BGOL ECONOMY: Should the US implement a Maximum Wage???

[playahaitian]

Should There Be a Maximum Wage?

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/should-there-be-a-maximum-wage

Should our societies have a "maximum wage"? Would the world be better off if the United States had one?

Currently, Americans are debating raising the national minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10 per hour over the next two years. While conservatives will oppose it, such a boost shouldn't be contentious.

Such limits would motivate CEOs to augment the pay of their workers because their own raises would depend on it.

Back in 1967, the U.S. minimum wage was $1.40 per hour. That's not as measly as it sounds. Your grandparents’ tales about when ten pennies could actually buy something are not mere nostalgia. In fact, the 1967 wage had 20 percent more purchasing power than the current minimum.

Economic productivity is an even bigger part of the story. Our labor is producing more value today, but working people aren’t seeing any of the gains. Had the U.S. minimum wage kept pace with productivity increases since 1960, it would now be $22 per hour.

Who has walked away with the proceeds from all that productivity? It's a fair question, but it leads back to discussion of a maximum wage. And that's where things get controversial.

A January report from Oxfam noted, “The richest one percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years.” It further argued that the 2012 net income of the world's top 100 billionaires—a haul of $240 billion—would be four times the amount needed to eliminate extreme poverty internationally.​

While regions such as Latin America have made strides in reducing the gap between the rich and poor in the past decade, the United States has led the way in manufacturing excess at the expense of equity.

To remedy this, Larry Hanley of the Amalgamated Transport Workers Union recently proposed a “maximum wage” law that would limit an employer's income to being no more than 100 times the salary of his or her lowest-paid employee. If an entry-level worker gets $30,000 per year, the CEO would make no more than $3 million.​

Other countries provide precedent for such a policy. “In Spain, the manufacturing and retail enterprises that belong to the Mondragón cooperative network limit top pay to three to nine times worker compensation,” explains author and policy analyst Sam Pizzigati, perhaps the most outspoken U.S. proponent of a maximum wage.

Since 2011, Egypt and France have each pursued fixed pay ratios for leaders of state-owned enterprises. Even Switzerland, a country not known for being inhospitable to bankers, has passed restrictions on pay for bank executives and banned “golden parachute” severance packages.

Some advocates contend that a maximum wage should apply only to businesses receiving taxpayer support—in the form of bailouts, government contracts, tax abatements, or other public subsidies. Since American industry has been notoriously hungry for corporate welfare, this would cover a large portion of the U.S. economy.

Free marketeers will no doubt blast the idea of a maximum wage as the type of insane socialistic tyranny that chains everyone into the same, lowly state of mediocrity. Yet a ceiling based on a ratio between the executives at the top of a business and the grunts at the bottom doesn't set a hard cap on earnings. It merely puts to the test one of their most cherished claims: that the profits of a successful enterprise trickle down to benefit everyone.

Economists love to talk about incentives. In this case, such limits would motivate CEOs to augment the pay of their janitors, secretaries, and cashiers for a simple reason: Their own raises would depend on it.

Besides, a 100-to-1 discrepancy is hardly government-enforced equality.

It would be a considerable departure from the status quo, however. A typical American CEO now makes 380 times what the average worker in the country earns (never mind the lowest-paid).

That's not an example the world needs. And it's something that will take more than just a small boost in the minimum to fix.

WHAT DO YOU THINK???​

 

[muckraker10021]

Should the US implement a Maximum Wage???

No

 

[Famous1]

Not a maximum wage but a 60% tax bracket on "income" over a certain amount.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[QueEx]

Should the US implement a Maximum Wage???

Absolutely not.

Within the rules: Be all that you can be.

.

 

[Greed]

People are too funny. What is the practical or moral difference in dictating a maximum wage relative to a minimum wage. The only difference is political. People who would be affected by a maximum wage could influence elections much more effectively than someone affected by a minimum wage.

It's fine to manipulate the lives of poor people, but rich people should be free to make money (mostly so you can "spread the wealth" around afterwards.)

