Hey Democrats, you want wage increases? How about applying the principles of free market economics.

How's this: Any full-time job should at least provide a living wage. Period. People should not have to have more than one full-time job just to make ends meet for basic living needs. You want families to spend more time together so that they can raise their children to have a better chance of leading productive lives? Well, this might be a good place to start.

Your turn.

Most minimum wage jobs are held by students, retirees, parttimers, etc. And who decides what a "living wage" is? It is a lot different for a young single person in a low cost state and a person supporting a family. We provide people on welfare with free cell phones, medical care, housing, food, etc. Most of them do not appear to going hungry. If you suggest they should be expected to do some minimal work, like clean up public parks, you are accused of wanting to bring back slavery.

Maybe if you can't support a family you shouldn't be having children and expecting others to chip in top support them. Radical notion, I know. It used to be called personal responsibility.
 
From the side that doesn't have to run a business...That was a lay-up.

A bottom up approach is what is needed to all of this "one size fits all" talk.

All these pie in the sky ideas invariably come from people in government or academia, safely cocooned from life's realities.

They are willing to make the enormous sacrifice of destroying someone else's business. They will stab you if you suggest their own benefits should be cut.
 
Nothing is more "business friendly" than an amenable Third World country. Is that the kind of business environment makeover you're looking for in the US?

This is the source of the disconnect. You are bringing idealism into this debate. I'm simply discussing the reality of the situation. There is no "aspires to" left in the US. That ship sailed a long time ago. Forcefully imposing higher labor costs in a dwindling economy will not accomplish what its proponents are hoping for.
 
Maybe if you can't support a family you shouldn't be having children and expecting others to chip in top support them.
And maybe a business shouldn't exist if it can't pay a wage that its workers can actually live on and who may therefore require additional government support in order not to die of starvation or exposure. Maybe business models shouldn't rely on the government to pick up the slack that they leave in their wake. Maybe that's a clarion call for either better management or a different line of business. It's not automatically always labor's fault, you know.
 
And maybe a business shouldn't exist if it can't pay a wage that its workers can actually live on and who may therefore require additional government support in order not to die of starvation or exposure. Maybe business models shouldn't rely on the government to pick up the slack that they leave in their wake. Maybe that's a clarion call for either better management or a different line of business. It's not automatically always labor's fault, you know.


So in other words, the government would like for those employees to make more money. But the gov't doesn't want to give it to them. They want the business to give it to them for the gov't. How very generous and compassionate of the gov't.

And btw, the poor are suffering from obesity, not starvation. It's a common fact available to anyone who can google.
 
So in other words, the government would like for those employees to make more money. But the gov't doesn't want to give it to them. They want the business to give it to them for the gov't. How very generous and compassionate of the gov't.

And btw, the poor are suffering from obesity, not starvation. It's a common fact available to anyone who can google.
ALL THOSE FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!!!!!!! In U.S. ....obviously.
 
Back
Top