"Hard-Working American" Myth

[kpt018]

You're all over the place and still haven't provided me with an explanation of what you mean by a business supporting it's workers.

And every business DOES improve the society it is within. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business for long. And other than volunteers, most charities have employees who earn salaries.

That's false and quite frankly, childish thinking.

Businesses are created to limit their owners liability in profit seeking ventures. Improving society has nothing to so with its intention even if true.

Walmart is the perfect example of a company that does not improve society.

 

[OldGoat]

I am not talking about people with kids, that is seperate.

I am saying enough for the worker to go to work, which means housing, food and health. No, dependants, just the worker.

If a bare basic worker needs let say 100units to simply survive (not thrive, just work) and they go to work and produce 90units, then this person has a negative value and should be retasked elsewhere.

(FYI I am using Units as I don't want to get into specif $ amounts instead focus on concept).

And what if they want a roommate? What if they want to stay with parents a bit longer? What if it's a teen worker or a retiree? Or a bored housewife?

 

[IGIT]

Repetition doesn't make a falsehood a fact. Though it does confuse left wing low information voters.

hi OldGoat,

i agree repetition doesn't make falsehood a fact. i agree 100%. but if something is true, it also doesn't become less true just because i'm repeating it.

where do you get these fortune cookie caliber rebuttals, Goat? is it some kind of app?

It is no secret that the high levels of profitability among many large American corporations stem, in part, from their low labor costs. According to Reuters, the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is

 

[OldGoat]

hi OldGoat,

i agree repetition doesn't make falsehood a fact. i agree 100%. but if something is true, it also doesn't become less true just because i'm repeating it.

where do you get these fortune cookie caliber rebuttals, Goat? is it some kind of app?

http://www.alligator.org/opinion/columns/article_ab7c5c00-4114-11e3-b191-001a4bcf887a.html

- IGIT

So? Just because they are bad with money and need a handout doesn't mean McDonalds is at fault.

 

[ben236]

I am not talking about people with kids, that is seperate.

I am saying enough for the worker to go to work, which means housing, food and health.No, dependants, just the worker.

If a bare basic worker needs let say 100units to simply survive (not thrive, just work) and they go to work and produce 90units, then this person has a negative value and should be retasked elsewhere.

(FYI I am using Units as I don't want to get into specif $ amounts instead focus on concept).

What if the worker simply doesn't produce 100 units worth of value to the company? How does the business justify keeping the worker around if they're forced to pay him more than what he's able to produce?

 

[IGIT]

Show me the inconsistency.

hi Goat,

are you actually an old person? perhaps you're in the throes of early stage dementia.

you don't recall your socialist screeds on how schools today aren't properly preparing our youth to enter the workforce? you had a long list of tax payer funded initiatives that you advocated? you don't remember any of this?

i do.

its fine either way, i like your fighting spirit.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

So? Just because they are bad with money and need a handout doesn't mean McDonalds is at fault.

hi Goat,

lol, i never said it was anyone's fault.

i was responding (try to keep up!) to HIMBOB's contention that if a company needs government assistance to help make its payroll, that company should be put out of its misery.

MacDonalds actually directs its employees to taxpayer funded safetynet programs.

*shrugs*

- IGIT

 

[HIMBOB]

And what if they want a roommate? What if they want to stay with parents a bit longer? What if it's a teen worker or a retiree? Or a bored housewife?

It matters not where they place these costs over what they earn that fact is they are doing work which has a negative value.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.



As to room mates, I don't agree that enough to share a room is reasonable, but enough to share a house or flat is perfectly reasonable, its not meant to be baller, you are supposed to want more.
But that does not mean you should engage in loss making activities. Yes that is up to the person, but the negative effect of it lands with the community and as such the community should to eradicate this costly and unproductive work.

 

[ben236]

hi Goat,

lol, i never said it was anyone's fault.

i was responding (try to keep up!) to HIMBOB's contention that if a company needs government assistance to help make its payroll, that company should be put out of its misery.

*shrugs*

- IGIT

But if you admit that it's not the business' fault that the worker can't support himself, then why are you arguing that the business should be punished for something that's you yourself admit is not their fault?

 

[HIMBOB]

What if the worker simply doesn't produce 100 units worth of value to the company? How does the business justify keeping the worker around if they're forced to pay him more than what he's able to produce?

