- 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: The idea anyone is entitled to a "livable wage" is Ludacris
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:48 pm to AwgustaDawg
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:48 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
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....
Nice emotional response when you have no facts to stand on.
0
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:51 pm to stuckintexas
quote:
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?
What I am suggesting is that we, as a nation, should eliminate almost all social welfare spending with the exception of children and the disabled, 2 groups the majority of Americans agree we should help if we can, eliminate minimum wages....because there is no such thing, every situation is different, and expect the few employers who refuse to foot the cost of their employees production out of their revenue to do what the VAST majority of employers do without a second thought. It is simply the basis of economics...there is no free lunch, someone has to pay.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:52 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
and expect the few employers who refuse to foot the cost of their employees production out of their revenue to do what the VAST majority of employers do without a second thought
So permitted lemonade stand worker should make a "living wage"
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:55 pm to Dadren
quote:
xplain 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?
Its really simple my friend, employment in the US is based on 40 hours a week over 5 days out of 7. If person B is sweeping floors 2 hours a week person A should pay person B 5% of what those 2 hours production costs person A. Person A is not responsible for person B's remaining 95%....that is on person B.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:56 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
employment in the US is based on 40 hours a week over 5 days out of 7.
There are so many professions that don't follow this. It is impossible t take anything you say seriously.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:57 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
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
So, if we all just paid our employees more, all hunger and disabilities would go away? WTF are you even trying to say here?
Again, I said earlier that I'd come to work for you if you started a business. You keep mouthing off about how to run a successful business and acting like you already have one. So, do you? What is it? When can I start? What am I gonna be doing in my entry-level job? I'm really looking forward to you supporting my entire lifestyle. My wife(no pics) has 14 horses. They're expensive to feed.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:57 pm to stuckintexas
quote:
The problem has NOTHING to do with skills, education, drive
You could not be more wrong with this statement.
Please, please explain how skills, education or drive has ANYTHING at all to do with the fact that every person in this country has a minimal cost of living? I won't hang up and listen because I know you know better unless you are dumber than a sack of rocks...
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:59 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
quote:
employment in the US is based on 40 hours a week over 5 days out of 7.
There are so many professions that don't follow this. It is impossible t take anything you say seriously.
There are absolutely many, many professions that do not do this...but it is the standard. The average American adult works 38.7 hours a week....
Posted on 4/3/24 at 1:59 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Please, please explain how skills, education or drive has ANYTHING at all to do with the fact that every person in this country has a minimal cost of living?
Because someone who isn't disabled and doesn't have at least one of those three traits should be entitled to nothing. Rewarding laziness is a fool's game. Probably why you are so loudly for it.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:00 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
.but it is the standard.
Because you say so?
quote:
The average American adult works 38.7 hours a week....
I'd be more interested in the mean over the average, but I don't want you to put too much effort into your posting
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:02 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So permitted lemonade stand worker should make a "living wage"
If they are an employee their employer should be expected by the rest of us to pay for the employees cost of production from the revenue of their business, period. There should be very limited welfare, limited to kids and the disabled, no minimum wage, and no taxpayer subsidies to employers who refuse to foot the bill for their employees production. How y'all have an issue with any of that is beyond me...
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:03 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
How y'all have an issue with any of that is beyond me...
Probably because you won't allow the lazy losers to die off as they would in your hypothetical world.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:03 pm to cypresstiger
quote:
Ludacris
--lern ta spel
That part was a joke.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:09 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
I'd be more interested in the mean over the average, but I don't want you to put too much effort into your posting
Not much effort to know you don't understand the meaning of the two terms...
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:11 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Probably because you won't allow the lazy losers to die off as they would in your hypothetical world.
I am perfectly fine with the lazy losers dying off my friend, I hate it for them but they are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't cost me anything. Our society, on the other hand, is probably not willing to stand idly by and let them die off from laziness because most of them will turn to crime to make their nut and that does cost us all....but if a person chooses to simply die from hunger or exposure I applaud that decision even though I don't understand it...I am even OK with them living under bridges if they want...
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:14 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Not much effort to know you don't understand the meaning of the two terms...
By all means, deflect some more.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:14 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
ur society, on the other hand, is probably not willing to stand idly by and let them die off from laziness because most of them will turn to crime to make their nut
Guess we'll just have to enforce the laws. But your type doesn't like that either. You are so full of shite
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:16 pm to stuckintexas
quote:
So, if we all just paid our employees more, all hunger and disabilities would go away? WTF are you even trying to say here?
Again, I said earlier that I'd come to work for you if you started a business. You keep mouthing off about how to run a successful business and acting like you already have one. So, do you? What is it? When can I start? What am I gonna be doing in my entry-level job? I'm really looking forward to you supporting my entire lifestyle. My wife(no pics) has 14 horses. They're expensive to feed.
You are confusing lifestyle with living my friend and doing so very publicly and vocally...therefore your request for employment is denied based on the fact that you lack reasoning skills. I will give you another shot though because I am a good hearted person....where is the lack of logic in ending almost all social welfare other than that which goes to kids and the disabled, ending minimum wage and, as a society, expecting the relatively few bad actor employers to do what the vast majority of employers do and that is foot the bill for their employees production out of their businesses revenue? By far MOST employers do this...they do it because they can't imagine NOT doing it...because they are not welfare recipients.
Can't do it, can you??? I am right, aint I???
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:18 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Guess we'll just have to enforce the laws. But your type doesn't like that either. You are so full of shite
The type of person who expects employers to pay their own bills, who has said repeatedly that we should severely cut social spending and eliminate minimum wages is the kind of person who doesn't expect laws to be enforced? Please, please explain that leap of logic...this should be good....
Posted on 4/3/24 at 2:19 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
The type of person who expects employers to pay their own bills, who has said repeatedly that we should severely cut social spending and eliminate minimum wages is the kind of person who doesn't expect laws to be enforced? Please, please explain that leap of logic...this should be good....
You aren't the type of person you claim to be.
Page 15 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News