RE: Living wage
June 26, 2015 at 1:20 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What makes you think there's a difference in the cost of underemployment vs unemployment? If all people make "half the floor" we cover the other half. If half the people make the floor and the other half make nothing.........we cover the other half. Sure, sure, this ignores modifying variables.....such as our coverage, largely, not going to people but to the -businesses- that underemploy them in the first place (I'm looking at you walmart!)........as (already shitty)wages stagnate and profit margins increase...but hey, we're trying to do some simple math here. We -already- pay the cost of both underemployment and unemployment.....and it's a bill we're footing for organizations which are demonstrably capable, but unwilling, while profiting from this arrangement.
Is there really something objectionable in saying that an unprofitable business has no business being in business? Is there really something objectionable in saying that a business which cannot support a human life, which profits due to the impoverishment of it's employee(s), has no business being in business? Isn't this how business viability is judged in the first place? If it cost me more to grow an acre of tomatoes than I could pay myself, as the employee.......I'd put that money elsewhere. If the opportunity cost of an hour of labor was greater than the gross..........I'd put that hour of labor elsewhere. If an hour of labor netted me less than the value of a bond(or less than the collection of welfare to which I am entitled)...I'd go with the bond(welfare). You? I don't see the benefit, personally, in defending a poorly run business which squanders the productive means of those involved. Knowing that none of the businesses which are so commonly engaged in the impoverishment of their employees are -actually- toiling under any such burden (despite their constant protestations)........it seems kind of silly in the first place.
Is there really something objectionable in saying that an unprofitable business has no business being in business? Is there really something objectionable in saying that a business which cannot support a human life, which profits due to the impoverishment of it's employee(s), has no business being in business? Isn't this how business viability is judged in the first place? If it cost me more to grow an acre of tomatoes than I could pay myself, as the employee.......I'd put that money elsewhere. If the opportunity cost of an hour of labor was greater than the gross..........I'd put that hour of labor elsewhere. If an hour of labor netted me less than the value of a bond(or less than the collection of welfare to which I am entitled)...I'd go with the bond(welfare). You? I don't see the benefit, personally, in defending a poorly run business which squanders the productive means of those involved. Knowing that none of the businesses which are so commonly engaged in the impoverishment of their employees are -actually- toiling under any such burden (despite their constant protestations)........it seems kind of silly in the first place.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
