- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 8,260
- Reaction score
- 1,064
- Location
- Whitewater, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
just curious how old are you vader=within 5 years
The difference is when you rich people get taxed you lose luxuries.... when we get taxed we lose essentials.
2. If people like you were required to pay a living wage rather than the 3rd world nonse you currently offer, welfare wouldn't be needed. Since you refuse to copromise you are STUCK. You cannot have both. Pick one and stiffle about the other.
If they use the money to 'create' jobs and the Bush tax cuts have been in effect for almost ten years..... How come there are very little jobs to be had these days?And you lose the investment dollars that they would have provided the capital for many jobs.
How come there are very little jobs to be had these days?
2. If people like you were required to pay a living wage rather than the 3rd world nonse you currently offer, welfare wouldn't be needed.
people should pay what the job is worth. no where in the constitution are you promised a living wage. You don't like making minimum wage? learn how to do more than ask "do you want fries with that?"
I don't get why many liberals always harp on the "living wage" angle. You should be paid what the service you provide is worth to your employer. want to get paid more? be worth more.
Isn't that why you are going to college right now? to make yourself more valuable to an employer?
What's a job worth? To who? Isn't in more a negotiation of how much I will pay and how much you will do it for, and worth has less to do with than other factors?
What's a job worth? To who? Isn't in more a negotiation of how much I will pay and how much you will do it for, and worth has less to do with than other factors?
Above where the worker thinks he will be compensated adequately and below the total value that the worker adds to the company. So basically, where both sides benefit.
and who benefits the most when a company has to pay someone $7.25 an hour to sweep floors or empty trash cans?
2. If people like you were required to pay a living wage rather than the 3rd world nonse you currently offer, welfare wouldn't be needed.
Above where the worker thinks he will be compensated adequately and below the total value that the worker adds to the company. So basically, where both sides benefit.
what the job is worth to the employer. If you don't want to work for what they are offering you are free to go work somewhere else. I am sure there is an illegal alien who would be more than happy to take your place.
Why do you think a Big Mac cost's $3 bucks these days? the price of beef hasn't gone thru the roof. they don't have to pay $2 a pop for buns. hell they don't even have to pay for those styrofoam containers anymore. A big mac costs $3 because mickey D is forced to pay some brain dead loser $7.25 to stand behind a counter and ask you if you want to biggee size it.
and who benefits the most when a company has to pay someone $7.25 an hour to sweep floors or empty trash cans?
What's a job worth? To who? Isn't in more a negotiation of how much I will pay and how much you will do it for, and worth has less to do with than other factors?
That's how it works best, agreed. But factors can favor one over the other, often. But worth has very little to do with it.
why do you think its the unions who push the most for minimum wage hikes
What's a job worth? To who? Isn't in more a negotiation of how much I will pay and how much you will do it for, and worth has less to do with than other factors?
Which is one the known inflationary drivers of the economy.
Well, if an employer is willing to pay someone $10 an hour to do a job, and he finds someone willing to do the job for $8 an hour, that job is worth $8 an hour.
If he needs the job done and is willing to pay $10 an hour, and the cheapest applicant is demanding $12 an hour, the employer has to decide if the job is worth doing, and he decides it's not, the job doesn't exist and is worth nothing, or he pays $12 an hour, and the job is worth $12 an hour.
No government agency exists that can measure the value of a job. No congressional law can mandate the value of a job. The market does all that. And when the government agency and Congress get together to tell the employer that a job that isn't worth more than a couple bucks an hour is suddenly worth seven dollars an hour, then the employer is being robbed, and so are his customers, because he has to pass that inefficiency on to them or lose money.
I understand that thinking completely, but worth is the wrong word. It is more need. As someone above stated, supply and demand. Not worth. We often under sell ourselves, and sometimes employers even over pay. But worth is not the word. We have no real standadrd for worth.
Worth is a vague notion that will never have a concrete meaning, at least in the way that you're using it.
And think about it like this. Say we all demand only $10 an hour with a job where we produce $30 per hour. Another company is going to start offering wages of $15 per hour. So how long will this first company keep its wages at $10 an hour when they will most certainly lose all of that talent to the company that is paying $15 per hour? Not very long. Wages tend toward marginal productivity. That is the value of a job.
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?