provided every day. Underwear, socks, pants, and boots should be provided in addition to uniform shirts and PPE. Company cards for gas to and from work.
There's a thing called personal responsibility. I don't control what employees choose to do on their own time, how they spend their money, or how they live their life.
I already pay a shite ton in taxes and insurance. Income tax, payroll taxes, commercial and private property taxes, franchise tax, general liability insurance, umbrella insurance, workers comp insurance, commercial auto insurance, 50% of health/vision/dental/life/supplemental insurance for employees, matching 401k investments. Now you want to just point the finger at me for their circumstances and say they're my fault? GTFO
First off your employees EARN every penny of payroll taxes...you do not pay any of it out of your pocket, if you are running a viable business, every cent of it is the cost of having an employee just like wages and benefits. If you are paying ANY portion of your employees payroll taxes and not passing those costs onto your customers you are not managing your business correctly. I would posit that only someone who has never owned or operated a business would write such tripe but I know that many business owners like to pretend that payroll taxes and benefits are not simply total wages and the costs passed onto customers.
It is NONE of anyone's business what an employee does with their money. If they but Starbucks and cigarettes that is their right as a human being. IF you are paying for the entirety of their production costs you are doing what you would expect anyone else to do. However, if they are all on welfare and public assistance like many fast food and other low wage employers employees are you are benefitting from social spending, period, end of sentence. Just own it, you are a welfare queen. No one is expecting an employee to dictate how their employees live, society does that. The employers responsibility is to pay the employee enough so they are not a burden on taxpayers. Do that and you are golden. Do not do it and you are a welfare recipient, period, end of sentence.
Are you suggesting that your employees do not EARN the entire amount it costs you to keep them employed? If so, you really should cut them loose....you ain't going to make it financially long. Of course they earn every penny and if they do not do so for long you cut them loose as you should, unless of course you are a complete idiot.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:00 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
well said. I dont know why some people are happy with subsidizing these companies
If I started a lawnmowing business and said I wanna charge people $20 to mow their yards but that was only possible If I could pay my employees $4 an hour and TigerDroppings picked up the tab for their rent/food costs, everyone would think it was asinine and that I need to charge more than $20 per yard. But when the government takes your money and uses it to subsidize walmart/mcdonalds employees so that they can charge less for a Big Mac they are fine with it for some reason
It is the result of a multitude of issues but among them are included a lack of basic economic knowledge, a misconception that it is possible to not work and live large in the US if you are not wealthy (it is not, 80-85% of social spending recipients work full time, the others are either disabled or to young to work), and finally just pure meanness.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:01 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
You should be ashamed to come to us, hat in hand, and ask us to help a brother out. Instead, you, the low wage employer
, am not the one coming to you asking for a handout. That would be the
quote:
unskilled, low life, no drive, no educated people
asking for the handout.
I have guys making min. wage. I also have guys making over $100k. I'll tell you the same thing I told the other guy that doesn't understand how a business works: Let me know when you start your own company, and I'll come work for you.
quote:
The problem has NOTHING to do with skills, education, drive
You could not be more wrong with this statement.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:01 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
IF your business relies on unskilled, low life, no drive, no educated people those people have a minimal cost of living in order to produce whatever it is they produce for your business and your customers. You and your customers SHOULD be fully expected by the rest of us to foot those costs yourself.
Explain how the bolded part is the responsibility of some party who is simply paying you to perform a set of tasks.
If person A just wants person B to sweep the floors for a few hours, by what mechanism does person A become responsible for person B’s ability to exist? And who exactly is responsible for person B’s existence prior to person A entering the picture?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:04 pm to carhartt
Then you don't understand the basic meaning of minimum wage
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:04 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
End all entitlement programs and get back to me on this.
Name an "entitlement" program which does not require the recipient being employed. Almost every one has an income requirement to be "entitled"...and income means employment.
But I agree 100%..."entitlement" programs are the conduit that connects tax payers with low wage employers so the latter can suck some money out of your wallet...you have made my point far more succinctly than I ever could...
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:06 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Name an "entitlement" program which does not require the recipient being employed. Almost every one has an income requirement to be "entitled"...and income means employment.
But I agree 100%..."entitlement" programs are the conduit that connects tax payers with low wage employers so the latter can suck some money out of your wallet...you have made my point far more succinctly than I ever could...
So government mandated minimum wages are the answer that surely won't lead to further inflation
Also, there is currently no work requirement for SNAP in many area of Louisiana. Took two seconds to find that example, and I'm sure there are many more LINK
This post was edited on 4/3/24 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:11 pm to Dadren
quote:
Explain how the bolded part is the responsibility of some party who is simply paying you to perform a set of tasks.
