RE: Minimium Wage Rant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

playfulotter -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 8:22:37 PM)

Gee thanks....wait till you are 20 years older..ha ha...ummm..after reading your profile i can see your humor...so my outlook has changed on what you said...now i can see it was a clever answer... 



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 8:31:39 PM)

quote:

just moved from Ohio. Lived in California for a year a while back. Visited Arizona. Grew up in the Carolinas after dad left the military. Facts are facts. The minimum set by the state was set years ago.


If the minimum was set years ago then the screaming was probably done years ago. The minimum wage was set anyway and it had what effects it had. Positive for some, negative for others.



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 8:32:47 PM)

quote:

and your definition of a civil society is?


One where people respect the rights of others and observe the rule of law.

Edited to add: it's late. I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, everybody.




tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 8:40:02 PM)

A more explanatory definition of civil society

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Civil_Society

but, a question.....


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

What is your third choice, Marc? Or, if you have more -viable- options that could be supported both by the princes and the paupers, please do share -- or better yet, get thy arse to camelot and offer your sword to Arthur and go battle that dragon.

I am serious, BTW... if you have viable options that will allow individuals who are busting their butts to be able to live and won't piss off the corporate nobles AND will survive our sold-out legislative privateers, then please share, because we seem to have a dearth of functional options.


Why do you divide the world only into prices and paupers? I am certainly neither and suspect a great many other are as well. My third choice (and I make know claim that we will ever have it - thanks to the aformentioned, less savory, aspects of human nature - but hope springs eternal) a government that does what a good government actually is supposed to do. Fairly enforce the laws of a civil society and refuse to play favoritism toward any group or individual. To have that we will have to make some sacrifices like respecting other peoples rights and respecting the rule of law. In other words we will have to stop looking at the government as something that should rig the game in our favor at the expence of other. We could have that government if we really wanted it but, alas, we are having to much fun calling each other names.




... you merely restated what you posted here. civil society includes many things you are objecting too. even religion. and labor unions who, at times through history, have dictated wages to business.

why is this any better?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/11/2009 5:05:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The "pursuit" of happiness is a Constitutional guarantee.


It is? Where?

Of course you're right, the Declaration has it of course! Sorry about that! It makes a better point - even the pursuit of happiness isn't guaranteed. The "right", per the Declaration of Independence, is to be pursued - not Constitutionally guaranteed or entitled.

quote:

So now, after over 2 decades of fighting tooth and nail, I am a corporate clone, not because I was lazy or short-sighted, but because my body failed me. Perhaps, though, it would be best just to euthanize me and free up all those resources for higher profit margins. I think there was a suitable scene from Scrooge, if I'm not mistaken...
DC, surprised you chose to try and compare my response to Scrooge versus answering the question; how would your situation be different if, as you said, the government wasn't as "laissez faire" in their direct involvement with commerce and industry? Where do you see me suggesting any answer associated with the Dickens quote? A health program isn't part of any minimum wage proposal I've seen, and would be different subject.

I want to know how your husbands military training would have been any better, or your Corporate drone-ship could have been more personally productive, under a more controlling government, as you represented as preferable.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 6:54:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Why do you divide the world only into prices and paupers?



It isn't so much dividing the whole of the world into princes or paupers, but those are the two groups most vehemently battling change in any form that it tries to take. If it isn't one side shooting things down, it's the other, and often, they're working in concert, both ends against the middle, to prevent any functional discussion and in the end, it is the entire -middle- that ends up paying.

quote:

My third choice (and I make know claim that we will ever have it - thanks to the aformentioned, less savory, aspects of human nature - but hope springs eternal) a government that does what a good government actually is supposed to do. Fairly enforce the laws of a civil society and refuse to play favoritism toward any group or individual. To have that we will have to make some sacrifices like respecting other peoples rights and respecting the rule of law. In other words we will have to stop looking at the government as something that should rig the game in our favor at the expence of other. We could have that government if we really wanted it but, alas, we are having to much fun calling each other names.


