slug.com slug.com

6 4

I wonder why people are demanding a "Living Wage" to be paid to all workers, but never demanding these people 'EARN' what they are to be paid. I believe that all employers would be willing to pay their employees whatever amount they want if the employee could EARN that amount. I had a conversation with a friend recently who advocated the "Living Wage" philosophy. I asked how an employee could be paid more than they could EARN. I gave examples that he could relate to, and he agreed that the generic "Living Wage" idea could not always work. The subject is limited by economics and MATH. If the business does not generate the NET profits to generate that "Living Wage" amount, then it cannot afford that arbitrarily designated amount.

Muleman 5 Aug 30
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

What if someone has to take a reduction in pay to be equal to his comrade's living wage? If we have learned nothing from the 60's best intentions coming back to bite us, we must consider unintended consequences.

1

The employees wanting $15 an hour are the ones not willing to take the time and money to educate themselves and for a lot of them they also couldn't pass a drug test. Many of us worked those jobs years ago because you could take in you college class schedule and they would work your shift around your classes, they were merely a stepping stone not a landing pad.

1

One's market value and the amount of $ value that one gives an employer through one's labour are not the same thing.

One's wage is based on one's market value.

1

It is clearly an attempt at distorting the reality of the economic society we live in. Like many who support the free market of goods and services artificially setting a cost for labour will make many businesses untenable in the same way that supporting business through Government subsidies allows the inefficient to thrive and making it difficult for genuinely well targeted enterprise to flourish.

Of course if we want unrestricted economic activity then we would have to allow trade unions unrestricted actions and remove all safety protections and laws against deception. I think the reality lies somewhere in between. Without some structural rules we are all worse off, but where to set the boundaries?

0

Having people focus on an issue is a cleaver way of disguising the problem. The political class make this an issue about money, I see the problem is in the minds of citizens deciding whether to give up more freedom in life is really worth having someone else promise to take care of them forever, is worth it. Unfortunately the alternative is to take on more personal responsibility, which is a lot of hard work. I thought we lived in a democracy?

No, not a Democracy. We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC. The Republic is governed by a Constitution which IS the 'Law of the Land', (Article VI, Paragraph 2). The purpose of the Government is to Secure the Human (God Given) Rights of the people.(Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2). The fact that our government is not working so well is the fault of the 'Free Press' for not keeping the people truthfully informed, and also the fault of the people for allowing it to happen.

@Muleman I was meaning that we have the government that we have voted for. If only we had a different point of view to choose from................ we might vote differently.

I do agree that we have the government WE collectively voted for. AND, the only way we will have a different point of view is if we have better information. That is the whole concept behind a Free Press. Unfortunately, even though our Press is Free, they are more opinionated than truthful. That colors the point of view of the listener/watcher, and the ability of the citizen to have a fair and unbiased opinion.

@Muleman We might also be lacking the leadership that bothers to tell us where exactly they are trying to lead us to.

@ScottforKing And I might add, an education system that teaches socialism and seldom mentions the thinking of the founding fathers.

1

Sorry, but we all happen to be in a lifeboat, pace Rand. We’re not sure who owns the boat, the air, the food rations, and so forth. It’s kind of like history. The common land, water, air? We found them. Force was involved and title searches are poor. So we nationalized them to common good. (One guy in the boat previously had a bow and arrow he shot at us, and we tossed him over the side-- sorry, but there are eight of us and one of him)

We do know that while some of us were engaged in launching the thing, somebody else collected a bunch of water, brought it aboard, declared water monopoly, and is now selling sips at higher and higher prices. Says we should have paid more attention to the moment by moment hydro-equities market.

The rest of us have just declared democracy and levied a water tax, with extra asshole fines. We’re wondering if Mr. Rich Uncle Waterbags will have any water to retire with at all, when we chuck him out to swim for it, along with his top hat and monocle. Gunna be a near thing. Probably he’ll need an accountant.

John Q. Public
Presidente Maximo
Social Democrat Party

My point is, How many people are in the boat, and how many are rowing? The people who refuse to row should not get as much water as the people who row. AND, for a practical point of view, read St. Paul's 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 3, Verses 7 thru 15.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:50780
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.