(May 12, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Beccs Wrote: Then why should employees strive their very best for someone who won't pay them a fair wage?

To advance to a higher paying job. It's called work ethic. It's what I did and it works.

(May 12, 2014 at 6:46 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Beccs Wrote: Then why should employees strive their very best for someone who won't pay them a fair wage?

To advance to a higher paying job. It's called work ethic. It's what I did and it works.

But if they're in a work situation where they're not getting a fair wage, what are the chances they're going to progress beyond that anyway?

(May 12, 2014 at 5:36 pm)whateverist Wrote: The great advantage of a fair social contract is precisely the avoidance of such upheaval.

"Social contract" is a bullshit term invented by lefties in an attempt to make their opinions about social responsibilities look like facts.

Their is no social contract.

---

(May 12, 2014 at 6:47 pm)Beccs Wrote: But if they're in a work situation where they're not getting a fair wage, what are the chances they're going to progress beyond that anyway?

What does a person's progress have to do with an employer's responsibility to pay a living wage?

(May 12, 2014 at 6:46 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Beccs Wrote: Then why should employees strive their very best for someone who won't pay them a fair wage?

To advance to a higher paying job. It's called work ethic. It's what I did and it works.

I've always found the exact opposite. In my experience it was always the work-shy brown-nosers who got promoted because they wouldn't be missed compared to the people who do the work. Basically if you're the best shelf stacker in the store (or whatever you do) you'll never get promoted.

Maybe it's different where you work but this is the main reason I got sick of working for companies and became self employed.

(May 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 5:36 pm)whateverist Wrote: The great advantage of a fair social contract is precisely the avoidance of such upheaval.

"Social contract" is a bullshit term invented by lefties in an attempt to make their opinions about social responsibilities look like facts.

Their is no social contract.

---

(May 12, 2014 at 6:47 pm)Beccs Wrote: But if they're in a work situation where they're not getting a fair wage, what are the chances they're going to progress beyond that anyway?

What does a person's progress have to do with an employer's responsibility to pay a living wage?

Did you not bother to read the comment that comment was a response to?

Hint: It helps.

As an aside from this conversation, some people have a ridiculous concept of what a living wage is. You aren't in poverty if you own a car.

(May 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: Their is no social contract.

Really.

What are your thoughts on the relationship of the authors and signatories of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the philosophy of Jean-Jaques Rousseau?

ETA - John Locke as well, while you're at it.

(May 12, 2014 at 7:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: As an aside from this conversation, some people have a ridiculous concept of what a living wage is. You aren't in poverty if you own a car.

Agreed.

But some people work sixty or more hours, or multiple jobs, just to pay the bills.

I know what will be said by a *certain* member, "Then they should move somewhere they can afford, and stop using electricity and eating!" - being facetious in the last, obviously.

(May 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 5:36 pm)whateverist Wrote: The great advantage of a fair social contract is precisely the avoidance of such upheaval.

"Social contract" is a bullshit term invented by lefties in an attempt to make their opinions about social responsibilities look like facts.

Let me break that down for the hard of understanding. Of course there is no literal social contract. What I'm referring to is the general agreement that the status quo is tenable. Without that agreement, you have chaos, unrest and perhaps even revolution. At some point, starving while I'm waiting for begrudgingly provided healthcare out of the emergency room just stops looking like a better alternative than looting and taking what I need. We have enjoyed almost 200 years of civil order. Don't think that is an inevitable outcome. Stability and civilization only seem assured to the historically shortsighted and dimwitted.

(May 12, 2014 at 8:19 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: "Social contract" is a bullshit term invented by lefties in an attempt to make their opinions about social responsibilities look like facts.

Let me break that down for the hard of understanding. Of course there is no literal social contract. What I'm referring to is the general agreement that the status quo is tenable. Without that agreement, you have chaos, unrest and perhaps even revolution. At some point, starving while I'm waiting for begrudgingly provided healthcare out of the emergency room just stops looking like a better alternative than looting and taking what I need. We have enjoyed almost 200 years of civil order. Don't think that is an inevitable outcome. Stability and civilization only seem assured to the historically shortsighted and dimwitted.

Don't call it a contract. A contract is a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Call it a social edict because that is what it is. You don't want agreement, you want to impose your will on others. You want to force people to pay a wage that is different then what is agreed upon by the parties involved in the exchange. You think that by calling it contract you give your edict legitimacy...but that trick only fools the halfwits.