It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is It Time To Restructure Our Minimum Wage Laws?

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 



umm. your boss, just like every one else in the world, just had the rug pulled out from under them by the near collapse of the banking industry (not really the banking industry, more like the gamblers of wall street who were playing a kind of fantasy football game with our debt, betting on weather or not we would pay...
which lead to bailouts of said banking institutions, although they said their budgets couldn't handle much smaller amounts to fix bridges and such for years!!)
it's shaken peoples confidence to the core, you don't need to be rich, or a businessman to feel unsure when it comes to spending money...
not only do we not know what our taxes are gonna look like, we don't know if we will have a house next year, a job, weather our $5 will buy a loaf of bread or not!!! banks aren't sure about lending, so well.....you're boss is probably a tad bit uneasy about applying for a loan even!
they've proven with that nice big bailout...(which was passed during bush's presidency by the way!!)....that the economy is just a big farce, that the rules of the game can be bent, twisted, or just plain broken, when the ones at risk are of their own!
taxes really don't have much to do with it, and a little more regulation on the gambler's activities would have been nice to have!




posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Well, what you say is true. That is a big part of the reason why many business men are shaken up by the current situation. Part of restoring confidence to these people is to assure them they won't be robbed by their politicians, and to start providing a more business-friendly environment.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


seems to me, they had that with bush.....
and well, how much did it cost just to keep the whole thing from collapsing?
and what were the rich investing in???
moving jobs overseas?
gambling on wall street, betting on weather or not us pions would be able to pay our bills???

sure was't creating more jobs for us pions.

I lived in NY, they have all kinds of tax incentives to move businesses into the state. They are no revamping thier Empire State Zones or whatever they are called. They found that this money went mostly to big corps it seems, They also found that most times, the jobs that the company supposedly were creating weren't created at all, or were created for a short time, or well, in some cases, the company packed up and split!!

In NY, I don't think it would matter how Business friendly they made it look, the people in albany were running things so badly, it was crap for just about everyone!! I would suggest that the same is true for washington.....till they get their crap together, start cutting the spending and bring it something down to being more in line with their revenues, and spend that money on things we need (like roads and bridges and such) well....things are gonna be crap for everyone!

and when it comes to getting their massive budget in balance, I'm sorry...
but it serves that purpose better if those minimum wage earners have their pay raised enough to get them out of the range of food stamp eligable and into the range of taxpayer than it is to have a bunch of $500,000 and more salaries around, of which, $250,000 (or whatever the social security cap is) or more of it isn't taxes by social security!
or course none of this probably matters now, because, well.....
I got a feeling that we are gonna start seeing the effects of our devalued dollar real soon, and then well, life can be crappier for all of us!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


The CEO at my company has screwed about 500 people so far out of their jobs...........outsoucing to India. His plan is to outsouce all the jobs at my previous company, except those individuals that share his last name.

Sorry, CEO's are corporate henchmen.

Actors and Actresses, while entertaining are not worth the millions of dollars they earn.

The person you hand your child over to in the morning.
The person who gets you whatever you order for breakfast and or lunch.
The person who cooks your Egg McMuffin
The person who vacuums your cube and cleans the company toilets
The teachers that shape your child's mind for 6 hours a day
The person who takes care of your mother / father in a nursing home
The person who unloads the trucks and stocks the shelves in your grocery store
The person who changes the oil in your car
the person who butchers your meat (Warehouse slaughter / packers) because you couldn't

The people that really do the work.............make crap wages. Most don't make enough to live on.

Sorry, Particularly here in America the wage differential is so extreme it is immoral, unjust, not fair........

And people that keep condoning it are just as much to blame.

Start researching how many people are now in foreclosure status.

How many people are now homeless.


edit on 30-9-2010 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Are you a CEO's wife or some milllionaire?




assure them they won't be robbed by their politicians, and to start providing a more business-friendly environment


Our politicians are robbing us blind, their in bed with the banks and large corporations.

Business friendly..............most people are grateful for any job and many are bullied and abused day in and day out.

I'm glad my job was outsourced to India (at 58 years of age) because my boss talked and treated me like vermin. I wouldn't talk to my dog the way she talked and treated me for ten years.

And the job market is slim pickings out there............

No disrespect but you sound like you really don't know what is going on in the real world.

I am lucky I have a husband that makes enough that we can live with his income alone. It will be tight but many many middle class people are now finding themselve visiting the food distribution centers that once saw only the poor homeless.

