Mentally retarded people worth $2 dollars per hour

[Ryantology]

However, is it the job of employers to fulfill that subsidy? An employer cannot fill a job whose output is worth less than what the job pays, at least not on a regular basis.

Most of the economic issues with the minimum wage (mainly underemployment of low-skilled workers) would disappear if the government subsidized it. If you work at a job that pays $6 an hour, the government pays the difference between that and the minimum wage.

I think the benefits of high employment would more than make up the costs of subsidizing the minimum wage. The percentage of workers who currently make minimum wage is less than 3% of the work force, so it's not like we're talking about supplementing the hourly wage of 50 million people.

If we as a nation think everyone who works should make at least a certain amount of money per hour, we should be willing to pay the cost rather than mandate someone else do it.

I don't understand why so many people don't get that if employers pay a solid, living minimum wage, there's no need for almost all of those evil taxes that have to go towards paying for food stamps and other income supplements, with the added benefit that you'll have better, happier, healthier and more motivated employees who will want to be loyal to you.

[Ben Davis]

Employers don't pay for people, they pay for work.

Not true. Many employers pay a premium for 'talent': those who are particularly suited for or capable at particular roles.

A lot of jobs have disappeared because of the minimum wage...

No, a lot of jobs have disappeared because of unethical profiteering by 'job creators'.

...because the jobs weren't worth the pay.

All work of value is of equal value because any product is equally dependent on all facets of its generation for its output. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand the fundamental flaw in the modern capitalist model. To deliberately misrepresent this, as is done by those who unethically profiteer from low wages, is to commit a crime.

A subsidized minimum wage would bring many of those jobs back, the ones that haven't been fully automated anyway.

Ending the 'redundancy' practices of unethical profiteers will bring the jobs back. There's more than enough demand to provide 100% employment.

With a subsidized minimum wage, anyone capable of working at all could find a job that matches their ability.

That would be true of any mechanism which raises the earning-potential of the average consumer: more money in to the economy means greater demand which in turn leads to higher employment in service of that demand. My preference would be for the self-serving financial-rapists that masquerade as 'job creators' to pay their staff decent, living wages.

[kılıç_mehmet]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4688134

Apparently.

Thoughts?

Very bad choice of words.

[Jacob(smooth)]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4688134

Apparently.

Thoughts?

Very bad choice of words.

Wasn't it just.

Unfortunately it seems to be an accurate reflection of what's in his mind.

[Minimalist]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4688134

Apparently.

Thoughts?

Very bad choice of words.

It isn't so bad that he has the thoughts.... I'm sure we have all had uncharitable thoughts at one time or another... but that he feels free, even compelled, to speak them aloud and defend them that is the problem.

Some fucking people, when they start to open their mouths, should think better of it and STFU.

[BrokenQuill92]

I know I only do PR and act as errand girl for The National Board of Developmental Disabilities but I do know Stephanie Wheeler and Ned Solomon personally and I'd love to see him say that to their faces.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Personally I'd like to drown him in a bucket of his own faeces but that's just me. I'm a bit funny about this sort of thing.

[Mystical]

This about sums up how I feel on the matter

[Darth]

Paint me a picture of a person whose work would be worth $2 an hour.

THAT was the question. Funny how this is the title of the thread though: "Mentally retarded people worth $2 dollars per hour"

These guys obviously don't give a shit about the poor. Wanting to get rid of the minimum wage, despite that raising the wage would help the economy by allowing people to spend more. Plus generally trying to restrict social aid systems like welfare and food stamps.

Grow up. He's not a moustache twirling, finger steepling cartoon villain, few people are. That's what I hate about debating economics with people. "I would like a reduction in, if not complete abolition of, the minimum wage" "Seriously?????? wow, just wow, you're an evil person who wants to hurt the poor". No, I think the minimum wage hurts the poor. We're coming at this mostly from different ideas of how the world works, not completely different ideas of morality where my side thinks it's ok to grind the poor into paste if it would but make us an extra penny. Debating with people who think you are malevolent rather than simply mistaken is beyond frustrating, and ultimately futile. It couldn't possibly be that some people think these programs in their current form are harmful, could it.

Excuse me but these fuckers are trying to do away with food stamps because they dislike any taxation which goes to help people instead of pay off the military-industrial complex and you think they'd let their tea bagging scumbags in congress vote for something like that? Seriously????

These are people who think that low-skilled workers should be allowed to starve to death. You need to figure that out first.

You too. Grow up.

All work of value is of equal value because any product is equally dependent on all facets of its generation for its output.

Huh, what? Mind expanding on this?

To deliberately misrepresent this, as is done by those who unethically profiteer from low wages, is to commit a crime.

Not yet it isn't, comrade. And again, we're not having weekly Bourgeoisie/patriarchy/vast right wing conspiracy/moustache-twirlers get togethers where we plan how to maintain and propagate the false consciousness among the (insert victim class here). I goggled "all work of value is of equal value…" because it seemed fishy, no results. I then cropped it to just "all work of value is of equal value", which produced one hit. Atheistforums.org. A post of yours in this thread in particular: https://atheistforums.org/thread-22220-page-16.html

No it doesn't. That's a fallacy spread by those who have a vested interest in the continuation of free-market capitalism.

