Government will set the rules for trade including tariffs And government will have to remove the illegals and close the border to reentry After that kick able bodied bums off welare and the market will do the rest
Actually, some should be paying the boss for being on the premises, more an obstacle than help and detrimental to both employee morale and customer perception of the company.
I support a minimum wage that's calculated on a per county basis. No more federal rate increases, or at least only raise one that doesn't rise above the cheapest calculated county in the USA.
i expect to not subsidize employers simply for employing. social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. That is the true cost of the minimum wage.
So cut these programs off. Why is it so difficult to live on the barter and trade principal when it comes to labor?
Surpluses after the 1996 tax rate cuts and a paltry $161B heading to surplus after the 2001 tax rate cuts. You confuse tax rate cuts with tax revenue cuts.
So WHAT? How easily could those workers be replaced? Labor is a commodity, an expense. If you want to "share in the gains" the profits, then invest your money and put it at the same risk as the owners. If you want to share the gains how about the loses?
We have a First World economy not a second or third world economy. Corporate welfare even pays out multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, in our First World economy.
And how many government employees are we going to have to hire to constantly monitor those calculations? The MARKET calculates those cost and does it FAR more efficiently and accurately than politicians and government employees.
And you do realize tax revenues and spending are two entirely different matters. Just as you confuse tax rate cuts with tax revenue cuts. Now when did we have surpluses and paltry deficits under which policies?
Just use a fraction of the cost of living in said lowest county. We already have that, though I'm not sure if it comes from public or private services.
You're moving the goal posts. I had said "Given the widening income gap I'd like to see the MW tied to the percentage of average income gains for the rich." You replied "Why? What does one have to do with the other other than satisfying some envy and jealousy?" So I told you what one has to do with the other. The wealth and income of the rich wouldn't exist without workers, yet they don't share fairly in the gains. Now, since you're stymied you try to change the subject to employment opportunities a business risk. The point is that the workers should benefit from their work too, as employers benefit from it. Losses? The CEO and Board members don't suffer losses in a bad business year; the corporation does. So your objection is ridiculous because it is based on a lack of understanding of business and economics.
Will you pay me $2 a gallon for water that I say is as good as gasoline? No. Why? Because it won't work. Paying people that won't work is equally impractical. IF the product you pay for does not produce the result you must have, you simply don't buy it. The employee is in business, just as the employer is- selling his services to a single customer for an agreed on price. If the services have no value, the customer will quit buying- and the job is gone.