The middle class in America is being driven to extinction.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


seems to me, they had that with bush.....
and well, how much did it cost just to keep the whole thing from collapsing?
and what were the rich investing in???
moving jobs overseas?
gambling on wall street, betting on weather or not us pions would be able to pay our bills???

sure was't creating more jobs for us pions.

I lived in NY, they have all kinds of tax incentives to move businesses into the state. They are no revamping thier Empire State Zones or whatever they are called. They found that this money went mostly to big corps it seems, They also found that most times, the jobs that the company supposedly were creating weren't created at all, or were created for a short time, or well, in some cases, the company packed up and split!!

In NY, I don't think it would matter how Business friendly they made it look, the people in albany were running things so badly, it was crap for just about everyone!! I would suggest that the same is true for washington.....till they get their crap together, start cutting the spending and bring it something down to being more in line with their revenues, and spend that money on things we need (like roads and bridges and such) well....things are gonna be crap for everyone!

and when it comes to getting their massive budget in balance, I'm sorry...
but it serves that purpose better if those minimum wage earners have their pay raised enough to get them out of the range of food stamp eligable and into the range of taxpayer than it is to have a bunch of $500,000 and more salaries around, of which, $250,000 (or whatever the social security cap is) or more of it isn't taxes by social security!
or course none of this probably matters now, because, well.....
I got a feeling that we are gonna start seeing the effects of our devalued dollar real soon, and then well, life can be crappier for all of us!!!




Who is "they" who have found that corporations haven't created new jobs? What specific corporations are we talking about? I'm not familiar with this.
I'm not just talking about corporations. I'm talking about small businesses. They're also very important to the economy. I don't know what the situation is in New York, I can't comment on that, but here in California the business climate is catastrophic. People are going out of business left and right, or they've moved to Arizona and Texas,.... and the State legislature wants to keep raising taxes to feed itself. Unfortunately when these small businesses close down or move, let people go, and stop contributing to the hungry monster, the monster starts looking at new ways to feed itself, making things even worse. While social services are important so that citizens of the State are taken care of when things take a turn for the worst, I think they have been severely abused over the years. Now that they're needed by those who have earned these benefits through hard work and have lost their jobs due to this economy, there isn't enough to go around. They always tout "We can't cut back, because then government workers, teachers, police, firefighters, nurses, etc. will have to be let go". No matter what budget we want to cut, some group won't let it happen. They all feel they're equally important, and cutting them off is never the solution. Raising taxes to keep them happy is the solution. As long as THEY have a job and ridiculous benefits that the private sector can only dream about, everything is O.K.

I'm not going to stand up for one party or the other. The Government (Feds and State) has been stifling the business climate for decades. Every once in a while they throw them a bone, but it's not the same in every State, and it's not permanent. There's no guarantee.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


The CEO at my company has screwed about 500 people so far out of their jobs...........outsoucing to India. His plan is to outsouce all the jobs at my previous company, except those individuals that share his last name.

Sorry, CEO's are corporate henchmen.



I don't know the situation within the company you work for, but there are several reasons he may be outsourcing the jobs. His job is to see to it that the company continues to exist and make a profit. If remaining within this country is putting the survival of the company at risk, his job is to find a way out. One of those ways is to outsource the jobs and find cheaper labor. Since cheaper labor lies outside this country, it only makes sense to move the jobs out of the country. I guess the company could be more patriotic and decide to keep the jobs here despite revenue loss, maybe risking demise, but that's not very smart.

Let me put it to you another way. When you go grocery shopping, what products do you buy? Do you purchase items based on price or based on where they are produced? Would you purchase items which are more expensive and maybe of lesser quality just because they're made in the U.S. or would you buy products made in China or India, or Germany? As far as I know, most people who are watching their budget these days don't care where a product comes from as long as it's cheap. In that case why should it be that you and I can choose to buy products based on cheapest price even if it comes from outside the U.S., yet companies should be forced to hire only Americans? By that logic we the consumers should be morally obligated to buy only American products to support American companies and businesses,... and the fact that we don't buy ONLY American products contributes to companies either going out of business or moving overseas.

As for this CEO keeping only people with his "last name",... well,.... a good decision would be to keep those who are most valuable to the company. I can't say whether or not these people were most valuable, but if you were employing your family members and they did their job for the most part, how would you decide who to let go and who to keep? These are the people you'll most likely have to live with for the rest of your life. It may not be morally right to keep them, but on an emotional level most people will find themselves more loyal to their own families. Sad but true....even in the business world.



