Business Owner Backs the Law That Shut Her Down

[BitterPill]

MSN

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.

We in the MAGAsphere are ecstatic any time a DEI business owner and DEI her customers lose.

It is called WINNING!

MAGA.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

What your babble boils down to is you advocating for more government control over business. In other words...socialism.

 

[upsideguy]

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

You can blame them when there business model depends upon it...

You are never going to get wealth equality, no matter what you do.

Actually the remedy to wealth inequality is not wealth equality, its wealth equity..... a sensible distribution of the spoils of labor and capital. It is always going to be skewed, but it currently is not skewed justly. In the US it is skewed comparably to 3rd world countries, somewhat in line with Haiti. That is untenable. The remedy for it is reversing the cause, higher marginal tax rates and not allowing so much wealth to accumulate tax free. The Reagan tax cuts were at the beginning of the dramatic skewing of wealth.

 

[Gatsby]

MSN

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.

Fair enough. I'm in favor of people getting what they voted for. Same goes for Trump voters getting laid off from their government jobs. I honestly couldn't be happier for them.

 

[bongsaway]

MSN

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.

What I'm getting out of your post is typical republican shit, pay your employees as little as possible. Does the closing of one very small business negate the benefits to all the other minimum wage workers at bigger places of work?

 

[bongsaway]

MSN

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.

Should we also stop all the subsidies to multinational corporations Like Exxon/Mobil or farmers?

 

[Peter]

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.

I have a feeling the management wasn't on minimum wage and they got pay rises every year.
If minimum wage is good enough for the lower end staff maybe the management should be fine with it and see how they like it?

 

[aociswundumho]

You can blame them when there business model depends upon it...

It doesn't depend on it. Low paying jobs existed for hundreds of years before the welfare state came along.

Actually the remedy to wealth inequality is not wealth equality, its wealth equity..... a sensible distribution of the spoils of labor and capital.

Suppose we took all of the capital in the world, put it in one big pile, and then redistributed it equally among all 8 billion people. Within a week you would already have a group who were flat broke, and within a year you would have massive inequality.

 

[aociswundumho]

Should we also stop all the subsidies to multinational corporations Like Exxon/Mobil or farmers?

Yes, of course.

 

[Deuce]

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.



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.

Libertarians are people who take Econ 101 and think they know how an economy works.

Like someone who takes Physics 101 and thinks they can design a skyscraper.

 

[CimpleMan]

Upward pressure for the bottom wage earners means more tax dollars and less government subsidies for those wage earners. Governments should not be subsidizing businesses who can't pay employees enough for basic living expenses.

 

[upsideguy]

It doesn't depend on it. Low paying jobs existed for hundreds of years before the welfare state came along.

Yes, but the Walmart business model depends on its workers getting healthcare, and in some cases, food from the government. It allows it to pay substandard wages because the government shores it up. The remedy here is very simple, along the lines of the employee mandate. Tax the employers to the extent they page wages that would allow their employees to also collect government assistance. The employer can then decide whether they pay their employees directly or reimburse the government for their aid to the employees.

Suppose we took all of the capital in the world, put it in one big pile, and then redistributed it equally among all 8 billion people. Within a week you would already have a group who were flat broke, and within a year you would have massive inequality.

You completely missed my point. I am not one is talking about wealth equality (re-read my last post, it was very clear), I am talking about wealth equity; they are different things, hence your argument is moot as you are off topic. No one (at least I am not) suggesting the pie of prosperity be divided equally, just equitably. It needs to be done to sustain our economy and our culture.

The US has the worst wealth inequality among all industrial nations, meaning it does not have to be this way. The middle class in this country is disappearing. Since the middle class is the consumer class, this is very bad for our economy in the long run. Its already shown its effect in American politics, steering us away from democracy. Here to the fix is pretty easy and relies on free enterprise to take us away from the situation. We simply set the highest marginal rate at about 50%, restructure capital gains so it only pays for direct, at risk investments (not investing in the stock market), with a tax rate closer to 15%.... this will shift the mentality away from earning salary today in favor of investing in our economy long-term.

http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauren...um-income-inequality-capitalism/#47da486d5dd3

The 4 biggest reasons why inequality is bad for society

It’s safe to say that economic inequality bothers us. But why? Harvard philosopher T. M. Scanlon offers four reasons we should tackle — and fix — the problem.

ideas.ted.com

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/09/the-problem-with-wealth-inequality/

Why income inequality is bad for growth

The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and...

www.weforum.org

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/political-issue-wealth-gap

6 facts about economic inequality in the U.S.

Over the past 50 years, the highest-earning 20% of U.S. households have steadily brought in a larger share of the country’s total income.

www.pewresearch.org

Jefferson feared that it would only be a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into a form of

Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be...

oll.libertyfund.org

 

[LouC]

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?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

All a business owner needs to do is pay an employee what they are worth...not what they need to survive.

A dead employee is not worth very much

 

[Mycroft]

A dead employee is not worth very much

Stupid remark.

 

[LouC]

All a business owner needs to do is pay an employee what they are worth...not what they need to survive.

Who is the one that decides that?

 

[LouC]

A dead employee is not worth very much

A dead employee doesn't need to be paid.

MAGA!!!

 

[Peter]

It doesn't depend on it. Low paying jobs existed for hundreds of years before the welfare state came along.



Suppose we took all of the capital in the world, put it in one big pile, and then redistributed it equally among all 8 billion people. Within a week you would already have a group who were flat broke, and within a year you would have massive inequality.

There is absolutely no way you can back that assertion with any sort of facts.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Stupid remark.

Certainly not

An employee who cant afford food won't be a good worker

 

[Mycroft]

Certainly not

An employee who cant afford food won't be a good worker

If the employee can't earn enough money to buy food, they need to either find a better job, get more jobs or upgrade their skillset.

 

[Peter]

If the employee can't earn enough money to buy food, they need to either find a better job, get more jobs or upgrade their skillset.

And if it's the only employer in town?

 

[CimpleMan]

If the employee can't earn enough money to buy food, they need to either find a better job, get more jobs or upgrade their skillset.

35% of Households live paycheck to paycheck. Not enough jobs paying enough for your example be a reality for most.

Upgrade their skills? Not so simple either.

 

[Mycroft]

35% of Households live paycheck to paycheck. Not enough jobs paying enough for your example be a reality for most.

My conversation isn't about "live paycheck to paycheck". It's about dying because of lack of food.

Upgrade their skills? Not so simple either.

Why should it be simple?

 

[CimpleMan]

My conversation isn't about "live paycheck to paycheck". It's about dying because of lack of food.

Used the paycheck number to make a point about finding jobs that pay enough. 26% of households use 95% of their income to pay for necessities. Not enough jobs out there for everyone not making enough to switch to. Jobs need to pay more regardless of skill level.

Wouldn't you rather businesses pay enough for employees to afford food, shelter, and Healthcare than have government subsidize?

 

[Scatty Kitty]

I have a feeling the management wasn't on minimum wage and they got pay rises every year.
If minimum wage is good enough for the lower end staff maybe the management should be fine with it and see how they like it?

I can imagine she went out of business because she ate so much avocado toast.