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Should the US implement a Maximum Wage???

Absolutely not.

Within the rules: Be all that you can be.

.

Although the idea of only applying it to companies receiving government subsidies and funding did make it somewhat more palatable and enticing.

People are too funny. What is the practical or moral difference in dictating a maximum wage relative to a minimum wage. The only difference is political. People who would be affected by a maximum wage could influence elections much more effectively than someone affected by a minimum wage.

It's fine to manipulate the lives of poor people, but rich people should be free to make money (mostly so you can "spread the wealth" around afterwards.)

That's a flatly ridiculous way to look at it.

You honestly don't see the difference between limiting what a person can legally make and limiting how low another person can go?

You have no problem with private businesses manipulating poor people but when it's the government, you're "outraged".

 

[Greed]

Although the idea of only applying it to companies receiving government subsidies and funding did make it somewhat more palatable and enticing.




That's a flatly ridiculous way to look at it.

You honestly don't see the difference between limiting what a person can legally make and limiting how low another person can go?

You have no problem with private businesses manipulating poor people but when it's the government, you're "outraged".

Who, in this country, should be allowed to choose the wage they want to work for without a government stamp of approval?

And stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation. Everything is not your concern when we're talking about grown adults making their economic decisions.

 

[QueEx]

Who, in this country, should be allowed to choose the wage they want to work for without a government stamp of approval?

And stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation. Everything is not your concern when we're talking about grown adults making their economic decisions.

But contrary to your wrong analysis, the law (as your bolded comments relate) recognizes and in most jurisdictions allows a remedy to those grown adults occupying unequal bargaining position vis-à-vis your sainted businesses.

 

[SPECTRE1]

The business community would not accept this type of dog collar being put on them. They will retaliate as in the case of Venezuela with product shortages or locating their corporate headquarters in another country and just setting up production facilities in the U.S. only.

Some CEO are innovators and deserve the pay they receive. They may have been involved with the company from the beginning and have a substantial ownership stake.

Other CEO are glorified employees that deserve a wage cap.

 

[Greed]

But contrary to your wrong analysis, the law (as your bolded comments relate) recognizes and in most jurisdictions allows a remedy to those grown adults occupying unequal bargaining position vis-à-vis your sainted businesses.

And how many different ways do we have to get into legality vs morality?

Your law locks up people for non-violent drug offenses. Your law allows for the murder of black people as long as you're sufficiently scared of them. And your law has the base assumption that a business is always a threat to someone, somehow.

Regardless of your law, it's actually none of your concern what people want to do with their money outside of allegations of fraud, force, or extortion.

You inserting your opinion into other people's lives is based on the reality that the system allows it. Not because you know better.

What you people need to learn is to hold poor people in the same regard you hold rich people. The last recession should have taught you that between the rich and the poor, the rich are the ones who needs their hands held like pathological morons. Not the poor.

 

[Greed]

The business community would not accept this type of dog collar being put on them. They will retaliate as in the case of Venezuela with product shortages or locating their corporate headquarters in another country and just setting up production facilities in the U.S. only.

Some CEO are innovators and deserve the pay they receive. They may have been involved with the company from the beginning and have a substantial ownership stake.

Other CEO are glorified employees that deserve a wage cap.

Now this is what I'm talking about.

A consistent BGOL member.

 

[QueEx]

And how many different ways do we have to get into legality vs morality?

Your law locks up people for non-violent drug offenses. Your law allows for the murder of black people as long as you're sufficiently scared of them. And your law has the base assumption that a business is always a threat to someone, somehow.

Regardless of your law, it's actually none of your concern what people want to do with their money outside of allegations of fraud, force, or extortion.

You inserting your opinion into other people's lives is based on the reality that the system allows it. Not because you know better.

What you people need to learn is to hold poor people in the same regard you hold rich people. The last recession should have taught you that between the rich and the poor, the rich are the ones who needs their hands held like pathological morons. Not the poor.

Yada, Yada, gotdamn Yada.

