|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Has jeffersonclay hosed a watermelon? If he did, would it notice?
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:And to call a wage below that arbitrary threshold unethical? What if a company can't afford to pay to that arbitrary standard? The owner of that business is...what...unethical because she's not ingenious enough or working hard enough to provide for all the needs and wants of her employees? A business that cannot afford to pay its necessary labor sufficiently well that they can live on the proceeds of their work is economically unsupportable, and needs to be allowed to fail and be replaced with a more efficient enterprise that can. The sole exception to this is public services, whose wage gaps are properly subsudized directly from the public purse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can legislate a minimum wage. You can't legislate that companies hire employees at a loss. I'm sorry if reality gives you bad feelies but a minimum wage increase is likely to result in john's unemployment. The fun part about not hiring at a loss is that there is a floor beyond which a company simply cannot operate because they lack sufficient labor to perform their necessary functions. You know what we call refusing to make a profit because you could make a much larger profit if only those pesky real world limitations weren't in the way? Magical thinking. You should be familiar with it by now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The sources all support a safe, data-backed increase. Let's start there, measure the change, and implement another increase if the results were approximately null (as they always have been). We'll get to $15 eventually. Just theoretically, how do you want to quantify how soon it's okay to assume the results are true? Previously, this period has led to wage increases lagging behind inflation, leading to a decrease in actual wages and spending power as corporate profits skyrocketed. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's probably the most effective one, but we need stronger controls than 'when there's a consensus' on raising wages, given that the nature of economics and power politics means a full consensus is effectively impossible due to private agendas and idealogies being treated as factual evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Your point is taken, but I just wanted to point out that your transportation cost is pretty high, and that people who are on a budget don't need to pay that much. Pro tip for you, people at the poverty line don't get approved to lease cars at reasonable rates. Good rates on car leases require both good credit and a substantial (in comparison to their yearly take-home pay) deposit. Predatory lending targets these people with great fervror, from the used car lots selling ex-rentals for just below new on bi-weekly payment plans to the payday loan sharks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Is his argument that because a full time minimum wage worker is above a government set poverty threshold that there is no way anyone can be "working" and "poor"? No, his argument is that he's a fuckwit from a Nordic social democracy who has so deeply internalized the social safety net available in his homeland that he simply cannot conceptualize that a person with a full time job could be poor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:Yes? I was not aware that placing more money in the hands of a group who spend it immediately rather than tucking it away out of circulation would somehow hurt the economy. Please elaborate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 09:38
|
|