It is not anyone else's responsibility other than the employee and the employer. That is the point. Our society is based, at its foundation, in the concept that we earn a living. There are a couple of ways to do that - employment, crime or being on the dole. There is no free lunch, someone has to pay. Employment is proven to be far and away better than the other 2. No matter how the living is earned, however, work, crime or the dole, we all pay for it in some manner. It would be far better for employees to do so than any other answer or combination...because the bill is being paid, one way or another.
This would also allow those who are actually capable of managing a business and cover their expenses through revenue alone and not through subsidies to drive the morons who can't do so out of business AND pay less in taxes in the process. Why this is so counter intuitive to so many people is beyond me...it is simple, basic economics...there is no free lunch, someone has to pay...better the employer than the taxpayer.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:23 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So government mandated minimum wages are the answer that surely won't lead to further inflation
NOoooooo...the obvious flip side is that there is no "minimum" wage...because there is no "minimum" employee...all employees have differing needs whose costs must be met, either through working, crime, or being on the dole. If you can manage your business with high school kids who have no living expenses good for you, god bless, go forward and be fruitful. If, however, you have an employee whose expenses are more than another employees YOU should be expected by the rest of us to foot those costs entirely out of your revenue. That is the basis of managing a business. The VAST majority of business owners do just that....their employees ain't committing crime and ain't on the dole to make their nut...they make their nut through their employment.
There is a minimal cost of living, based on location and the individual's circumstances. The individual HAS to have that expense covered. There is only 3 ways I am aware of for that to happen, employment, crime, or being on the dole. Taxpayers are already paying that minimal cost of living...whatever it is, either through taxation OR when they buy things from business owners who know what their costs are and manage those costs themselves with no reliance on taxpayer subsidy...in other words the VAST majority of employers.
A Big Mac costs whatever it costs at the register. There is also a cost to the taxpayer, whether he or she eats the Big Mac or not, because McDonalds seems to be of the opinion that they need employees to sell the Big Mac while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that they, McDonalds, is not covering the actual costs of those employees production. McDonalds is ALSO paying taxes...for some reason instead of simply paying their employees what it costs for their employees to produce. It is basic economics...there is no free lunch...someone has to pay.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:24 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
If you can manage your business with high school kids who have no living expenses good for you, god bless, go forward and be fruitful. If, however, you have an employee whose expenses are more than another employees YOU should be expected by the rest of us to foot those costs entirely out of your revenue.
Some might argue flipping burgers is something that no one should be doing beyond high school. Why are adults working there?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:33 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Also, there is currently no work requirement for SNAP in many area of Louisiana. Took two seconds to find that example, and I'm sure there are many more LINK
That is why I wrote "Name an "entitlement" program which does not require the recipient being employed. Almost every one has an income requirement to be "entitled"...and income means employment". The decision to temporarily suspend those requirements, especially in the case of SNAP, is made to provide food to those who are not currently employed in an area where unemployment is higher....it is not made so folks can sit on their arse and have food...and it is not the case in the majority of counties in the United States, only those where unemployment is unlikely but hunger is a stark reality. Almost ALL of the money we spend on SNAP is based on children and the disabled...oh, the horror, of the wealthiest nation on earth feeding kids and the disabled....what in the world are we thinking????
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:34 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
If, however, you have an employee whose expenses are more than another employees YOU should be expected by the rest of us to foot those costs entirely out of your revenue.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:36 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
That is why I wrote "Name an "entitlement" program which does not require the recipient being employed. Almost every one has an income requirement to be "entitled"...and income means employment". The decision to temporarily suspend those requirements, especially in the case of SNAP, is made to provide food to those who are not currently employed in an area where unemployment is higher....it is not made so folks can sit on their arse and have food...and it is not the case in the majority of counties in the United States, only those where unemployment is unlikely but hunger is a stark reality. Almost ALL of the money we spend on SNAP is based on children and the disabled...oh, the horror, of the wealthiest nation on earth feeding kids and the disabled....what in the world are we thinking????
Whole lot of words just to be wrong.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:40 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
I would posit that only someone who has never owned or operated a business would write such tripe
Have you read your own posts?
quote:
It is NONE of anyone's business what an employee does with their money.
And it's none of your business what I do with mine. You keep using this term "low wage employer" as if someone who DARES pay someone what a job is worth is a disservice to the community. I'm going to pay a guy that sweeps the floors and cleans the trucks minimum wage. Journeymen electricians in my company are averaging $75k/year. Foremen making $85k/year. Oh my gosh, a few guys that work for me that can barely read or write are making minimum wage!!!!
quote:
Are you suggesting that your employees do not EARN the entire amount it costs you to keep them employed?