You're constantly starting conversations and when someone responds with a field goal right down the middle of your uprights, hell, LOL, you 'try' to move the damn goalposts.

CASE IN POINT: you attempted that wrong-headed legal analysis (obviously thinking you were on solid ground) and when I responded with the truth, you changed the damn subject with, "Your law locks up people for non-violent drug offenses" -- which has shit to do with AND actually goes to refute your own "stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation."

The point son, you shouldn't have opened the door if you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

.

 

[thoughtone]

People are too funny. What is the practical or moral difference in dictating a maximum wage relative to a minimum wage. The only difference is political. People who would be affected by a maximum wage could influence elections much more effectively than someone affected by a minimum wage.

It's fine to manipulate the lives of poor people, but rich people should be free to make money (mostly so you can "spread the wealth" around afterwards.)

 

[Greed]

Yada, Yada, gotdamn Yada.

You're constantly starting conversations and when someone responds with a field goal right down the middle of your uprights, hell, LOL, you 'try' to move the damn goalposts.

CASE IN POINT: you attempted that wrong-headed legal analysis (obviously thinking you were on solid ground) and when I responded with the truth, you changed the damn subject with, "Your law locks up people for non-violent drug offenses" -- which has shit to do with AND actually goes to refute your own "stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation."

The point son, you shouldn't have opened the door if you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

.

Actually, this is where your sickness manifests itself again. I didn't offer a legal analysis, I offered a straightforward statement to leave people the fuck alone. The problem is that's such a foreign concept to all of you that you don't know how to respond.

I have no respect for your laws or your system, so why would I use it as an appeal to change your behavior? When have I ever offered the way your law works as a basis for right or wrong?

I've brought up your child-like empathy levels before. You can't comprehend how I could say, "if it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation," and not use the law as a reference.

However, YOU did bring up the law. So, in my umpteenth instance of taking you at face value, I addressed what you posted. It's my bad habit when dealing with you people, but as usual, it's proven to be a waste of time.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Who, in this country, should be allowed to choose the wage they want to work for without a government stamp of approval?

And stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation. Everything is not your concern when we're talking about grown adults making their economic decisions.

Not manipulation? Okay.
Then about exploitation? I think that's a more accurate word anyway.

Yada, Yada, gotdamn Yada.

You're constantly starting conversations and when someone responds with a field goal right down the middle of your uprights, hell, LOL, you 'try' to move the damn goalposts.

CASE IN POINT: you attempted that wrong-headed legal analysis (obviously thinking you were on solid ground) and when I responded with the truth, you changed the damn subject with, "Your law locks up people for non-violent drug offenses" -- which has shit to do with AND actually goes to refute your own "stop worrying about the relationship between poor people (and people in general) and businesses. If it doesn't meet the standards of fraud or extortion, then it's not manipulation."

The point son, you shouldn't have opened the door if you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

.

That's how it goes.

 

[QueEx]

I didn't offer a legal analysis, I offered a straightforward statement to leave people the fuck alone. The problem is that's such a foreign concept to all of you that you don't know how to respond.

I have no respect for your laws or your system, so why would I use it as an appeal to change your behavior? When have I ever offered the way your law works as a basis for right or wrong?

You're right. To say that you were "analyzing" was giving you way too much credit.

But your point is clear: you're among those who believe its okay for business to run straight the fuck over people; and I get it that you don't want government to interfere in the carnage, even minimally, to help those with far less power from being completely overrun by those pursuing their financial interest, regardless of the harm that brings upon others.

Having that attitude, I can also see why you abhor the law for interfering, however slight, in the twisted reality of Greed.

 

[Greed]

Not manipulation? Okay.
Then about exploitation? I think that's a more accurate word anyway.

It's definitely more accurate when describing your opinion of economic transactions. It's not accurate in describing economic transactions though.

As usual, you view these voluntary transactions as zero-sum and, implicitly, asymmetrically imbalanced towards a money-hungry business. There is no inherent positive or negative sides after the trade. Both parties are better off whether you can see it or not.

