21 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow many people are employed by Walmart, how many hours do they do? Do you think Walmart can function without employees. If employees are an essential part of your business do they not represent a 'need'.
does walmart needs your time as much as you need their salary?
i don't know why i continue this discussion, you are obviously trolling. nobody is stupid enough to think someone looking to get a cashier job at walmart is on equal footing with freakin walmart and has any bargaining chips.
?
21 May 15
Originally posted by Wajomathat's only true colectively. yes. walmart needs its employees, walmart doesn't need a SPECIFIC employee.
How many people are employed by Walmart, how many hours do they do? Do you think Walmart can function without employees. If employees are an essential part of your business do they not represent a 'need'.
?
when YOU negotiate with walmart you don't have their entire workforce supporting you. your side is a country of YOU and walmart has all the cards (meaning a multi billion corporation)
21 May 15
Originally posted by sh76"Then give them money via some means tested social welfare program"
==="The FMLA already requires employers to give up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for maternity or paternity"
when you are working minimum wage, that is not an option. ===
Another irrelevant smoke screen. Then give them money via some means tested social welfare program. That's totally beside the point. The issue in this thread is whether all employers should be ...[text shortened]... ing about it, but I'm sure as heck not going to give someone else credit for my social security.
yes, tha's what paid maternity leave is for.
"The issue in this thread is whether all employers should be forced to provide paid maternity leave."
only if you like strawmen. nobody said employers should pay for the maternity leave, and nobody said it should be the whole negotiated salary for that employee. nobody will pay a million dollar maternity leave if some CEO decides to have a baby (unless she is THAT good at negotiating).
"Actually, I pay for my own pension, thank you very much"
i don't care. this is the height of douchebaggery. "i have money, why should i care about people who don't".
" I pay 15 grand a year (give or take) into the social security trust fund and expect to receive social security when I retire based on that."
yes, and some people make 15 grand in total. and they are expected to survive on that. maybe raise children who will not end up in jail because they can't finish highschool because they are poor.
21 May 15
Originally posted by Zahlanzi===[b]"Then give them money via some means tested social welfare program"
"Then give them money via some means tested social welfare program"
yes, tha's what paid maternity leave is for.
"The issue in this thread is whether all employers should be forced to provide paid maternity leave."
only if you like strawmen. nobody said employers should pay for the maternity leave, and nobody said it should be the whole negotiated sal ...[text shortened]... children who will not end up in jail because they can't finish highschool because they are poor.
yes, tha's what paid maternity leave is for. ===
No, it's not. Paid maternity leave is paid for by the employer, not the government. I am not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this.
==="The issue in this thread is whether all employers should be forced to provide paid maternity leave."
only if you like strawmen. nobody said employers should pay for the maternity leave, and nobody said it should be the whole negotiated salary for that employee. nobody will pay a million dollar maternity leave if some CEO decides to have a baby (unless she is THAT good at negotiating). ===
It seems as though you're proposing something other than paid maternity leave. Maybe you can think about what you're proposing and state it clearly and then we can debate it.
===" I pay 15 grand a year (give or take) into the social security trust fund and expect to receive social security when I retire based on that."
yes, and some people make 15 grand in total. and they are expected to survive on that. maybe raise children who will not end up in jail because they can't finish highschool because they are poor.===
Families who make $15k a year are entitled to all sorts of goodies from the government. High schools are free. Not being able to finish high school because you're poor is a non-sequitur.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMoney is fungible. Obviously, the money I take out later won't be exactly the same money I put in, but the same is true with a bank account.
Why is it better to have a means-tested program? Non-means tested programs are easier to administer, lead to greater solidarity and people who don't need it will pay more taxes anyway to pay for the greater cost of the program.
[b]Actually, I pay for my own pension, thank you very much.
From what I understand about Social Security it is not li ...[text shortened]... were still workers. If everyone stopped working your Social Security funds would be meaningless.[/b]
Yes, ss benefits are not precisely tied to contributions, but there is a loose relationship. Anyway, the way ss is structured, I am entitled to assume that my ss benefits will be there for me as a product of my contributions. Sure, I'd be better off investing the money myself but hey, government sucks sometimes. We all know that.
My point is that I don't owe credit for my ss benefits to anyone; so Z's implicit argument that I owe free goodies to some kid by virtue of his being born because he's going to pay for my ss is absurd.
But you knew that already.
