California is a sorry excuse for a state

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
If you have to compare the the United states to a third world country to support your viewpoint against a living wage, you've already lost the argument. Some people want better for their country and its citizens.

And the "better" for our citizens is for them to have the skills to earn enough money to support themselves. That is accomplished by developing skills, not by throwing however much money at them is needed to make up the difference between what they're getting and what they need.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
And the "better" for our citizens is for them to have the skills to earn enough money to support themselves. That is accomplished by developing skills, not by throwing however much money at them is needed to make up the difference between what they're getting and what they need.
Ok? So you're suggesting these jobs shouldn't exist?
If a company can't afford to pay a living wage, they shouldn't be in business in this country.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
If a company can't afford to pay a living wage, they shouldn't be in business in this country.

Says who? Is this great proclamation of yours based on any sort of economic theory or rational thought process (I'm guessing no) or is it just some arbitrary standard that sounds good to you? There is a point where it is beneficial for an employer (and the employee, and society in general) to pay higher wages. Here's a hint: it's not at some arbitrary point determined by a third party.

That out of the way, what you short bussers don't take into account is that employers will simply raise their standards. If I pay new hires $20,000/year and it is mandated that I pay them $25,000/year, I'll stop hiring people whose labor is worth $20k and start hiring people whose labor is worth $25k. You can dictate how much must be paid but you can't dictate who'll get hired.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Says who? Is this great proclamation of yours based on any sort of economic theory or rational thought process (I'm guessing no) or is it just some arbitrary standard that sounds good to you? There is a point where it is beneficial for an employer (and the employee, and society in general) to pay higher wages. Here's a hint: it's not at some arbitrary point determined by a third party.

That out of the way, what you short bussers don't take into account is that employers will simply raise their standards. If I pay new hires $20,000/year and it is mandated that I pay them $25,000/year, I'll stop hiring people whose labor is worth $20k and start hiring people whose labor is worth $25k. You can dictate how much must be paid but you can't dictate who'll get hired.
Did you pull that out of a Cracker Jack box?
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
No, but the actual analytics of my position would go over your head, and the analytics for your side of the argument don't exist. Settled for a happy medium, but that went over your pointed little head as well.
So tell me with your anal-litics what the difference is between a $20k and a $25k worker?
 
Top