Rats, he's onto us!

Also, those who understand labour principles know that all work of value is of equal value.

As I clearly doesn't understand labour principles (or I am trying to mislead, mwuhoohahahahaha), mind explaining? Searching for "all work is of equal value" brings up a tonne of hits, but you're little qualifier seems unique.

Now, onto the main point. He was trying very hard to be PC as you can see from the full quote (a mistake to be sure, just say it, the stumbling and hesitancy reveals a weakness. He's on hostile territory on that show already, why compound the problem by playing by their rules? May as well just bend over). The meaning isn't PC, so why bother trying to coat it in the PC jargon of the day?

Some people aren't going to be very productive due to their disabilities. Producing less than the minimum wage even. It's not a nice truth, but reality isn't pretty.

People with disabilities are advertised by the Australian government's Jobaccess service as "as low as 13 per cent of the cost of the other employees." http://www.jobaccess.gov.au/employers/be...s_benefits
The supported wage system http://www.jobaccess.gov.au/Employers/Fi...age_System is the program that would seem to allow for this. (actually one of a couple of programs, there are other incentives).
Looking at the pay bands, they go all the way down to 10%. if the persons productivity is only 10% of their able bodied and minded peers, then the employer only has to pay that (government makes up the rest, like somebody in this thread was suggesting they do for everybody). Lets face it, for the quite mentally handicapped, these are already minimum wage jobs that they are applying for. So yes, the system allows for people 1/10th as productive as people on minimum wage ($16.37), so $1.64 (less in american dollars).

This is how the world already works (i'm going to assume most places have similar programs). Employers are paying less than minimum wage to disabled people whose disability means they are less productive.

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment/em...ility.aspx

Now, you can argue that they should still be paid (by somebody) the minimum wage, but somebody is going to have to pick up the slack. To say that somebody's actual work is only worth (x) amount, even if that amount happens to be less than the minimum wage, hardly makes one a member of the national socialist german worker's party (ooooh, I just godwined the thread with both commie and nazi references, like a boss)

[Ben Davis]

All work of value is of equal value because any product is equally dependent on all facets of its generation for its output.

Huh, what? Mind expanding on this?

This will be a bit dull but okay, here's a quick lesson in business analysis and process design.

Imagine a theoretical product. Anything; physical, intellectual, whatever. Got something in mind? OK. Now imagine its production; all the necessary components to generate the desired output that is the purpose of the product: scripting, art, design, analysis, engineering, coding, testing, authorship, governance, legal, management, logistics, customer relations, consultancy, marketing, sales, housekeeping, catering, vehicle hire, entertainment, direction... of all the millions of potential categories of work, you've selected a list that's relevant to your product's output and organised it into a method of delivering the promise of your product. Once you've eliminated the 'waste' from those processes (I won't go into details here because 'waste' is a topic unto itself), you're left with a 'critical path' or 'value chain/stream': the minimum number of processes required, with each step of the process generating value. This is the 'work of value': all of it is necessary to generate the desired output and if you miss one step, one process, the desired output is not generated.

Thus all work of value is of equal value.

To deliberately misrepresent this, as is done by those who unethically profiteer from low wages, is to commit a crime.

Not yet it isn't, comrade.

Yes it is: if a person were to misappropriate funds from individuals in exactly the same way, they would be guilty of criminal offenses. It's only due to legal loopholes available to corporations (and only larger corporations, to boot - screw the little/local businessman) that any pretense of legality is maintained. But let's not beat around the bush: pay low wages, people die.

I goggled "all work of value is of equal value…" because it seemed fishy, no results. I then cropped it to just "all work of value is of equal value", which produced one hit. Atheistforums.org. A post of yours in this thread in particular: https://atheistforums.org/thread-22220-page-16.html

It's my wording but it's hardly an original idea. Google W.E. Demming, Peter Drucker, Gary Hamel, Ricardo Semler, Taichi Ohno, John Seddon for how businesses have been applying these principles for decades, ethically.

Although I'm secretly disappointed that you didn't get more hits on what's essentially my catch-phrase at work. I need to improve my profile & marketing. Where's my LinkedIn page...

Also, those who understand labour principles know that all work of value is of equal value.

As I clearly doesn't understand labour principles (or I am trying to mislead, mwuhoohahahahaha), mind explaining? Searching for "all work is of equal value" brings up a tonne of hits, but you're little qualifier seems unique.

'All work is of equal value' is a political phrase that means very little in the real world: is there value in having to do your job twice? How about people who's only job is to fix the mistakes of others? Those who have to take complaint calls due to sub-standard parts? All of those jobs might be examples of waste, unnecessary jobs that are caused by errors, failures or simply poor design. So clearly, 'No': not all work is of equal value. Only work of value is valuable and all value is equal because without all the work, the desired results can't be achieved.

Enough for now. I'll let that lot sink in before I address the rest of your post.