21 May 15
Originally posted by sh76"No, it's not. Paid maternity leave is paid for by the employer, not the government. I am not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this."
===[b]"Then give them money via some means tested social welfare program"
yes, tha's what paid maternity leave is for. ===
No, it's not. Paid maternity leave is paid for by the employer, not the government. I am not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this.
==="The issue in this thread is whether all employers should be forced to provi ...[text shortened]... gh schools are free. Not being able to finish high school because you're poor is a non-sequitur.
just to make sure, you aren't calling social security "paid by employer", right? i keep forgetting the level of "right wingnism" of the people i am talking to
"It seems as though you're proposing something other than paid maternity leave. Maybe you can think about what you're proposing and state it clearly and then we can debate it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave
go to Variation in international law
there are plenty of countries where social security pays for 100% of maternity leave, not the employer.
"High schools are free. Not being able to finish high school because you're poor is a non-sequitur."
yes, and everyone can afford to go to high-school, regardless of their financial situation. is that what you are arguing? nevermind. you are right, it was off topic. just like your comment on what you pay to social security. just wanted to remind you that not everyone is as fortunate as you, that nobody is happy having to rely on social security to get by.
that some people need help.
21 May 15
Originally posted by sh76" It's still coming out of my pocket though, as if my employer didn't have to pay it to Uncle Sam, presumably, he'd pay it to me instead"
My employer makes half the payment. It's still coming out of my pocket though, as if my employer didn't have to pay it to Uncle Sam, presumably, he'd pay it to me instead.
it's adorable that you think so.
or maybe the problem is that you thought again about yourself only. i am sure mcdonalds will pay their cooks more if the government didn't force them to pay for social security. i am sure walmart will increase their cashiers wages by that amount.
21 May 15
Originally posted by sh76"My point is that I don't owe credit for my ss benefits to anyone; so Z's implicit argument that I owe free goodies to some kid by virtue of his being born because he's going to pay for my ss is absurd."
Money is fungible. Obviously, the money I take out later won't be exactly the same money I put in, but the same is true with a bank account.
Yes, ss benefits are not precisely tied to contributions, but there is a loose relationship. Anyway, the way ss is structured, I am entitled to assume that my ss benefits will be there for me as a product of my contribu ...[text shortened]... e of his being born because he's going to pay for my ss is absurd.
But you knew that already.
that's because you view social security as your own personal savings account. THAT is absurd.
social security means that people unable to live from today to tomorrow aren't left to die like dogs. it means that some people need to take more than they paid because they need it and other people need to pay for that because they can survive without. it is a minimum amount of decency.
and yes, you OWE that unnamed child. we all do, as a society. you get to drive on nice roads, you get serviced by the police, fire department, etc. in return you pay some taxes because you are fortunate to be able. in return for that money, you are allowed to drive on ALL the roads in the US, not the 0.000001% of road your tax money paid for.
so your argument that everyone should get what they pay for is absurd.
21 May 15
Originally posted by sh76So you are bringing in about 100k. I was just wondering since with that number one could also mean 200k.
My employer makes half the payment. It's still coming out of my pocket though, as if my employer didn't have to pay it to Uncle Sam, presumably, he'd pay it to me instead.
21 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziWalmart isn't the only 'SPECIFIC' employer. (No need to use your entire allocation of capital letters in one word)
that's only true colectively. yes. walmart needs its employees, walmart doesn't need a SPECIFIC employee.
when YOU negotiate with walmart you don't have their entire workforce supporting you. your side is a country of YOU and walmart has all the cards (meaning a multi billion corporation)
22 May 15
Originally posted by Wajomai dispelled the myth that an unqualified worker can negotiate with a large employer.
Walmart isn't the only 'SPECIFIC' employer. (No need to use your entire allocation of capital letters in one word)
a great lawyer can negotiate, a skilled manager, a talented football player. as close to mediocrity you are, the less bargaining chips you get. we have minimum wage laws and social security to protect those that can't make free market their bitch.
22 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i dispelled the myth that an unqualified worker can negotiate with a large employer.
a great lawyer can negotiate, a skilled manager, a talented football player. as close to mediocrity you are, the less bargaining chips you get. we have minimum wage laws and social security to protect those that can't make free market their bitch.
we have minimum wage laws and social security to protect those that can't make free market their bitch.-Zahlanzi
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that you claim to be from Romania and not a U.S. citizen.