View Single Post
Old 02-13-2008, 05:58 PM  
Mr. Deltoid
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB View Post
Who's to say someone's skill is only worth $5. Besides say there wasn't a minimum wage. Well in my area wal-mart, McDonald's etc would pay maybe $3.50 an hour. First of all that would reduce the income of the area meaning people have less money to spend at palces at wal-mart and McDonald's etc. And thus their sales would hurt but they are too stupid to see that because they only look short term. so their solution would be to either cut wages further ot cut hours further hurting sales. Because as I said they are stupid.

Also this guarantees high turnover in employees. Once again NOT good for profit. when you're always having to train new people productivity is bound to go down. Higher productivity=higher profits. Simple economics.

Also people would be eligible for MORE welfare MORE food stamps etc etc. Is that good? where does this money come from. ME the taxpayer. There is absolutely ZERO reason I should have to subsidize the wages of a person working full time because their employer doesn't want to pay decent wages.

That person whose wages are gong to go from $5.15 to $7.25 will get LESS welfare( that=GOOD ) pay MORE in taxes ( meaning LESS is needed from me ) LESS earned income credit( which is an oxymoron anyways ). They'll get less in foodstamps.

Now food stamps are free from sales taxes. Where I live sales tax on food is 8.25% so every $1 spent on food using food stamps means 8.25 less cents that is needed for the state and local coffers. Considering where I live 40% of the people are get food stamps, my local area is shorted of thousands of dollars each year in revenue. Doesn't sound like much, but in a rural area it is. So either services get cut or taxes are raised on us that aren't on government assistance. All because a company like wal-mart that makes nearly a half a TRILLION in in sales doesn't want to pay decent wages.


Now lets' face it, many of wal-mart and McDonald's customers are their own employees. So those employees getting paid higher wages will inevitably spend that extra money at wal-mart and McDonald's thus offsetting the higher pay these places have to pay out. There's no doubt that the worker whose take home pay is $3400 a year more is going to spend that money at palces like wal-mart. How that is somehow BAD for wal-mart is beyond me.
Who's to blame for the tactics of Wal-Mart and McDonald's? We are.

As consumers, we're constantly demanding lower prices. As investors, which many of us are, we're constantly demanding higher returns. The wage component of price is therefore reduced the most, to satisfy our demands.

Employers are able to get away with paying inadequate wages because of the welfare system, they simply offload the responsibility of maintaining their labourers to the state. Remove, or restrict the entitlement system, and employers will be compelled to provide wages sufficient to guarantee the subsistence of the labourer.
Mr. Deltoid is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote