24 May 15
Originally posted by Wajomaaccept a crappy salary or starve.
If they had 'no choice' before. (And Walmart is not responsible for people thinking they have no choice.) Then Walmart at least gives them a choice, work for us or continue doing what you were doing i.e. believing you have no choice.
great choice.
25 May 15
Originally posted by Wajomaare you by any chance suggesting walmart would magically disappear if we force them to pay a minimum wage? if we force them to contribute a given minimum sum to social security?
Using your example if there were no Walmart, then there would be no choice.
i must have misunderstood your point, because you can't be that stupid
25 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThey would employ less people or charge more for what they sell, since lot's of poor folk shop at Walmart your interfering would be counter productive.
are you by any chance suggesting walmart would magically disappear if we force them to pay a minimum wage? if we force them to contribute a given minimum sum to social security?
i must have misunderstood your point, because you can't be that stupid
On the subject of social security, employees would be better off with this being in their hands so that they can (for example) pay down their mortgage faster which they are currently paying interest on, more interest than what they are receiving on their SS.
Is it better that a 100 people are working?
or;
50 people working and the other 50 living off them.
The minimum wage does more harm than good, but that is not the argument against it. There is one argument that blows minimum wage laws clear out of the water. I'll phrase it as a question.
An hour of your time, who does it belong to?
26 May 15
Originally posted by Wajoma"They would employ less people or charge more for what they sell, since lot's of poor folk shop at Walmart your interfering would be counter productive."
They would employ less people or charge more for what they sell, since lot's of poor folk shop at Walmart your interfering would be counter productive.
On the subject of social security, employees would be better off with this being in their hands so that they can (for example) pay down their mortgage faster which they are currently paying interest on, mor ...[text shortened]... the water. I'll phrase it as a question.
An hour of [b]your time, who does it belong to?[/b]
the idea that they, as a multi billion company, would employ less people and charge more for their products is ludicrous.
they afford to offer low prices because they are so freakin large, because they buy billions of foreign products cheap.
you honestly believe walmart is a multi billion dollar company because it pays its workers 8$/h? do you honestly believe paying them 10$ will force them to lay off people ? (they might out of greed, not need)
"On the subject of social security,"
i will not argue whether we need social security. that's not a debate, we need it, period. anyone saying differently is stupid. we can argue if you want on how to improve it, but that's a different thread.
"The minimum wage does more harm than good"
yes, we need to let company pay the workers what they want. i am sure the large corporations will compete to secure the services of a cashier or janitor by offering ever increasing salary and benefits. there will be a bidding war to secure the most talented janitor in town.
are you snorting koch?
"Is it better that a 100 people are working?
or;
50 people working and the other 50 living off them."
hmm, what to choose. 100 people living in poverty, with no hope of getting out, getting a second job just to get by or 90 people working under more decent conditions and 10 living off them (nice try with your numbers voodoo, there is no 50% unemployment in the US). If you try to suggest that unemployment rate will jump to 50% if you raise the minimum wage from 7.25 to 10, i promise you will be rid of me for good, because i wouldn't debate with someone so stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
germany, UK, france, italy, have higher minimum wages and they have reasonable unemployment rates. germany and uk have actually lower rates than the US. none of them have collapsed economically because they raised the minimum wage.
26 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziLots of stuff I didn't say.
"They would employ less people or charge more for what they sell, since lot's of poor folk shop at Walmart your interfering would be counter productive."
the idea that they, as a multi billion company, would employ less people and charge more for their products is ludicrous.
they afford to offer low prices because they are so freakin large, because they ...[text shortened]... ates than the US. none of them have collapsed economically because they raised the minimum wage.
Lot's of diversion.
A few contortions trying to mash together factors that are influenced by many different things, but it's all turned to goo and is seeping through your fingers.
Anything to avoid the question:
An hour of your time. Who does it belong to?
26 May 15
Originally posted by Wajoma"An hour of your time. Who does it belong to?"
Lots of stuff I didn't say.
Lot's of diversion.
A few contortions trying to mash together factors that are influenced by many different things, but it's all turned to goo and is seeping through your fingers.
Anything to avoid the question:
An hour of your time. Who does it belong to?
i have no idea what the point of this question is.
are you being deliberately obtuse?
26 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo one ever said countries would implode if there were no minimum wage. Your attacking Strawmen of your own creation.
"They would employ less people or charge more for what they sell, since lot's of poor folk shop at Walmart your interfering would be counter productive."
the idea that they, as a multi billion company, would employ less people and charge more for their products is ludicrous.
they afford to offer low prices because they are so freakin large, because they ...[text shortened]... ates than the US. none of them have collapsed economically because they raised the minimum wage.
Minimum wage laws limit the number of low skill jobs harming the very people they are supposed to help.
If a company finds the rate of pay greater than the productivity of the worker, the worker is gone, and the company gets the job done in another way, combining jobs, or by automation.
And please answer: Who owns an hour of your time?
26 May 15
Originally posted by normbenign"No one ever said countries would implode if there were no minimum wage. Your attacking Strawmen of your own creation."
No one ever said countries would implode if there were no minimum wage. Your attacking Strawmen of your own creation.
Minimum wage laws limit the number of low skill jobs harming the very people they are supposed to help.
If a company finds the rate of pay greater than the productivity of the worker, the worker is gone, and the company gets the job ...[text shortened]... ther way, combining jobs, or by automation.
And please answer: Who owns an hour of your time?
i was being sarcastic to prove a point. you missed that one. not only that, you didn't even get the sentence even if taken seriously. the sarcasm was that some countries DO have minimum wage and they haven't imploded. not that
"Minimum wage laws limit the number of low skill jobs harming the very people they are supposed to help."
prove it
"If a company finds the rate of pay greater than the productivity of the worker, the worker is gone, and the company gets the job done in another way, combining jobs, or by automation."
the company already does that. by moving abroad where the minimum wage is way less than 7.25. which proves that if a company could pay a worker less than minimum wage, it would.
"And please answer: Who owns an hour of your time?"
no
26 May 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy is the answer to a simple question so painful for you?
"No one ever said countries would implode if there were no minimum wage. Your attacking Strawmen of your own creation."
i was being sarcastic to prove a point. you missed that one. not only that, you didn't even get the sentence even if taken seriously. the sarcasm was that some countries DO have minimum wage and they haven't imploded. not that
"Minimu ...[text shortened]... less than minimum wage, it would.
"And please answer: Who owns an hour of your time?"
no
You rave on, but will not admit to the simple truth that undermines your entire position.
27 May 15
Originally posted by Zahlanzii was being sarcastic to prove a point.
"No one ever said countries would implode if there were no minimum wage. Your attacking Strawmen of your own creation."
you missed that one. not only that, you didn't even get the sentence even if taken seriously. the sarcasm was that some countries DO have minimum wage and they haven't imploded. not that
"Minimum wage laws limit the number of low ski ...[text shortened]... less than minimum wage, it would.
"And please answer: Who owns an hour of your time?"
no
It didn't work.
Try arguing a point that someone is disputing.
"Minimum wage laws limit the number of low skill jobs harming the very people they are supposed to help."
prove it
Do you intentionally seek out places where you can pay higher prices for the same things? If any worker is not producing, long term, more than his pay, his work is in jeopardy. If you've never made a payroll, you wouldn't know this.