Actors and Actresses, while entertaining are not worth the millions of dollars they earn.


They are worth that much to the movie industry. If they weren't, the movie industry wouldn't pay them that much. Movies are a business. If a business gains huge profit by employing a certain actor/actress, they will pay good money for them to act in their movies. Makes perfect sense to me.



The person you hand your child over to in the morning.
The person who gets you whatever you order for breakfast and or lunch.
The person who cooks your Egg McMuffin
The person who vacuums your cube and cleans the company toilets
The teachers that shape your child's mind for 6 hours a day
The person who takes care of your mother / father in a nursing home
The person who unloads the trucks and stocks the shelves in your grocery store
The person who changes the oil in your car
the person who butchers your meat (Warehouse slaughter / packers) because you couldn't

The people that really do the work.............make crap wages. Most don't make enough to live on.


That's a really nice thought and I see where you're coming from, but the reality of it is that these people are more expendable than let's say a good CEO who can make a company soar. My math and French teacher were definitely expendable people. There were probably hundreds if not thousands of more qualified math and French teachers who could have taken their jobs.... that's if the Unions actually allowed the school boards to employ people who are most qualified, not people who've been with the union and school for years on end.

If all these people you mentioned were paid far more than they are, I can't imagine what it would cost to go to school, to buy a piece of steak, to go shopping for food, to go get an oil change, or to buy a breakfast sandwich. Most of the jobs you mentioned don't require years of schooling, and some of them don't require you to be a genius. That means these positions are easily filled, and that means these positions are not always worth lots of money.

Yes, some of it is hard work, but you're also assuming that what a CEO does is not hard work. Just because somebody doesn't work with their hands and body doesn't mean they're not working hard. You can exhaust yourself in different ways, not just through physical labor. People go to school and get an education so that they are then able to make a choice whether they want a physical or a more thought/strategy-oriented job.



Sorry, Particularly here in America the wage differential is so extreme it is immoral, unjust, not fair........

And people that keep condoning it are just as much to blame.

Start researching how many people are now in foreclosure status.

How many people are now homeless.


There are several reasons why people are in foreclosure right now. First we have the people who purchased $750,000 homes on a $50,000 a year salary. Maybe they decided to buy a home by paying off the interest first. Basically what you have is an enormously large amount of people purchasing homes they couldn't really afford. They thought to themselves "Hey! Everyone is doing it! Let's buy a house!" Whether they were talked into it by their crooked Real-Estate agent or not, if you do the math you realize you don't make enough money to be able to make these crazy payments once the interest goes up. When Alan Greenspan warned Nanci Pelosi and others that this kind of lending couldn't be sustained, she and the others basically made it seem like he wanted to deny the American dream to the poor. Nobody listened, and years down the line the housing market crashed, people lost their homes, owed more than the property was worth, and many decided it was O.K. to just walk away.
Then you have the other group of people,.... the ones who made the purchase responsibly, but lost their jobs during this economy and couldn't make their payments. That's life! $%#& happens! If I go out and buy a house, I'm making that purchase knowing that there's a risk. My job is not guaranteed for 20 years. I know that I might either lose it, or get demoted, or maybe I might find a better one. There is always a chance that I might lose my house, that's just part of life. Nothing is guaranteed in life. That's why people have savings accounts. So that when $%#& hits the fan, they're good for a few months until they find a new job. Let's not go around thinking that everyone is entitled to excellent pay and benefits, a nice house, a nice car and all those other things people desire. Let's also not go around thinking that people can just make irresponsible decisions and not have to pay for them. Maybe in a different world, maybe in a couple of centuries, maybe under a different regime, but not this one. We should all know that by now, and we should act based on what we know about the environment we live in.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   


They are worth that much to the movie industry
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


In my humble opinon you are mind controlled.

Seriously.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


Are you a CEO's wife or some milllionaire?


Wouldn't that be nice?! No. Definitely not. I'm just like everyone else, trying to make it through the hard times.




Our politicians are robbing us blind, their in bed with the banks and large corporations.

Business friendly..............most people are grateful for any job and many are bullied and abused day in and day out.


Let's get something straight. Not every corporation is evil and corrupt. Let's demonize those who deserve it. Let's not generalize and make it seem like every corporation out there is scum. Without corporations many Americans would be out of a lot more jobs today. Let's be somewhat grateful that somebody out there had a great idea and decided to employ people to produce that idea.