Now, my question to -you- is, what, in purely practical terms, does this government -do-, how is it shaped, and how does it function? Where does its money come from? How are its participants assigned their offices and how long do they keep them? How would you abolish the favoritism of special interests? How do you control spending while still making sure that your population is not being exploited and is capable of providing peak productivity? See, what you've offered is not substantial. It won't hold up to the real, pragmatic issues of keeping a country running. It is "pie in the sky" euphamism and wishful thinking, but it isn't a real -solution-, Marc, because it can't be APPLIED.

Now, if you -can- apply it, and can apply it functionally so that, just as an example, myself and... umm.. well... maybe Merc could agree to the proposal and have it have any chance of making real, substantial, and functional change... now that would be something I would put my shoulder behind.

DC



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/11/2009 7:31:05 AM)

quote:

DC, surprised you chose to try and compare my response to Scrooge versus answering the question; how would your situation be different if, as you said, the government wasn't as "laissez faire" in their direct involvement with commerce and industry? Where do you see me suggesting any answer associated with the Dickens quote? A health program isn't part of any minimum wage proposal I've seen, and would be different subject.

I want to know how your husbands military training would have been any better, or your Corporate drone-ship could have been more personally productive, under a more controlling government, as you represented as preferable.


I don't know what to say about my ex-husband's military electronics training. He was a HAWK missile system mechanic, and his whole MOS was RIFfed after the Gulf War in favor of the Patriot system. He would have happily stayed in the military, but everything changes, right? We move on, but it does seem callous that a man can dedicate the peak years of his life in protecting the country, and then return to civilian life and discover that there is no place for him. Sad, but ce la vie.

As far as my corporate drone-ship, well, again, it isn't instrumental to -this- discussion, except in the realization that, for most people, a $7.25 minimum wage -still- isn't going to bring them a reasonable standard of living, and, in fact, -two- members of a household earning $7.25 isn't going to enable the recipients of such presumably -unnecessary- and -overcompensatory- pay standards to be able to live a normal life. Were it not for the issue of corporate profit margins in regards to health care, I would never have had to shut the doors of my company.

I want to be clear that I believe that it would be ideal for companies to be able to manage their own affairs, and to know that the people -running- the companies understood that their workforce are -resources-, and that resources can be used, but must also be -renewed -- but I also see where, given the opportunity to screw their employees in the quest for greater profit margins vs. overhead, there is only the smallest pool of businessmen out there who would opt to operate in a manner that results in higher overhead, but assures better security for their employees, even if it reduces the percentage of profits. (It isn't all a one-way street. In return, in the few cases where I've encountered this, when push came to shove, the employees were more willing to do what they needed to do to protect the company for which they worked, and to me, that kind of loyalty can't be purchased by the government -- but it -can- be evoked through not treating one's workers like (replaceable) batteries to be used up and discarded when their energy has all been sucked away.) Once you factor in the companies who have, basically, sold their souls and gone public, and who are now at the mercy of stockholders who are ONLY in the picture for their own profits and who couldn't give a CRAP about the company, except to insist on the least possible operating margin and greatest level of profit and you have the -reason- that government regulation becomes necessity rather than a peripheral function, a useless luxury, or an unnecessary addendum to ethical corporate functionality.

I don't know if your company is publically traded or supported by 3rd-party investors with no stake in your company, per se, but if it is, how often do you have to make a decision about whether to nurture your relationship with your employees and strengthen their capacity to produce vs. increasing the return to your investors?

Some days I just have to ask myself whether it matters in any case. After all, the corporations already -own- the government, so isn't it just the same fish laid across two different hands, and a whole lot of arguing about whether the head of the fish or the tail of the fish stinks more? Maybe the whole fish is rotten.

Resignedly,
DC



Mercnbeth -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/11/2009 10:42:12 AM)

quote:

I don't know if your company is publically traded or supported by 3rd-party investors with no stake in your company, per se, but if it is, how often do you have to make a decision about whether to nurture your relationship with your employees and strengthen their capacity to produce vs. increasing the return to your investors?

I'm happy to disclose my personal situation regarding my employees. The short answer to your question - EVERY decision I make includes consideration to how it impacts my employees. They get more consideration than the investors for one reason - I rely on them to produce the ROI. If I don't put the tools in their hands to accomplish that goal - I set myself, and my investors, up for failure.

