(May 10, 2014 at 1:55 am)Heywood Wrote:(May 10, 2014 at 1:43 am)whateverist Wrote: I'm going to go with .. because the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize the workers of cheapskate business owners who expect us to make their business plan work.
Isn't this another way of saying your too cheap to help your fellow man so you want to mandate that employers pay a wage high enough so you don't have too?
People have moral/social obligations to other people. You want to shift that obligation away from people and onto corporations.
No disrespect intended but are you .. slow?
Are business owners somehow exempt from moral/social obligations to other people? Aren't business owners people too and therefore subject to the same moral/social obligations as other people? By offering a non-living wage while using up their available working hours business owners are keeping their workers impoverished and in need of social services to survive. It is fitting to address through legislation whether that is a fair business practice.
If you have developmental issues and are really doing the best you can I don't mean to insult you. Otherwise, I do.