I'm glad my job was outsourced to India (at 58 years of age) because my boss talked and treated me like vermin. I wouldn't talk to my dog the way she talked and treated me for ten years.


If you were treated so poorly, why did you stay at the same job for so many years?



And the job market is slim pickings out there............


It sure is. I think Americans are finally starting to understand immigrants. People do what they must. They move to where opportunities are better. Those smart enough to know when it's time to bail, find opportunity elsewhere. They realize that sometimes a person has got to do what they have to do to survive. My family had to do that twice in our lifetime. In general Americans aren't used to the idea of immigrating out of the U.S. and finding a job abroad, learning the language and assimilating to a new culture. Maybe this big bump in our economy will teach them something new. Life doesn't guarantee anything, and just because we're human doesn't mean we are entitled to every luxury we desire. U.S. citizens have had it great for many years. Many forgot what it's like to have to fight for the things they want.



No disrespect but you sound like you really don't know what is going on in the real world.

I am lucky I have a husband that makes enough that we can live with his income alone. It will be tight but many many middle class people are now finding themselve visiting the food distribution centers that once saw only the poor homeless.

The middle class in America is being driven to extinction.


You are free to make assumptions about me. I may not have as many years of life experience as you, but having met many people in my life all over the world, I wouldn't be the type to automatically assign more intelligence to the person of greater age. I've seen and experienced things in my life that many Americans haven't had the chance to. I don't claim to know it all, but I'd definitely give myself a little more credit than that.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent



They are worth that much to the movie industry
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 


In my humble opinon you are mind controlled.

Seriously.


You're free to have an opinion. Business is business. If I'm the only one who can sell out an event, and the industry is determined to have me, it is my right to ask for the price they're willing to pay. They can say no. They can try to negotiate. They'll pay me only as much as they're willing to pay. Since I'd make them loads of money, I'd feel I deserve a proportional cut of the profits.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 2manyquestions
 



the who:

www.bizjournals.com...

from what I've read, most of the business friendliness goes to corps and buddies of the politician...
I am all for small business, I think most of the people are really employed by small business...
but, it seems that the business friendliness is usually not directed at the mom and pop companies...but rather, it's aimed at the big fish, who really don't need any help...
one of the companies that got alot of tax credit (bribe) to stay in NY was Nestles.....then they packed up and moved regardless..

their little bunnies that they were using in a promotion were made by virtual slaves overseas in china!!
we cannot compete with slave labor, there is no way we can...not unless we want to become slaves ourselves...
and surely, you aren't suggesting that, are you??

take a look at the pollution in china and india, nigeria, and other countries that these businesses are flying off to...
one of the reasons their is so much offshoring of our production is our environmental laws...
the companies would rather do that to our environment than to spend the money to take care of their toxic messes!!!



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
Personally, I believe it's high time that we, as Americans consider totally rethinking the way that we structure minimum wage laws for the working class.


Absolutely, but not restructure, but abolish. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but really minimum wages (read: floor) essentially forces employers to pay someone for work above market prices. This in turn creates an artificially low demand for such jobs and leaves many unskilled or low-skilled workers fighting for less and less open positions.

Look at it this way: I am talking about the vast majority of small businesses, not mega-corporations or conglomerates here....
(For sake of clarity, the numbers here are really low and used for ease of explanation)

Pre-Minimum Wage Laws - You are an employer that owns a burger joint. A large portion of your workforce are generally teenagers with minimal skill sets. Based on your company's performance you have hired 10 employees each at $5/hour. You have room in your payroll budget to provide some basic benefits for working there. Discounts on product, maybe a small health plan that covers some basic needs, etc. While that is not always the case, it is plausible.

Minimum Wage-Laws Enacted - The government comes in and starts to dictate your wages. They tell you that you must pay someone $8/hour. After reviewing your company's payroll budget, you realize have some tough choices ahead. You must raise wages for all 10 employees, let go a couple of employees (thus requiring less workers to do more work), take a hit on profit, or raise prices on your product/service.

Since you are a small business owner and your salary is based upon your profit that you make you will begin to tinker with a few options. Most likely you don't want to let go of workers, because they are all hard-working and do their jobs well. So first thing you do is look at raising prices. As you raise your prices, your demand for your burgers begins to go down, thus creating less work for your 10 employees. You then let 2 employees go to compensate for your lost profits (read, income).

So while you initially wanted to retain all your employees, eventually you have to cut down on the number of persons employed. Either because your payroll budget became too fat or cutting into your income or the demand for your product/service went down because of the artificial prices you imposed to cover the additional cost of forced wage floor by the government was in effect.