I'm an owner, not THE owner. It is not a publicly traded company. I am the only on-sight owner. My contract, requires me to deliver an ROI, that I can achieve anyway I like. Any bonus included in my contract, I share on a pro-rata basis with everyone here - right down to the mail-room clerk. I don't distinguish myself from my employees. We are all "assets". They know exactly what's going on, good or bad. It took them some time to get used to my approach. It has been my experience that most people don't want to know - they want their paychecks, their benefits, and don't have any emotional/mental equity invested in their work. These usually are the same people 'SURPRISED' when their employer fails or they are fired. I've never fired anyone in my career. I have facilitated the exit of A LOT of people over the years who fired themselves by not living up to their commitment.

As we speak, there is an offer on the table to buy us. It is a friendly offer, and one that will result in giving me the ability to reach my personal goal of relocating to Italy in 2-3 years-maybe sooner. Included in the LOI is a provision to maintain my staff for a minimum 3 years; after my departure. Once that is over, they will have the opportunity to prove to the new management the ROI they personally provide. At least they understand the concept and appreciate that it is their work/effort investment that produces their paycheck. I dare say - a majority of people in the workforce have no idea of that concept and see their jobs, especially in the public works sector, as entitlement. They identify themselves and their employer as advocacies. They do as little as they can get away with to keep their job. Observing that as an employer, clears my conscience from any impact my decisions have on their lives. Having had to "clean up" and/or take over businesses in the past - these employees were the first who fired themselves.

quote:

Once you factor in the companies who have, basically, sold their souls and gone public, and who are now at the mercy of stockholders who are ONLY in the picture for their own profits and who couldn't give a CRAP about the company, except to insist on the least possible operating margin and greatest level of profit and you have the -reason- that government regulation becomes necessity rather than a peripheral function, a useless luxury, or an unnecessary addendum to ethical corporate functionality.
Why do you equate "going public" to "selling your soul"? I can only hope that the sale I'm contemplating has that result; for me AND my employees.

You see the Company involved as the 'bad guy' when the price of stock is the motivating force. You should take a look at who owns that stock. Would you advocate for no public ownership? Consider that many of the negative results occurring when companies are downsized or closed are the direct result of government regulations and Union contracts. Its not only the company. Like any success, failure is a result of a joint effort.

All that said, through 8 pages of posts I don't see one positive consequence of increasing minimum wage, or even having one. There also hasn't been any response to the example of CA's unemployment rate increasing since they've had an $8/hour rate. I also like to hear from one person who may be at $8/hour and ask - how they hell can you live on that pay-scale if you live within 50 miles of the Pacific. What would be the positive impact, on either the unemployment level or the consideration of new businesses opening?

Hey - if you desire 100% Government employment - you've got the right guy in the White House, and the right majority in Congress. You should also expect government provided health-care, housing, and food distribution. If that's your goal - minimum wage can be anything you like; since the source of it, also taxes it. To see how that works out - review the economic condition of the USSR from 1950-1984. All the current problems associated with Corporate greed and management don't change, they are only replaced by government and bureaucrats. The only distinction, and I think it is a very important one, is that you can't go into your garage and create another government. At least in a corporate matrix, you can go into your garage and create Microsoft. Of course you have to be personally motivated and have the ambition, desire, and ability to do so. Having those same attributes and traits in a Government controlled and regulated matrix, won't do you, or your potential employees and business, any good.



Musicmystery -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/11/2009 10:56:16 AM)

I agree with some of this.

The first thing I teach my professional writing majors in Business Writing is the rules of business. Among them is that most businesses do indeed care about their employees--they have to do so. "Do I care about the bottom line? I've got 90 people depending on their jobs for mortgages, college educations--damn straight I care about the bottom line!" When they understand the realities (the the purposes of those realities), they can better compete in business and make positive contributions.

