cawacko
Well-known member
You Mother...
Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
You Mother...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It doesn't have to unemploy everyone...but how many would it take to destabilize society? 20%, 30%? Those are the kind of numbers that would cause revolutions and over throwing of the established order to happen.
That's why they're in business. They're not there to pay someone more than what they offer is worth.
It's quite clear you haven't worked in anything.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Didn't this come out of the Brookings Institute?
What's clear is that you haven't spent one single day of your life working for a business. Not one day. Every business eyes profits first and foremost. If a business pays its employees a low wage, it's doing that because the business is trying to achieve a profit. If the business pays its workers more and that results in negative margins, then it's not a sustainable business.
Wages are directly related to profit. A company increases its profit by cutting wages or offering low wages. The company is maintaining profit margins by offering low wages because the company knows that government is there to pick up the slack; so they exploit the system in order to maintain high profits.
You understand that, right?
It actually is since my tax dollars are going to subsidize their workers. Walmart's workers accept $6B in welfare benefits, yet Walmart made $14B in profit last year. So if Walmart paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for benefits, like Costco does, then Walmart would have made at least $8B in profit. Still hugely profitable and off the government dole.
cawacko
Well-known member
Wrong thread. That thread was 8 ideas the Brookings Institute had to help the middle class. It wasn't about the Democratic Party.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well the parts along the Michigan border and the Ohio river for sure.
A-ha!
So the business isn't paying the true worth of the workers if you're telling me that business can still be profitable if it pays its workers a wage high enough they don't qualify for welfare.
So that begs the question; why not just raise the wages and get your workers off assistance?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don't think you understand the full implications of what I'm saying. The people on the margins a couple of generation ago were in the lowest 5% of intelligence. Now that margin has grown to the bottom 10%....what happens when that margin grows to the bottom 20%?
If it pays its workers more than those workers are worth, they lose money.
The companies don't know that their workers will demand someone else offset their poor skill set.
Again, you're thinking it's your place to determine how much profit a company should make. Not your place, boy. Never has been and never will be.
How about those guns you say I shouldn't own. Figured out when you're going to be man enough to try to take them? I'm guessing never. Permission still stands for you to try.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
My bad.
If an individual can't offer skills that warrants a wage that supports them, perhaps they should voluntarily go away.
That a worker uses government assistance has nothing to do with the skill equivalent wage they get but their offering of too low of a skill set.
If a worker offers skills that are worth $5/hour and the business is having to pay them $7.25/hour because the federal government has a law saying so, that worker is getting paid more than their skills are worth and still can't make it. That they use welfare has nothing to do with the worth of their skills but the lack of skills.
Again, not your place to determine how much profit a business can make.
You don't pay a worker more than the skills are worth unless you're a fucking idiot and you've proven you're one. You're dumber than the niggers.
It's simple. Stop welfare and let businesses pay a worker what they think that worker is worth. The business makes the profits it wants, the taxpayers don't support leeches, and the freeloaders can whine and cry like babies.
Well, you need to retake Econ 101, because the value of labor isn't in dispute. We know what it is because we have set minimum benchmarks for government assistance.
Wages are determined by the profitability of the business. If a business cannot be profitable while providing its workers a wage high enough they don't qualify for benefits, then that business should fucking die.
No, they don't! We've been through this countless times; a business isn't paying its workers their value, because the value of labor comes to about $14-$15/hr based on benchmarks for assistance.
Businesses pay low wages because they rely on assistance programs to bridge the gap in order to maintain profitability.
So they are quite literally paying workers as little as they can in order to achieve positive margins.
Christ...this is ridiculous. I can't believe I have to explain this shit to an adult.
The job is worth a higher wage. That's what you're not understanding. Government assistance establishes a standard of living benchmark. That goes up to about $15/hr. Any wage less than that is a wage that is partially subsidized by taxpayers in order to get that worker up to the minimum standard of living.
Businesses pay low wages because they rely on government assistance to subsidize their profit margins. If a business paid its workers more, it lowers the profit margin. If a business pays its workers enough that they don't qualify for benefits, and then that business gets a negative margin; then that business is a loser and should disappear.
And the ones helped by an increase are also the ones we call at risk. If your business relies on $10 per hour labor, are you going to go out of business if it goes to $12, or will you
pass it on to the consumer. Also, food stamp use goes down as min wage goes up.
I worked for a firm that had a call center and those employees made maybe $11.50 an hour and a small bonus. They got the federal holidays only.
I recall when the minimum wage went up in San Diego, management immediately took away the bonus program for them and all vacation accrual
ceased. But what they didn't do was fold up the operation or fire anyone and they complied with the law on the wage rise. They were making too much money.
Are you high? Of course they are. They're giving a wage low enough that it qualifies for assistance. If welfare is your bugaboo, then you should be all about a higher wage for workers. That's the only way to get rid of welfare. That, or lowering the US' standard of living. So is that you want? For the US to have the same standard of living in China?
Skill has so little to do with this. It's not about skill, it's about profits. Corporations have low wages to pad their profits. Because government provides assistance, business can keep wages artificially low. Which is what they're doing.
Your idea of labor's "worth" is uninformed and lacks support. The worth of labor is about $15/hr. That's determined by the standard of living benchmarks established by government assistance programs. The true value of labor is being obscured by assistance programs, and businesses who lack patriotism take advantage of those programs in order to maintain profits. Profits that would disappear if they paid their workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare.
It sounds to me like you think our standard of living is too high.