Don't keep him and more importantly don't continue a business which consumes more than it creates.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Ive worked some brutal labor jobs including dishwashing...cleaning and degreasing enormous 100 year old machines not to mention the bathrooms of a machine shop...painting houses. .and my favoite insullation (all types in all weather) So I feel like Im kinda an expert on the subject.
Personally due to my pride/work ethic I've outworked just about all my coworkers and despite getting raises at each job up to the point whrre I was making 40k/yr at my last labor job I spent almost every hour of my day plotting how to get improve my position in this world. I have demanded serious raises and got them...branched out on my own as a contractor and finally went back to school and I'm one yearaway ftom BA in accounting.

Funny thing is...with very few exceptions...the guys I worked with were content....they hated school..didn't want to do trade school or start biz...they wanted to stay forever. Oh yeh..I also built fences. Point is..if u have aspirations u will advance if don't u will not.
Funny thing is the more content they were the lazier they were...the type tgat does just enuff to not get fired.

Qft

 

[ben236]

Don't keep him and more importantly don't continue a business which consumes more than it creates.

Well obviously the business is not going to keep him. Can you please explain why the business not keeping him is a good thing?

And what the hell do you mean by "consumes more than it creates?"

 

[ben236]

That's false and quite frankly, childish thinking.

Businesses are created to limit their owners liability in profit seeking ventures. Improving society has nothing to so with its intention even if true.

Walmart is the perfect example of a company that does not improve society.

The reason why they're created and their intention is meaningless.

And of course Walmart improves society. They employ millions of people and provides tens to hundreds of millions of people with access to cheap goods.

 

[IGIT]

But if you admit that it's not the business' fault that the worker can't support himself, then why are you arguing that the business should be punished for something that's you yourself admit is not their fault?

hello Ben,

i'm not saying a business should be punished...HIMBOB is.

these are his words;

I am saying when a business requires the government to support its workers it is ineffiecnt and it should die (unless it provides some other material benefit for society).

- IGIT

 

[HIMBOB]

You're all over the place and still haven't provided me with an explanation of what you mean by a business supporting it's workers.

And every business DOES improve the society it is within. If they didn't they wouldn't be in business for long. And other than volunteers, most charities have employees who earn salaries.

I am sure the vast majority of min wages roles would continue to be profitable for employers if paid a living wage.

But if it costs more for a worker do some task than then the value created by the task, its not something that should be doing. And its certainly not something that should be supported on a governmental level.


(FYI, I support welfare for fmailes, single mums, etc etc, but these costs are not included in what I consider a living wage, a living wage is enough for the employee to live and work).

 

[OldGoat]

hi Goat,

are you actually an old person? perhaps you're in the throes of early stage dementia.

you don't recall your socialist screeds on how schools today aren't properly preparing our youth to enter the workforce? you had a long list of tax payer funded initiatives that you advocated? you don't remember any of this?

i do.

its fine either way, i like your fighting spirit.

- IGIT

Cmon IGIT don't be deliberately simple. There you go again with the life is either 100% or 100% that. Can't be for any program unless you are for them all. Wheres the roll eyes smile?

 

[IGIT]

Cmon IGIT don't be deliberately simple. There you go again with the life is either 100% or 100% that.

hiya Goat,

i'm sorry i pointed our your inconsistency, then.

nvm.

- IGIT

 

[kpt018]

The reason why they're created and their intention is meaningless.

And of course Walmart improves society. They employ millions of people and provides tens to hundreds of millions of people with access to cheap goods.

And it's employees need welfare and is also a large welfare recipient. What about all the mom and pop shops Walmart has replaced? It's awful for the economy.

I'm not making a statement here whether they should exist or not. But it's really naive to think all businesses benefit society. Businesses quite specifically benefit their owners or they cease to exist. You live a bubble man.

 

[genecop]

The American dream rewards not just hard work but creative thinking....

 

[OldGoat]

It matters not where they place these costs over what they earn that fact is they are doing work which has a negative value.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.



As to room mates, I don't agree that enough to share a room is reasonable, but enough to share a house or flat is perfectly reasonable, its not meant to be baller, you are supposed to want more.
But that does not mean you should engage in loss making activities. Yes that is up to the person, but the negative effect of it lands with the community and as such the community should to eradicate this costly and unproductive work.

Negative value? Lol. And what is the true value of anything? What the government says? What the Central Planning Committee says?