The fierce opposition to the minimum wage, though, is a tempest in a teapot. It's still a very low wage that applies to a very low percentage of workers, and is arguably still below market equilibrium in many instances. The law addresses temporary abuse of temporary workers in part. Skilled workers will of course leave for better jobs (or start their own businesses). Further, the current increase doesn't even recover lost ground to inflation (at 74% of the high, adjusted for inflation). And the extra money those workers earn will go right back into the economy.

Your last paragraph jumps off the deep end. Minimum wage is hardly equivalent to soviet style control of the entire economy. Nor is it fairly characterized as the goal of this president or majority party. Nor could it be set at any level at all--even monopolies can't do anything they want, as demand (the ability and willingness to consume a good) still has reality as a ceiling, let alone that a business will usually maximize profit at less than the highest possible price (as the lower price significantly increases quantity demanded).

You are right about going public, of course. It's hardly evil--it's a source of capital to expand a business. And even really caring people want to see that they aren't just throwing their money away--they want good management, good business plans, and a decent return on investment, that they can help another worthy endeavor.

There's no mission if there's no margin. Reality 101.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/11/2009 11:24:26 AM)

First, I have to say that I think that you and I share a general agreement on the whole ethos of work -and- what it means to be a leader from an employer standpoint. From there, though, I think that our perspectives may certainly be colored by philosophy and experience.

quote:

Why do you equate "going public" to "selling your soul"? I can only hope that the sale I'm contemplating has that result; for me AND my employees.


I think because, when one 'goes public', at least the way that I've understood it from moving from a private company to a "wholly owned subsidiary" of a major corporation, the "soul" of the organization gets sucked into the profit-machine of distant, detached ownership and disconnected responsibility for either product or outcomes... and not just on the management end -- in all the cases I'm familiar with directly, the employees also lose -their- interest in being responsible for their own commitment to their workplace and their contracts.

quote:

You see the Company involved as the 'bad guy' when the price of stock is the motivating force. You should take a look at who owns that stock. Would you advocate for no public ownership?


Actually, I don't see the company as the 'bad guy'. I see the stock market, the tendency to drive for ever increasing quantities of cash for less work and responsibility on an individual level for what one produces (or the tendency to produce nothing and -still- expect an exorbitant income) and gambling on company futures as the 'bad guy', and I see the INDIVIDUALS who sold off their responsibility to their company, themselves, and their employees in the name of flashier -stuff- and heavier pockets to be the 'bad guy'... and yes, I think that, in my perfect world, there would be no public ownership of companies. Specifically, there would be no ownership of companies by tens, hundreds, or thousands of individuals who had NO vested interest in maintaining and developing that company and its assets and products, and speculating on a company's potential profits and then demanding changes within that company to reinforce that gamble would be no different than running a "numbers" racket or shooting craps in an alley. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with -staying- a 'small business'. It's been my experience that most businesses that 'go public' do so to fund expansion, and that often, that expansion, especially beyond the immediate local area and the sphere of influence of the original owner(s) does -not- benefit either the quality of the product or the greater society, where several smaller businesses could be generated providing similar product or services within their own sphere.

*shrugs*
DC



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 12:41:09 PM)

quote:

... you merely restated what you posted here. civil society includes many things you are objecting too. even religion. and labor unions who, at times through history, have dictated wages to business.


If I am repeating my answers it is probably because people are repeating the questions. As for the rest, religions and labor unions are (or should be) free associations of people. If a labor union is engaging in negotiations with a corporation, why should the government – other than to ensure each party respects the rights of the other – be involved at all?



tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 12:58:02 PM)

i asked because i dont fully understand the concept of "civil society". since you brought it up, i thought... maybe... since its something you want, you could explain it a bit better than what i am finding on web sites.

quote:

If a labor union is engaging in negotiations with a corporation, why should the government – other than to ensure each party respects the rights of the other – be involved at all?


Because, as with anything else, and as history has shown, they can be bought.



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 1:45:43 PM)

quote:

It isn't so much dividing the whole of the world into princes or paupers, but those are the two groups most vehemently battling change in any form that it tries to take.

