Exploiting?! FFS! Most of the jobs adults are taking were once jobs teenagers were fulfilling as they are basic entry level position. 40 year olds that think their getting exploited because they do not have the ability to gain a higher paying job and goes from one entry level job to the next due to poor personal decisions should NOT be rewarded! There are literally 100's of programs, both at the local, state and federal level that will train a person in a skill to better themselves. Those not taking advantage generally are too busy skirting the system and demanding free stuff!
That's exactly what they should be doing. Learn a skill set and make yourself a valuable asset to a company that will pay you what you're worth. But don't expect to work at a minimum wage job and be able to have it all. Minimum effort and skills gets you minimum pay. The only person that is holding you back is you...
The dance of the dodger may not be graceful, but is entertaining to watch. Please copy and paste the part you believe shows how this is "good for workers, good for businesses (that can adapt), and especially good for the country"
Minimum wage jobs are meant for high school and college students, people just starting out, and retirees with nothing better to do. They aren't meant to support your family of four. You want a better job and more money? Learn a valuable skill set...
If people are improving their skill set and increasing their worth, then good on them! That doesn't change the idea that entry level is exactly that. Entering the workforce, with little to no skills. It's a starting place, and since that labor pool is actually being paid to learn something, why should people believe they need to earn a wage to supposedly support 'them and their families' when the demographics have them as being majority under 25? If someone has not improved their skill set by the age of 25 (which increase their worth in the employment markets), exactly whose responsibility is that? Being paid more for not increasing their value (by production or knowledge) is an antithesis to the entire concept.
Demanding is the problem. When government demands that you and I pay people to sit home, workers are no better off while the tax man gets a raise. Take Los Angeles for example. Can you make the case that workers are better off?
I mean I guess we can rid of social security and make the elderly get jobs…not sure who that helps tho
Not at all. Find another job, go to school, move, start your own business, etc. I don't have the same crappy job that I worked at when I was 18 that paid only $4/hr. And that was twice as much as when I worked on a farm at 12 to 16 making $2/hr. How could I possibly move up to where I am now in the top 5%? It wasn't because I stayed at a bad paying job demanding that they pay more.
One thing that the op didn't talk about is how boomers are retiring. That's a lot of people dropping out of the work force. With whiney ass millennials demanding that they start their entry level job doing work others have taken decades to work up to, it's not hard to see why there is a problem.
Right. Higher wages may cause prices of things to rise and/or reduce profits. But they do not “inflate” the supply of money. Higher wages simply distribute the available money differently by giving more to the worker. When the government simply prints money and inserts it into the economy, that causes inflation. Inflation reduces the value of our money, induces price increases, devalues our savings, and devalues our wage increases. I think we can still get ahead in spite of a little inflation. But it becomes much harder when we get to 5% and higher. Wage increases get nullified by the inflation, and if wage increases are not forthcoming, then you actually fall behind, becoming poorer, even though you’re still earning just as many dollars. We are actually watching this happen to people right now.
and in the ultimate irony....those people who get paid low wages get subsidies from the government, or.......those that work. So thats yet another way to socialize the workforce, and privatize the profits.
Its their money they earned. I am glad you brought the elderly into the discussion. They are the ones that get hurt the most by the skyrocketing cost of living this causes.
n No, it's not. It's a hodge-dodge of far left looniness. People don't go into business to become private sector welfare offices; they go into business to create and sell goods and services and earn themselves better life. Wages are not gifts the company awards to the employee, they are payments for services. if your services add more to the bottom line than you salary you'll keep your job. Prove your worth to your employer or negotiate with another. Gain skills or experience: all ways to increase income.
Thats bull, Employers literally CAN'T inflate prices fo make up for higher wages Show me ONE industry where an employer can willy nilly make up for ANY increase in ANY cost simply by charging a higher price. I wish I could do that, I want to go to Vegas with two hookers this year, No problem, I'll just charge my customers more, They'll just say 'inflation" and blame Biden. They'll not buy it from the guy down the street, or next to me in the discount bin. Bull bloody god cursed FECES my man. This is conservative's excuse number 4a as to why they make more and more money and pay us less and les. Wages are tied to PRODUCTIVITY, or SHOULD be and while we have become more and more productive owners are NOT paying for it. WE are, and the owners continue to bitch about having to pay us AT ALL. FINALLY, it seems we are "waking up" to this and telling the owners they can take their paltry wages and their "jobs, jobs, jobs" and shove them both where the sun don't shine. Is this what that "Woke" business is all about? Sign me up for more if it is
How many hours does a business owner spend addressing matters related to the business they are invested in? How many hours does the average employee spend addressing business matters? How much money does a business owner have invested in the business where 'at risk' is 100%? What is an equitable ROI for someone whose investment is 100% at risk? Why would an employee who has nothing 'at risk' be worth more if they aren't investing their time and/or labor into the ROI of the business?
No they didn't try out because if they did the people not working wouldn't have any money. You can't just not pay rent or not eat.
Thats the plan. Its all about moving more money through our growing government. If there was a genuine concern for the workers quality of life, the government can just reduce the workers taxes. Every dollar left in their hands gives them a dollar in spending power. When that same dollar moves through the circuitous government path, it has to pass through many sticky fingers and there is not much left by the time it gets to those in need. It looks like the only winner is the tax man.
