Total BS. Horrible try.
Laws like this may remove your choice!
Run your business as you wish. But for the last 100 years or so, prosperous societies have decided that well paid workers are better for everyone. I worked in a steel plant one summer in the 1960s, as a helper to someone who ran the angle shears, cutting steel into parts to be used for towers you see carrying electric power. I complained to the old guy I worked with about having to pay a union initiation fee of $20 or so. His thoughts: “Listen, punk. When I started working in the 1930s. We worked seven days a week, 12 hours a day. There was a sign, saying, ‘if you don’t show up Sunday, don’t show up Monday.’ You’ll pay your dues and like it.” I paid my dues and liked it.
Why not?
Nope, I will take my business to places that give me a choice, and I will choose a human cashier.
Which if the worker is low or no skill is impossible. The state gets to set who qualifies for welfare. People with incomes as high as 75 grand a year can qualify for welfare.
Or, maybe different welfare programs should be scaled back.
BS. Why is it impossible?
Based on a formula of what it costs to live.
Why.
Well if you can’t make rent where you live you need to leave and go live somewhere cheaper Or move in with your family.
Lol.
Well I guess your life sucks then.
You are fast. I am still trying to find commiefornia on the map.
Cleaner too. They don't cough or talk over food.
They have a great Whataburger in TX, ims.
Banning immigration wouldn't help at all.
Well rent would go down since real estate investment wouldn’t be valued on future growth of another 100,000,000 people in 30 years
Which is a conscious decision of left wing policy. If there was less welfare then wages would go up.
Ok, but that’s not up to companies, that’s up to state legislatures who qualifies for welfare, so they should not be charged for that.
Welfare subsidizes recipients directly, not companies.
Fast food restaurants are great in a pinch, when about on the road. We also believe that prepared stuff...whatever tickles your fancy...works just as well at home, and on the road.
We already have labor shortages.......who is going to do those jobs then?
No of it were up to left wing policy companies would be required to pay a living wage or reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of their own labor force.
Who qualifies for welfare is a formula based on what it costs to live. Companies can calculate what a living wage is just as easily as the government can. They can use the same formula.
When 70% of Walmarts employees qualify for welfare while Walmart makes billions in profits that means we taxpayers are subsidizing Walmarts massive profits.
Whoever is willing to Do them.
Living wage is a subjective judgment. What you lefties mean by living wage, is the ability to live like the cast of friends. In a giant apartment in the downtown area of a city.
Well again, what it cost to live is a subjective judgment.
Walmart is a retailer. Retailers do not pay high wages to floor level workers. There is many different kinds of people who work at Walmart, from teenagers living with their parents, two adults with low skills or developmental disabilities. No two of those people has the same cost of living. What you are saying is that Walmart should either not hire single mothers or disabled people at all, and try to focus mostly on hiring teenagers, To avoid having to pay punitive taxes for benefits that the state decided to pay. Walmart has no direct control over whether or not their employees can afford the living situation that they are in.
So someone living with their parents should get two dollars an hour and a single mom should get 35? This is different for every employee. That is not Walmarts problem.
The decision to pay welfare benefits is disconnected from Walmart. By your moral standards we could cut all welfare benefits to zero. Then we are not subsidizing Walmarts labor force at all.
There are more jobs than people........so......nobody.
No. It is a very special ific formula based on cost of living.
Nonsense. None of that has any bearing on the formula for what it is.
No it isn't. Where are you getting that?
They need to start paying more......so the taxpayers are not subsidizing their profits by supporting their labor force......or else they should be billed for every dollar the their labor force costs the taxpayers.
Right. Seems like you dont know how welfare eligiability is calculated.
No.
No. Its not.
It is the taxpayers problem.
Good, that means higher wages
Ok, write it out. Once you write the formula, tell me why it means anything except for the fact a government agency created it.
What formula?
Pffft, because it is. I don’t know why you think it’s crazy to say “living wage” is a subjective measurement. There’s people who make 50 grand and retire millionaires and people making a million who are broke, different people live different lifestyles around the US and the world. If people survive in Bolivia then there’s no reason you can’t argue that people can just reduce their life expectations and cost of living would go down in that case.
No, the determinations of welfare office employees cost the taxpayers.
So now Walmart has to be responsible for their teenaged workers parents getting welfare? This seems like a complex and unworkable system
Again, you keep saying “the formula” without putting a formula up. I don’t think you even know what formula is used. You just assume there must be one but you are ignorant as to what it is so you just keep chanting it like a spell.
Apprently neither do you.
Yea, it is, you even admit that earlier.
So what? A lot of things are paid for with taxes. Welfare is a subsidy to individuals. It may be true that workers would earn higher wages if there was no welfare, but you aren’t going to advocate eliminating welfare so that’s the end of that discussion.