Are they? There are so many way in which people are divided – income, religion, race, nationality, etc; that it is really hard to reduce it to a simple concept that covers the whole of the human race, at least based upon those criteria. It can be reduced to a simple to understand concept, however – tribalism. We are a tribal species and although we like to think otherwise will still belong to tribes – we just have different names for them (Christian, Muslim, American, Russian, Conservative, Liberal, Management, Labor, Black, White, the Buffalo Bills, the Miami Dolphins, etc, etc, etc). Ultimately it all comes down to my tribe versus your tribe. Everything old is new again.


quote:

If it isn't one side shooting things down, it's the other, and often, they're working in concert, both ends against the middle, to prevent any functional discussion and in the end, it is the entire -middle- that ends up paying.

Like I said: tribalism. If these myriad tribes ever want to live together in peace then they are going to have to learn, first and foremost, to butt out of each other’s business. Some wrote that teenagers and retirees having part time jobs take away full time jobs from others to which I reply: so what? Why is it his, or mine, or yours, or anybody’s business as to who hires who, who applies for what kind of job, what their paid, etc, etc? Where do people get the overweening arrogance to presume that they (or rather the government, acting in their stead) have the right to interfere in a free people’s intercourse; to say to that teenager here and that retiree there, “we’re going to price you out of the labor market because we decided that other people have more need than you”?


quote:

Now, my question to -you- is, what, in purely practical terms, does this government -do-, how is it shaped, and how does it function? Where does its money come from? How are its participants assigned their offices and how long do they keep them?

There is one called the United States Constitution, a government of clearly defined and limited powers, that might work pretty well if we actually obeyed it.


quote:

How would you abolish the favoritism of special interests?

by electing people who are of good character who will take their roles as Representatives, Senators, and President (and their duty to obey the Constitution) seriously rather than the pack of self interested lowlifes we continually elect. Yes, the personal responsibility of the citizens to actively seek good government is a factor. Alas, we are all too caught up in our own selfish interests, ideologies, etc, to do so.


quote:

How do you control spending

By not allowing the government to tax more than ten percent of any individuals income and by forbidding the government from borrowing money (except perhaps in times of war or natural disaster). Of course, to do that we’d have to elect people who would enact such laws.


quote:

while still making sure that your population is not being exploited

We have a court system to deal with law breakers and civil grievances (not that the Court system couldn’t use some tweaking).


quote:

and is capable of providing peak productivity?

Is it the governments job to ensure peak productivity?

quote:

See, what you've offered is not substantial. It won't hold up to the real, pragmatic issues of keeping a country running. It is "pie in the sky" euphamism and wishful thinking, but it isn't a real -solution-, Marc, because it can't be APPLIED.

Now, if you -can- apply it, and can apply it functionally so that, just as an example, myself and... umm.. well... maybe Merc could agree to the proposal and have it have any chance of making real, substantial, and functional change... now that would be something I would put my shoulder behind.

Is what I argue for any more pie in the sky than the belief that we can legislate our way to the perfect society? There are people out there who actually believe that raising the minimum wage will benefit everyone rather than the reality which is that it will benefit some at the expense of others.

You say I don’t offer a solution. That is because there are no solutions – only trade offs. My question: what makes the government (concentrated power – and we all know where that leads) a fairer arbitrator than a free people?



tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 1:51:26 PM)

quote:

by electing people who are of good character who will take their roles as Representatives, Senators, and President (and their duty to obey the Constitution) seriously rather than the pack of self interested lowlifes we continually elect. Yes, the personal responsibility of the citizens to actively seek good government is a factor. Alas, we are all too caught up in our own selfish interests, ideologies, etc, to do so.


This is your fantasy world, and you are welcome too it. i prefer to live in the reality of what we have, and encourage government intervention when necessary. all these pie-in-the-sky ideas are great for a classroom. Until it can be assured that these are the kind of people elected, we need to stick to what we have.



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 1:52:23 PM)

quote:

i asked because i dont fully understand the concept of "civil society". since you brought it up, i thought... maybe... since its something you want, you could explain it a bit better than what i am finding on web sites.


It would take me pages and pages to explain it in detail but to reduce it to its most basic premise - a civil society is one in which the majority of people respect other people's rights, obey the rule of law, and butt out of other people's private affairs.

quote:

Because, as with anything else, and as history has shown, they can be bought.