Now I do understand that above is highly simplistic, but all small businesses face these decisions when the minimum wage laws came into effect and whenever governments start talking about raising them.



The current system seems to perpetuate a "Race To The Bottom" for most american wage earners. With massive unemployment, there is a lot of pressure to work "cheaper" than the next guy in order to obtain or keep a job.


Yes, quite true. All created by the government.



For the employer, the incentive seems to be for him/her to keep wages low in order to maximize profits. Everything in this picture seems to work against the best interest of the wage earner.


Since the vast majority of business in the United States are categorized as small business, basically Mom & Pop shops or slightly larger, their incomes are directly tied to their profits. Not only does a person seeking work suffer from minimum wage laws, the business owner suffers equally.



It seems reasonable to me that we should adopt minimum wage laws that somehow mandate that the lowest paid individual in a given company be paid a wage or salary directly tied to the wage or salary of the highest paid individual in the company via percentages. For example, It could be mandated that no individual in a company can earn more that 40 times the pay of the lowest individual, no dollar amounts needed.

If this were the case, as companies and their CEOs become more successful, the workers are allowed to experience some of that success along with the owners. In this fashion, everyone gets lifted up together instead of record corporate profits year after year accompanied by record levels of poverty year after year with the gap in between growing wider and wider.


I do not like your idea, but you have presented an idea, rather than just complain. With that you deserve to be commended.

By your idea you presented though, we could see that business owners would then place a ceiling on the wages they pay out because they are tied to the lowest wages. No longer are wages dictated by the performance of the individual; The janitor could be the hardest worker in the company, but their wage is now dependent upon say, the accountant of the company.

Another thing is this would be rewarding persons to never better themselves because they can rely upon the harder working employees of the company to boost their pay.

Point being this, I was the lowest wage earner in the company with my wages linked at 20% of the highest paid individual. That individual makes 50,000. I get paid 10,000. Yet, under current laws, I should be making ~14,000 (near Federal Minimum Wage working full time), I lose out on your system. But let us say I am happy with making 10,000/year. I have no incentive to work harder or better or faster to earn a pay raise because I will get one eventually without the extra effort. This also leads to the employer have a disincentive in never giving the higher end workers a wage, because it effectively gives everyone a wage; deserved or not.


Also, I don't believe or at least I would hope, that a mandated dollar amount would not be needed because employers would be driven by their own self interest to pay a decent living wage.


I personally believe it all ties together. Taxes, minimum wages and prices. It all favors the Government. If the Government forces you to enter into a private contract with predetermined terms in regards to wages payed, they will make more off you when you pay your payroll taxes. They will receive more as eventually increased minimum wages will drive prices higher to accommodate the artificial wage floor. This in turn will return to the cycle and produce more tax revenue for the Government. The market will continually try and self-correct with a drop in demand, creating less tax revenue, unemployment and dropping prices...until the Government intervenes again...

Overall, intervention on this level by the Government hurts the employee and employer. Mandates to private parties is not what I call liberty. Forcing someone that is supposed to be free to adhere to something that is infeasible in terms of business quashes any growth and makes the entrance into the market harder and harder for the small business. In my opinion, I would wager that large corporations back bills that increase minimum wage laws because the overall effect would raise the entrance bar into the market place by smaller competitors or would allow them to swallow them up whole because they no longer can sustain their business activities with higher minimum wages.

4am ramblings and thoughts. Good thread though.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


In reply to your post.

Pardon me for keeping it short and sharp. KISS is a preferred and aquired taste. It's my way and method to find clarity without missing the gist of any message.

1. You make business owners look like angels, performing charity and self sacrificing, even small timers. C'mon, cut the BS. You WOULD NOT go into biz if you think you can't make a profit. There is an angle to it, a selfish one. It's called greed. A bit of greed is good for it greases the wheels of economic activities and circulate monies so that everyone would get to touch it.

The only problem is when greed goes the whole hog. A biz may had been started with noble intentions, to help the economy, get people jobs, and at the end of the day earn some small tidy profit. Unfortunately for the flawed human, money is never enough.

When you have a house, you will think of a beach home, a mansion, then a palace, etc, etc as your profits pile up. These arent wrong, for it is that which drives you to excel, to achieve your american dream. But when you fall short, and the money never seems enough to buy your dreams, you start to raise your prices, cut wages and cut corners to achieve your 'american dream', at the expense of your workers and society.