Are you suggesting I'm responsible for paying for every aspect of their entire life in order to meet your criteria of a good employer?
Employee A - fresh out of high school, rides a bike to work, packs his own lunch. Lives with a couple of friends. Does just fine while he's making minimum wage. Will probably move up, and recognizes it's an investment in his future.
Employee B - forty year old, 3 kids with 2 different women, beat up car, got laid off from a lawn business. Is behind because he got a payday loan and can't pay the interest. Says he's too old to learn a new trade but needed something to get through the offseason.
Employee C - 23 year old married receptionist, answers phones and talks about her new puppy constantly, good at her job but could be better. Only works because she likes to shop. Isn't interested in taking on additional admin responsibilities like bookkeeping.
How are any of these situations remotely similar? I'm supposed to look at the personal circumstances of each individual and say, "Hmmm B is really struggling. I should pay him more even though he isn't doing anything different than A." I'm not responsible for anyone's circumstances. Go find a different job, go get a second job, go without netflix and xbox live, I don't care. Pay is based on skill, not just because someone needs it more than another employee or has shitty circumstances in their personal life. At the same time, C could earn more even though she doesn't need it she was willing to learn something new or was more accurate in gathering info and relaying messages. Just because she isn't a drain on society, and it's disposable income to her, am I still a "low wage employer" by paying her minimum wage to answer phones?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:42 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
It is not anyone else's responsibility other than the employee and the employer.
But why would it be the employer’s responsibility? And, again, if the employer was not in the picture, whose responsibility would it be?
quote:Emphasis is mine, because that word is important. Earning a living is not the same as being provided one by your employer and I believe you may be conflating the two.
Our society is based, at its foundation, in the concept that we earn a living.
quote:
Employment is proven to be far and away better than the other 2. No matter how the living is earned, however, work, crime or the dole, we all pay for it in some manner.
Employment is better because it’s the only scenario where you’re making the beneficiary actually do something of value….
Unless you do what you’re suggesting and have employers pay people regardless of the value they add. Your idea of employment is no different than being on the dole.
quote:
This would also allow those who are actually capable of managing a business and cover their expenses through revenue alone and not through subsidies to drive the morons who can't do so out of business AND pay less in taxes in the process. Why this is so counter intuitive to so many people is beyond me...it is simple, basic economics
That’s basic economics….on how to screw up an economy.
You’re suggesting introducing arbitrary price floors (for labor) and you’re selling the fact that you’ll run people out of business as an upside? Bruh.
Here’s a better idea, get rid of the subsidies and don’t have a minimum wage, and let everything function the way it naturally would. Why would that be a problem?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:43 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Some might argue flipping burgers is something that no one should be doing beyond high school. Why are adults working there?
First reason that jumps immediately to mind is flipping burgers starts about 10 am unless the place sells breakfast also and most kids are in school at 10 AM about 9 months out of 12......
Second reason is that flipping Hamburgers lasts until around 9 or so at night with another hour of cleaning up afterwards so 10 or so and again, most kids, in school 9 months out of 12, are about to get into bed or have hopefully spent some time studying from the time they got out of school until bedtime.
Third reason is MOST kids wouldn't have a job if it paid $75 an hour...because they are fricking kids. They're are about 17 million kids between the ages of 15 and 19 in the US. They're are about 4 million fast food workers, 30% of whom are between the ages of 15 and 19. You'd have to ask the fast food industry why they employ 70% adults but I would posit that the first 2 reasons play a major role in their decision to do so....
The reason fast food employs so many adults and why so many adults work in fast food is the business of fast food restaurants and their employees. It is also not germane...if you can man your restaurant with teens you and them should be allowed to come to terms as far as wages are concerned without interference from anyone, government or individual.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:46 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Whole lot of words just to be wrong.
Look, I get it that you resent the miniscule amount of money you pay to the state and IRS to feed kids and the disabled....the world is full of mean assed bastards. Why you go from that sick world view to one where it is OK for you to be charged for the food eaten by kids and the disabled because low wage employers refuse to pay that themselves is beyond me...but you do you boo, you ain't alone...the world is full of mean hearted motherfrickers....
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:47 pm to Dadren
quote:
Here’s a better idea, get rid of the subsidies and don’t have a minimum wage, and let everything function the way it naturally would. Why would that be a problem?
The dems would lose a voting block.
I'm really getting a kick out of this guy spouting theories that have been pounded into him by people that have never run a business in their lives.
Those same people have an ulterior motive for their "beliefs".
Page 14 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News