- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop?
Corporations are not people. Only people are people. Corporations are organizations.
I'm under no obligation to quit; the owner(s) are obligated to quit using me or other workers to form one opinion or belief.
Corporations are organizations that are run by people. If those people running the organizations want to use those organizations to push a political agenda, they should be able to. If you dont like it, dont work there. Businesses typically domt engage openly in politics because it isnt beneficial most of the time, but its their business and if they want to take that risk they should be able to.
The most interesting thing about this debate for me is that the people who oppose it the most seem to miss the bigger picture. Before the Citizens United ruling wealthy Americans had a somewhat greater influence on the national political discourse because they, as individuals, had far more money to throw at politics than the average American. The Citizens United decision breaks down the wall that prohibited groups of individuals from political expression. While in the process the decision had to allow all associations equal first amendment protection (be they corporate, union or, in the case of CU, voluntary private associations). What CU does is give more power to the private citizen as it allows them to organize and affect government policy in many ways formerly proscribed by law.
But many people seem to want to inflict harm on their own personal liberties purely to spite "corporations", while not actually affecting the political influence of corporate leadership -- who individually have far more money to throw at politics than the average person -- in any meaningful way.
I'm OK with the market setting wages and unskilled positions not making 50k/year - which is the "living wage" in my area.
Sounds like So Cal rents.
$1000+ a month.
So the minimum wage folks have about $240 a month for EVERYTHING else.
Sounds like So Cal rents.
$1000+ a month.
So the minimum wage folks have about $240 a month for EVERYTHING else.
If they choose to live alone.
Presuming they can find a place that will rent to more than one
and they have rented enough money to have an adequate credit score.
Which is why minimum wage was meant for teenagers so they can afford XBox. If your argument is that minimum wage should be high enough that a McDonald's cashier can afford to live alone in San Diego then I would like to give you a lesson in supply and demand.
No. Their interpretation of the Constitution. That is the point. You are indicating that their ruling is accurate. I pointed out that this is not always so. That's what.
I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.
Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:
Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.
Is that typically a problem? I've never heard of it being, but then, though I've rented in many different cities, I've never rented in SoCal. I would be floored if it's really hard to do.
I do know tons of people in LA with roommates, though.
They aren't going to get an apartment by themselves if they don't, so it's a moot point.
In N Out Burger pays well over minimum wage to start and provides benefits, so it CAN be done profitably.
They're also minimalist on everything else. Kind of their claim to fame.
Not sure where they're more "minimalist" than McDonalds or Jack in the Box.
They have a very limited menu.
I never said they weren't busy.
In N Out Burger pays well over minimum wage to start and provides benefits, so it CAN be done profitably.
And yet people with more "complicated" jobs deserve less money?
And yet people with more "complicated" jobs deserve less money?
Which brings us back to "work somewhere else, then".
You are free to pay your employees whatever you wish, as long as it is at least minimum wage. If you feel they deserve more, go for it.
Careful what you wish for.
"Engineer" is an $8/hr job on the global market.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?