This is an undeniable fact. Look around you. How many successful biz owners own more than one property, at least a continental car, their kids at posh colleges, etc, etc?.

Figure, just figure it out for one simple moment. Who made it possible? You alone? Your ideas alone without action?


2. I know the american govt financial system is wrong to start with. No govt can function if it intends to take on loans to spend on social expenditure. IT's sucidal on interest payments as well as the ease of money being made avaliable within a click of a finger, just like a credit card, and we know how deadly that credit card can become. Someone has to pay for it, and it will be the masses.

However, in a proper govt financial system, they make do with what they have through tax revenues for social spending. The govt that you claimed stepping in and regulating it is NOT making money for themselves, but ONLY FOR SOCIETY THAT IT REPRESENTS AND WHO ELECTED THEM.

They too know they cannot step in and regulate every minute detail of the biz, but ONLY to close up the loopholes craven biz owners sought to wriggle out of their social committments.

3. Without a minimum wage control as you suggested, it would only benefit biz owners, whom like one poster on this thread had so eloquently put it, biz owners will get the cheapest worker ( not necessarity the most productive one) to slave for him and his 'american dream' to churn out the cheapest and most competitive worthless rubbish defective or toxic products. Who loses in the end? It is a zero sum game.

Therefore, before you defend biz owners, be open and transparent. I apologise for being straightforward, but as it deals with the livelihood of billions of humans, it is best to cut the BS and be blunt, even hurtful if necessary or change/perceptions will not happen, dooming only ourselves further.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
No reason to pardon yourself in discussion, lest your aim is to passively be aggressive, in which you have achieved that.

1. You perceived my simplistic example, which I state clearly as such and in a limited scope as making business owners out as 'angels.' Where my scope was at was the multitude of small businesses in which they do not employ hundreds of employees or more, but rather the small corner markets and niche shops that struggle because of Government intervention. You are correct, I would not go into business if I think I cannot make a profit. Since, if I were to, most likely I would be entering into a market that has large entry barriers to compete with, such as the bureaucratic red tape and massive amounts of regulations to follow just to start the business. That profit, which you seem to despise becomes my income. You seem to think that an employer just magically lives off of some fictional income other than their profits.

A business rarely if never upstarts to help the economy or create jobs. Their main intentions for starting a business is that they feel they can fulfill a need by providing services and/or products to a certain market. Their intentions are to use whatever profits they make themselves or through the employment of others to provide an income for themselves and/or families.

So what if a successful business owner can buy another house, or a boat or whatever they wish. Why does this bother you that they have created a business and maintain a profit that allows that lifestyle? Maybe you should drop your facade about having deep resentment towards those that provide services/products and make a 'tidy profit' off of doing so.


Figure, just figure it out for one simple moment. Who made it possible? You alone? Your ideas alone without action?


So the employee is the sole reason an employer is able to have their life style? Their income? The person that has committed every ounce of their lives into starting and maintaining a business has no part in your equation.

2. Government does not produce wealth, they only confiscate wealth via taxes.

Here you are wrong. They know they can step in and regulate whatever they wish. They do so on a daily basis. Just look at what the State of New York must do because of a regulatory change in the font of street signs. Federal Government regulating street signs. They even now regulate how loud the volume can be in commercials. That is the Government showing they have the power, because left unchecked, to regulate every nook and cranny of your life or businesses life.

I will concede that some sound regulation is not a bad thing at all. I would never call for a completely deregulated market without oversight, but that would never happen nonetheless, because a market devoid of Government oversight still retains the oversight of the participants within that market.

What social commitments does an employer have other than to fulfill the private contract that they and another willingly and knowingly individual have entered? Must they feed you? Help you obtain a house? What should an employer's social responsibilities be dictated as? Who should dictate them? The Federal Government?

3. No you are looking at just one side of the equation. Yes, business owners will try to obtain the lowest paid worker they can at a fair market price. The thing is, with minimum wage laws, their is no fair market price. It is a price floor that creates inefficiencies within the market. The market will correct itself by having less employed workers because of the limited amount of capital to supply the higher wages. Again though, you are interjecting the larger mega-corporations into your argument whereas I again, clearly stated I was excluding them from the discussion and focusing upon the real power house of the economy, the small businesses.

I do not see how I was not being open and transparent. You on the other hand have been hiding your wealth envy throughout your reply. You have a disdain for anyone that wishes to make a profit. The system is far from perfect, but is the best way to utilize the division of labor.






edit on 1-10-2010 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed quoting the whole reply




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join