(July 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(July 28, 2012 at 9:50 am)jackman Wrote:No, I don't see what is wrong with it. The wage for a job is the result of two things:
1) How much the employer is willing to pay a person to do it.
2) How little the potential employee is willing to accept for doing it.
The wage is determined as a value that lies between those two extremes.
The problem with minimum wage is that it is the government deciding that every single possible job is worth $x and above, where $x is the minimum wage, and that simply is not the case. There are people who would rather work for less than $x than not have a job, and there are employers who do not value certain jobs as being worth $x and above.
Why isn't the minimum wage $20? Why not $50? If it were that high, unemployment would skyrocket, because small business would not be able to afford to pay people and would go bankrupt, and big business would simply move all low-paid jobs to a country which doesn't have such laws.
As for welfare, well I don't agree with that either. If you are on welfare, you should not be allowed to simply sit at home all day. You should be actively seeking work, and if you don't, you don't get paid. Welfare should be an absolute minimum amount as well, to convince people that getting a job is much better.
you're looking at the entire problem thru the lens of the business owner. sure, they want pay the lowest wages possible, but there's a balance that needs to be acheived with productivity. if often costs a lot more to fire someone than it does to keep them aboard. if you want productivity you treat people right. a lot of grunt jobs are what keep the more skilled jobs afloat. one can't go smoothly without the other. paying them as little as they'll accept is simply not fair. right now, some places it's $7.25/hr - if you even get to work 40hrs in a week - you're making $290/week. take taxes out, cost of doing biz (bus pass, lunch, etc.). now assume you live somewhere that needs gas, water, elec, what's left? this is the min as it stands. now remove that and allow owners to hire people at $4/hr. you won't be able to even afford to work.
Quote:
Quote:Right, and that can be done without all the ridiculous spending on ceremonies and everything else that comes hand in hand with the Olympics. Look, I love sport, I watch Wimbledon and football. The thing is, Wimbledon isn't funded by the taxpayer, it's funded by the people who go and watch it. Likewise, the leagues in football are funded by the people who watch the matches. I'm fine with that; if people want to spend their own money on that, fine. My problem is with the government spending my money for me, on things that are utterly irrelevant compared with feeding and sheltering homeless people, some of which include children.
As for your question on why we use medals here, I honestly hope you realise there is a difference between actual gold and a picture of gold...
i have nothing to say to the part about funding. it appears money means everything to you. funny the only ones complaining about it are the ones who weren't elected into office tho. i would tend to give them a little credit for forethought.
and uh ... i can't believe i have to say this but i'm gonna need you to explain to me how pictures of gold are different from actual gold!
Quote:
Quote:Never said they were dumb. I appreciate the work they put in too, but it's not worth £9 billion to have them all in one place for two weeks in order to see who is the best, not to me, and not the country.
per the bolded (mine): the "not to me" part i can't argue. the "and not the country" part i'd have to wonder what you know that the elected officials don't know, to allow you to make such a claim.
they can land a rover on mars, yet they still have to stick a human finger up my ass to do a prostate exam?! - ricky gervais
