So you would rather keep minimum wage where it is at and also pay those people welfare? Because that is the reality of what is happening. I agree with the whole discussion of supply and demand. But at this point welfare benifts have made supply and demand for minimum wage irrelevant. Also many people now view minimum wage jobs as careers since we have lost our manufacturing base.
gryphonms wrote:
You are going to end up paying some form of welfare anyway for all the people that have been priced out of work. At least the ones working on welfare contribute something to the economy and can actually develop their work skills so they are not stuck earning minimum wage for the rest of their life. I agree that more people are forced into minimum wage jobs to start because of the loss of the manufacturing base. But solving one economic imbalance by creating another one is not a viable solution.
Agreed, the only realistic solution I see is to bring back our manufacturing base. That will not happen with our present government. So the theory is realistic, not it's reality.
Even if our manufacturing base is back, that doesn't defend a minimum wage.
Regardless of how much high value work we have going on, there's always some work which doesn't have the same value being performed by individuals with less training, or less skill, or simply less capability. To force an employer to pay them a value above what they are contributing is essentially requiring the company provide the welfare as opposed to the government.
You're just shifting the cost from the gov't to the direct employer. It's NO different than specifically taxing the employer and putting the money in a welfare program.
Screw the middle class.
Ideally there would be welfare reform that caused welfare to be available to those truly in need and no one else. Historically people worked 2 jobs to make ends meet. Today the government pays the 2nd job portion.
Any successful person that I know works 60 hours a week. That is how we get ahead.
Yes ignore how americans have been manipulated to devalue their labor.....60 hour weeks thats the ticket.
ZRX1200 wrote:
In all honesty, successful people should be working that amount or more.
Successful people are driven, they want to complete a task regardless of the amount of effort it takes.
When I was a grad student I worked about 12 hours a day every day of the week.
Now that I'm a professional, I frequently stay up working until 3am, because I have documents I want to get finished before the next day.
Was discounting that as THE defined means and as a measure of real wealth. You only live so many hours, and countless hours off the clock do not add wealth.
, and countless hours off the clock do not add wealth.
Indirectly they do.
Successfully completing projects in time (or early) increases one's value to an employer. It adds experience to your resume and makes higher level roles available.
Screw you! I ain't taking a pay cut! :-"
MACS wrote:
I meant ar
t least 25 bucks , Elitist! lol
jackconrad wrote:
I know. Just being an asshat. 🌫
what happened to Victor's nose..?? 😕
DrafterX wrote:
It got flooded because he holds it so high. [frypan]
I know Drafter... I mean, it's gone sideways a couple times, but I think it's still pretty. 😞
Victor I appreciate your desire for affirmation and doggonit you are good enough. But sometimes you miss your nose in front of your face. I'm not arguing you're wrong. I still love you though 💓
Just keep working you prole!
