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

quote:

---

Ah who the frick am I kidding you probably wear velcro shoes

---

Just dropping in on page 18 to say that this comment is fricking awesome

quote:

---

we should expect work to meet that basic cost of living, whatever it is, so we do not have people meeting their nut through crime

---

You still haven't described what should be included in "that basic cost of living." You haven't even responded to the specific questions in my other posts. I'm very curious to hear your explanation of what should and should not be included in this cost of living I'm supposed to be covering as an employer.

quote:

---

we should expect work to meet that basic cost of living, whatever it is, so we do not have people meeting their nut through crime

You still haven't described what should be included in "that basic cost of living." You haven't even responded to the specific questions in my other posts. I'm very curious to hear your explanation of what should and should not be included in this cost of living I'm supposed to be covering as an employer.

---

Apparently you are to be covering this cost of living simply for the employee existing as a person. Not for the completion of some set of tasks. I believe we should change the word from "Hire" to "Adopt"

quote:

---

change the word from "Hire" to "Adopt"

---

That's not what they called it at the auctions. Remember, he likened employees to tractors. Equipment to be bought and sold and it's your responsibility to maintain it while you own it.

quote:

---

The fact that people have needs does not explain why it’s someone else’s obligation to meet those needs.

---

You are 100% correct. What you seem to be overlooking is that we do, as a society, meet those needs when the person is unable or unwilling to do so themselves. That is another debate but it is part of this debate....and I have said repeatedly that all social welfare spending should be limited to those who are truly in need of assistance, kids and the disabled. Most Americans are willing to chuck a few bobs in the bucket to help the truly needy. What we do not like is doing so for those capable of earning a living. Almost ALL social welfare spending in the US is based on employment...contrary to popular opinion almost all of it has a work requirement to be eligible. That money comes from tax-payers and allows low wage employees to survive and produce for their low wage employers. We are already spending the money...it would be far more efficient for it to come entirely from the employer who is in a better position to manage costs than the government is. It is a fantasy to think that low wage employees do not have a cost to taxpayers in a nation that has things like zoning ordinances, building codes and a host of things which drive up the cost of living. Short of low wage workers being eliminated somehow that cost exists, like it or not.

quote:

---

All you’re saying is that people want to exist so it’s someone else’s responsibility to guarantee that they can.

---

I am sure you aware of this but people DO exist. It is not a matter of them wanting to or not, they just do. I am equally certain that you are aware that we, as a nation, have accepted the responsibility to guarantee they can...we spend a lot of money doing exactly that. We are already doing this...it would be far more efficient to do it through wages than social programs. The costs already exist, we are already paying them...low wage people exist and are not vanishing....it will always be more efficient for employers and employees to come to terms that allow production than for government to be involved as it is today. But I get it, people have "value"....and if their value does not cover their nut they are just shite out of luck. The problem there is that when people are shite out of luck they will do what they have to in order to survive...that means crime, which is far more expensive than an increase in the cost of a fricking big mac.

quote:

---

You still haven't described what should be included in "that basic cost of living." You haven't even responded to the specific questions in my other posts. I'm very curious to hear your explanation of what should and should not be included in this cost of living I'm supposed to be covering as an employer.

---

Actually I have included what you and I are already paying for....it is the same for an employee as it is for any other item a business needs to produce. It is the same for a tractor or an employee....a place to store the tractor when it is not being used (housing) fuel for the tractor when it is being used (food) and maintenance of the tractor (healthcare) and transportation from storage to the place where production takes place. It is not rocket science.

We ALREADY foot the bill for the portion of these costs of production by low wage employees, at the cash register and when we pay taxes. This is inefficient. It would be FAR more efficient if those costs were covered entirely through wages because employers are far more efficient at managing costs than government employees are. Why this is SO controversial is beyond me. It is based in the misconception that low wage employees do not cost taxpayers anything if the taxpayer is not a customer. That simply is not the case. Low wage employees have a cost...it is currently met through wages and social benefits.

quote:

---

Why it is so controversial to state, unequivocally, that the best option for EVERYONE is for the costs of living be EARNED, not handed out and not stolen. Again, we are ALREADY paying for those who can't or won't. It is far more efficient for profit driven businesses to manage those costs than the government.

---

It's crazy that such a large percentage of Americans have been sold on the idea that they should pay 25% of fast food/walmart employees compensation and completely bought it.

quote:

---

I am not "for" living wages

---

quote:

---

It would be FAR more efficient if those costs were covered entirely through wages

---

You can't even see your own stupidity.

Do you cap what these employees are allowed to have? What if my employee decides he wants to move from a 2 bedroom house on a small lot to a 4 bedroom house on 10 acres? Do I have to pay for that now, since his cost of living just doubled or tripled? Can I tell them I'll pay for no more than a 1200 sq ft living space and .5 an acre?

What if my employee gets married, goes from childless to 3 kids, and now has an additional 4 mouths to feed? Am I only responsible for feeding him? Can I tell them I will only pay for a maximum of 2 dependents?

What if my employee goes from riding the bus to buy a four door dually? Can I tell them I will only pay a maximum of $50 a week for transportation?

Let me guess, just pass it on to the consumer? Great, now I have to increase my prices, which means I lose sales. Which means we all suffer. If only I'd been allowed to set my own wages and control rates to stay competitive...

quote:

---

It's crazy that such a large percentage of Americans have been sold on the idea that they should pay 25% of fast food/walmart employees compensation and completely bought it.

---

Most of them actually think that there are a bunch of people on the dole who are doing nothing all day but smoking and fricking. They refuse to acknowledge that almost every penny paid to individuals in the form of social welfare is only paid to individuals who have a job. I shouldn't use the work think because they are not thinking, they are reacting and repeating the same shite which has been demonstrably wrong since the first social welfare program started. It is steeped in mean spiritedness but the result is the mean spirited, unthinking goons are paying for low wage employers to live a lavish lifestyle. It is far meaner to expect a low wage employer to actually pay for their employees cost of production than it is to let them skate so you can bitch about social welfare spending but the latter is not efficient and causes all manner of ill shite.