Since bribery is illegal then that would be a legitimate matter for government intervention via the court system (i.e. the arrest and prosecution of briber and bribe taker). But if both sides are obeying the law, then what the heel business of the government's is it?




Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 1:59:10 PM)

quote:

This is your fantasy world, and you are welcome too it. i prefer to live in the reality of what we have, and encourage government intervention when necessary. all these pie-in-the-sky ideas are great for a classroom. Until it can be assured that these are the kind of people elected, we need to stick to what we have.


I have repeatedly said that I have no delusions about the human race so I fail to see how I am living in a fantasy world. I am merely offering what could be and what (IMHO) should be. I don't expect that it ever will be. Perhaps some day but at the rate that the human race is evolving I expect it will be long after I am gone. In my judgement, it is people who believe in sticking with what we have who are living in a fantasy world.

You are are so close but you still don't see where the problem is, and where the "solution" lies. You don't see where it begins.



tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 2:00:35 PM)

What rule of law? hmm? the one that states a man can pay barely enough to feed a man, let alone his family, demand he take no other job to make ends meet, and then get mad when said man is sick?

How about workman's comp. is this something you also dont agree with?

Labor laws.... the mills in the south were hell... i know... i worked in one.

Problem is... we cant tell what part is the "rule of law" and what is a right of a person. and when one steps on the other, then what?

Taking home billions in bonuses, while denying what was promised to employees, forcing them to accept the "rules", then hiking up costs to the same set of people.... which right or rule has been trampled on?

As far as the bribery.... your kidding, right? if government didnt step in, the bribery would still be on going because no one taking that bribe, or giving that bribe, will ever admit it happened.



Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 4:47:28 PM)

quote:

What rule of law? hmm? the one that states a man can pay barely enough to feed a man, let alone his family, demand he take no other job to make ends meet, and then get mad when said man is sick?

How about workman's comp. is this something you also dont agree with?

Labor laws.... the mills in the south were hell... i know... i worked in one.

Problem is... we cant tell what part is the "rule of law" and what is a right of a person. and when one steps on the other, then what?

Taking home billions in bonuses, while denying what was promised to employees, forcing them to accept the "rules", then hiking up costs to the same set of people.... which right or rule has been trampled on?

As far as the bribery.... your kidding, right? if government didnt step in, the bribery would still be on going because no one taking that bribe, or giving that bribe, will ever admit it happened.


I favor the rule of law that says no one person has absolute or arbitrary authority over another and each individual has certain unalienable rights that shall not be violated except as punishment (i.e. prison) for violating the rights of others. We could – and people certainly do – argue all the time about what is and is not a right but we’ve drifted more than a bit off topic already. I’ll save those arguments for other Threads on other days.

I favor the rule of law that says people are free to form associations with other people such as religious congregations, labor unions, social clubs, political parties, etc, etc, etc, again, so long as they those associations do not violate the rights of others.

It seems to me the question between us isn’t “should the government intervene in some aspects of peoples lives? The answer to that is an obvious yes. A government that never intervened would be no government at all. The question is really, under what circumstances should the government intervene? Most of the political debates on these boards can be boiled down to that (well, that and bashing political figures).

Well, I’ve stated my position already on this issue. I don’t see a valid reason for the government to require a minimum wage. It favors some citizens (low skilled people) over another (no skilled people). It is an unnecessary discrimination.

I already said (post 155) that a case of bribery is a legitimate reason for the Government to intervene. Of course there is always the possibility that the government people doing the intervening may also be corrupt. Eh. Ultimately, what can you do?



Politesub53 -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 5:09:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Well, I’ve stated my position already on this issue. I don’t see a valid reason for the government to require a minimum wage. It favors some citizens (low skilled people) over another (no skilled people). It is an unnecessary discrimination.



How does your viewpoint stop the exploitation that occurs without a minimum wage, or should exploitation be allowed ?



tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/11/2009 5:10:06 PM)

Someone's right will always interfere with someone elses right. No matter what law, what rule, what equation you use, someone will always complain that their rights were steped on.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02