• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Business Owner Backs the Law That Shut Her Down

aociswundumho

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
20,450
Reaction score
9,031
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

This is about the minimum wage hike in California:


Labor is a cost, and the lower the cost, the better. Using government laws to artificially raise the cost of labor in order to benefit "the worker" is as stupid as using the government to artificially raise the cost of rent in order to benefit landlords (which the idiot government does, btw, especially in California).


This imbecile "fully supports" the law which forced her to close her business.

All of her employees lost their jobs because of the law.

All of her customers can no longer enjoy going to her coffee shop because of the law.

All three groups are harmed by the law - the owner, the workers, and the customers.

Nobody benefits.
 
Uh, her shop was in Seattle.

California rejected a comparable wage law last fall.

I realize MAGA don’t actually read any of the articles they post since the headline is usually good enough to reinforce their narrative, but have you considered maybe devoting at least 30 seconds to reading your own links so that you don’t look quite so foolish? Or, was looking foolish the goal?
 
If you can't survive as a business without paying your workers enough to live, then we should take hard and serious looks at who owns most of the capital in this country, and why they own it.
 
Really sorry to hear that, but businesses in California, or anywhere, that exist because they exploit labor are really are not economically viable in their own right. Perhaps Walmart should think about restructuring as well since they rely of the exploitation of labor (and government subsidies in the form of many of their employees are on SNAP and Medicaid) to exist themselves.

Unfortunately too much of our economy involves businesses that pay their employees meager wages while the CEO's live in mega-mansions. We have an inequitable distribution of the spoils of a business, otherwise known as acute income (and wealth) disparity, which in the long-run undermines the security of all of us.

I am big believer that Trump is a consequence of the income/disparity, but hardly a solution as he is making it worse.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
If you can't survive as a business without paying your workers enough to live, then we should take hard and serious looks at who owns most of the capital in this country, and why they own it.
Click to expand...
All a business owner needs to do is pay an employee what they are worth...not what they need to survive.
 
So it turns out the entire OP was a big fabricated lie.


The business closed because it was sharing space with a florist that decided to go online, and the entire space got leased out. A Fox affiliate thought they would get more clicks by demonizing blue states, and true to form @aociswundumho bought it hook, line and sinker.
 
Ever and always the case. Its the people that act on ideals vs reality that end up ****ing it up for everyone...and often themselves.
 
Our family's business NEVER gave Minimum wage----always higher. No excuses..
 
Scatty Kitty said:
If you can't survive as a business without paying your workers enough to live, then we should take hard and serious looks at who owns most of the capital in this country, and why they own it.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Jesus, just imagine how many eggs a place like that would use in a day...
 

You can't blame private businesses for goverments handing out welfare.



You are never going to get wealth equality, no matter what you do.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
If you can't survive as a business without paying your workers enough to live,
Click to expand...

The employer doesn't care where the employee lives. He offers the same wage to the guy who still lives at home and the guy who spends 50% of his money on rent.

Scatty Kitty said:
then we should take hard and serious looks at who owns most of the capital in this country, and why they own it.
Click to expand...

Everybody owns capital in this country.
 
Pyrite said:
More than 50 years here as very small business owners/operators. We knew and know better than to stick it to our employees re wages and benefits.
Click to expand...

1. Because you were hiring skilled people.

2. Paying more for better people isn't based on altruism, it's based on greed, that's why Henry Ford paid such high wages. It wasn't because he was a nice guy.
 

If Walmart’s CEO took an $18M/year pay cut then that would allow paying each of Walmart’s 2M employees $9/year more.
 
Mycroft said:
All a business owner needs to do is pay an employee what they are worth...not what they need to survive.
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
Why?
Click to expand...

aociswundumho said:
The employer doesn't care where the employee lives. He offers the same wage to the guy who still lives at home and the guy who spends 50% of his money on rent.



Everybody owns capital in this country.
Click to expand...

Ah see. I'm going to group these comments together because they're just variations of the same thing. What you see is... you just don't have a good argument do you? Like do you not understand that arguing that there isn't any relationship for employers and employee is purely capitalistic is not how anything works? Especially when we realize that in order to be part of a industrialized economy, we need a nationhood to help communicate the needs of workers and employers. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally argue for serfdom or equivalent. And I'm sure the libertarians in all of you (with the exception of Taylor) wouldn't like that.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
Like do you not understand that arguing that there isn't any relationship for employers and employee is purely capitalistic is not how anything works?
Click to expand...

It's a business transaction, just like any other. The employee wants as much money as possible and the employer wants to pay as little as possible. Putting a limit on how cheap I may sell my own labor does not in any way make me better off.
 
aociswundumho said:
It's a business transaction, just like any other. The employee wants as much money as possible and the employer wants to pay as little as possible. Putting a limit on how cheap I may sell my own labor does not in any way make me better off.
Click to expand...

No but it begs a better question, with an argument like that what's the point in working? If anything you're making a pretty strong argument to steal stuff. If I'm using my labor time to make capital, then I'm better off maximizing my labor-time by stealing things. Or better yet, taking control of things from the boss.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
No but it begs a better question, with an argument like that what's the point in working?
Click to expand...

The point is to make money to pay your bills. If my skills can't justify whatever minimum wage is, then I can't legally work. A price floor on wages hurts those at the very bottom of the economic ladder.

Scatty Kitty said:
If anything you're making a pretty strong argument to steal stuff. If I'm using my labor time to make capital, then I'm better off maximizing my labor-time by stealing things. Or better yet, taking control of things from the boss.
Click to expand...

No, you're not better off stealing things, because if the owner catches you, you might get killed or maimed. If the cops catch you, the outcome could be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.