Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

The Derp said:
The business owner is the one who puts that worker in that position, and they do that knowing that the worker will likely accept the assistance.

So that's corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

The business owner isn't applying for handouts. The business owner pays for the work that is done. That the personal situation of the worker is that they can't make it is on them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I also have to point out the strawman of your title. A liberal think tank tosses out these ideas and, regardless of merit...or lack there of...they have somehow magically become Democrat policy priorities???
Click to expand...

Not following. I didn't create the title of the article. And the article references Democratic politicians supporting/pushing the policies. What liberal think tank are you referring to?
 
CFM said:
Businesses do pay their workers. That the workers demand handouts has nothing to do with the business but with the worker being a leech.
Click to expand...

The workers need the assistance because the business doesn't pay them enough.

If a business paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, would that business still be profitable?

If the answer is yes, then there's no excuse not to raise wages.
If the answer is no, then the business is using government assistance to subsidize its profits.

Wages come from profits, so the more you pay someone, the less in profits you get.

So if you paid workers so much that you ran a negative margin, then your business shouldn't exist and you failed as a business owner.
 
The Derp said:
It doesn't matter if they accept it or not, the point is that their income qualifies them for assistance. And the employer knows that. So the employer pays its workers a low wage because the employer knows government will be there to pick up the slack, which means the less they pay their worker, the more profit they make.

In other words, welfare dependency.

The business is dependent on assistance in order to maintain profits.

If McDonald's paid its workers a wage high enough that they didn't qualify for assistance, would McDonald's still be profitable?

^Not a rhetorical question^
Click to expand...

Employers don't take into account what someone MIGHT do when considering a wage. If you ever were in a position to make that determination, you'd know. It's quite clear you're one of those low skill, freeloaders that thinks your superiors owe you something.

The level of profit of a company is not for you to determine, boy.
 
CFM said:
I only count wages as wages.
Click to expand...

Right, you're cherry picking. Because the assistance the government provides is in lieu of the wage the business isn't paying them. The more the business pays, the less in assistance the worker qualifies. It's a pretty simple equation.

It sounds to me like you think the standard of living in the US is too high, and that you think the standard of living should be lower. Do you not think that?


CFM said:
Handouts come as the result of honorable people having their wages taken to give to the POS freeloaders.
Click to expand...

But you'll admit that a business pays people low wages in order to maintain profitability, right?
 
cawacko said:
It's a smart thing to do if you want to move automation along quicker and lose numerous low skilled jobs.
Click to expand...
It will do that regardless of what they are paid.

If you take some serious look into the data on intelligence and its correlation to technology and the published research things are more dire than you think. It's not just low end minimum wage service sector jobs that are going to go away due to technology.

Projections are that with technological advancement in industrial societies that if continues at the rate of Moore's law people in the lowest quintile of intelligence (the bottom 20%) will be virtually unemployable. Were talking about CFM types here. Able bodied and willing to work but just not too bright...all of them...being virtually unemployable because technology will be able to replace them and it would be counterproductive to employ them as they lack the ability to learn more advanced skills. This is a problem that retraining, or working harder or throwing money at will not solve and could have serious consequences for the body politic.
 
The Derp said:
The workers need the assistance because the business doesn't pay them enough.

If a business paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, would that business still be profitable?

If the answer is yes, then there's no excuse not to raise wages.
If the answer is no, then the business is using government assistance to subsidize its profits.

Wages come from profits, so the more you pay someone, the less in profits you get.

So if you paid workers so much that you ran a negative margin, then your business shouldn't exist and you failed as a business owner.
Click to expand...

The business would be profitable. Your problem is you think it's your place to determine how much it should be for a business you don't own. Again, not your place to decide.
 
CFM said:
The business owner pays for the work that is done.
Click to expand...

No, they're paying for a part of it; if the employees wage is low, taxpayers are paying as well. Assistance bridges the gap between the low wage, and an adequate standard of living.

This is exactly what I mean when I say capitalism is fundamentally unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class. You're even admitting that when you say employers pay low wages...but they're not paying low wages because that's the value of the worker, they're paying low wages in order to maintain profitability.

You're all mixed up because you think this is about a worker's value. We already know what the worker's minimum value is by adding the wage to the qualified assistance. That gets to about ~$15/hr. It's not the worker's value that is determining what the emplioyer is paying them, it's the employer's profit margin that determines that.

If a company cannot be profitable and pay its workers a wage high enough that they don't qualify for assistance, then that business deserves to die and we shouldn't bail them out just because the business owner thinks they're entitled to owning a business.


CFM said:
That the personal situation of the worker is that they can't make it is on them.
Click to expand...

No, it's on the employer, since the employer isn't paying a worker for their value, but rather is paying a worker in order to maintain a profit margin high enough.
 
The Derp said:
Right, you're cherry picking. Because the assistance the government provides is in lieu of the wage the business isn't paying them. The more the business pays, the less in assistance the worker qualifies. It's a pretty simple equation.

It sounds to me like you think the standard of living in the US is too high, and that you think the standard of living should be lower. Do you not think that?




But you'll admit that a business pays people low wages in order to maintain profitability, right?
Click to expand...

It's called knowing the definition of wages.

A business pays wages based on the skills of the person they pay. If it's low, the problem is the low skilled worker offering low skills. Why would a business pay a higher wage than the job is worth? It's quite clear you've never owned one.
 
CFM said:
Not necessarily. Working means you're doing something. A job is a title.
Click to expand...

If you are working, then you're doing something because you're *WORKING*.

Words seem to mean something different to you than the rest of society. Why is that?
 
Micawber said:
Have you ever considered the whole "technology is going to unemploy everyone" to be a bunch of hooey?
We have always had technological innovation and yet the jobs for humans still existed. The present threat is robotics.
It's as possible these robots who work the stockrooms will increase productivity that will create the need for more jobs as fewer,
just as my rear steering hydraulic green cutter improved the golf greens marginally improving demand for that game,
thereby creating more jobs for junior high school caddy shack workers on minimum wage.

The Luddites feared technology in the present way and despite technological revolution there are far more
jobs than there were then. And in the end, I don't think there is a robot proof job, even the design and manufacture
of robots. So the impact may skew menial now, but not in the future.
Click to expand...
Oh I think technology, if it continues to grow at the current rate, is going to present huge societal problems for those who are on the lower margins of intelligence.
 
The Derp said:
Right, they're deferring because they're trying to maintain profits.

If they paid their workers more, what would that do to their profits?
Click to expand...

The owner isn't doing anything related to handouts. The worker incapable of providing valuable skills demands someone offset his low skills not his low wage.

Why should a business pay someone more than the skills they offer are worth? If a toilet cleaner, floor sweeper and trash emptier offers skills worth $5/hour, why would a business pay that person $10/hour?
 
The Derp said:
If you are working, then you're doing something because you're *WORKING*.

Words seem to mean something different to you than the rest of society. Why is that?
Click to expand...

If you have a job, that doesn't mean you do any work. A job is a title. Work is what you do. If you don't understand the difference, you're as dumb as the stupid niggers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top