The exception is whether one or both parties had the trade, or the conditions of the trade, imposed upon them by force.

Without force, trade is mutually beneficial for the people involved as long as they know what they are getting into, even when you don't understand what someone else is getting out of it.

In other words, stay the fuck out of matters that don't concern you.

You're right. To say that you were "analyzing" was giving you way too much credit.

But your point is clear: you're among those who believe its okay for business to run straight the fuck over people; and I get it that you don't want government to interfere in the carnage, even minimally, to help those with far less power from being completely overrun by those pursuing their financial interest, regardless of the harm that brings upon others.

Having that attitude, I can also see why you abhor the law for interfering, however slight, in the twisted reality of Greed.

How are businesses running the fuck over people without the use of force? What is the carnage? A job filled, no matter how much you wouldnt take that job? Someone getting what they paid for, no matter how much you wouldn't want to have the goods?

I've asked you this before when you brought up this point in the past, but what power do you mean? What kind of strength dominates the world when force is illegal in all economic transactions?

The only power I see dominate economics in this society is political power. Force people to only work for politically acceptable wages. Force people to transfer trillions to the financial markets to save rich people. Force people into incarceration for non-violent economic transactions.

What power does a business have to violate rights if all your dumb laws were reduced to stopping fraud, extortion, and force?

The above shows I don't abhor the law getting between a buyer and a seller. You casually want the government to step in when you don't feel good about someone else's transaction, even when the people involved are fine with it. I want the government to step in when people have been cheated, not just when they wish they had gotten a better deal.

There is no difference between the principles governing a maximum or a minimum wage. You just don't care about giving the same deference to poor people to run their own lives that you give to rich people.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It's definitely more accurate when describing your opinion of economic transactions. It's not accurate in describing economic transactions though.

As usual, you view these voluntary transactions as zero-sum and, implicitly, asymmetrically imbalanced towards a money-hungry business. There is no inherent positive or negative sides after the trade. Both parties are better off whether you can see it or not.
The exception is whether one or both parties had the trade, or the conditions of the trade, imposed upon them by force.

Without force, trade is mutually beneficial for the people involved as long as they know what they are getting into, even when you don't understand what someone else is getting out of it.

In other words, stay the fuck out of matters that don't concern you.

That's just not true.
The business is better off since they got labor at a cut rate. The worker is not better off because they have work but can't afford to support themselves so they're still using public assistance (which is where it concerns me).

 

[thoughtone]

 

[QueEx]

Because playing to or off of racial stereotypes and innuendo usually is at the core of the rationale used to convince otherwise similarly situated people that what would be beneficial to them is actually bad for them or distasteful because, in one way or another, its somehow linked to that other group of people ???

​

 

[thoughtone]

Because playing to or off of racial stereotypes and innuendo usually is at the core of the rationale used to convince otherwise similarly situated people that what would be beneficial to them is actually bad for them or distasteful because, in one way or another, its somehow linked to that other group of people ???

​

A tool the capitalists have been using for over 150 years.

 

[Greed]

That's just not true.
The business is better off since they got labor at a cut rate. The worker is not better off because they have work but can't afford to support themselves so they're still using public assistance (which is where it concerns me).

It's so interesting to see you just double-down on the same bad logic.

Whether or not a person needs more than what they've earned, and the level of welfare they should get, is a social determination not an economic one. You and your kind have determined that he didn't get enough, and you and your kind decided the "living wage" he should be getting. That's on you, not the employer. Your greatest fear is that the employer and employee get along just fine. The employee is fine with the wage he agreed to and the employer is fine with paying it.

That person, without your help, decided that the job was good for him. Your response is they've been taken advantage of by the employer. You're calling the wage cut-rate with no regards to the actual nature of the work being done. You've just declared the employer some kind of winner based on the wage paid. No regards to the nature of the job. No regards to the cost, outside of wages, incurred by the employer to bring on and maintain an employee. And most importantly, no regards to the actual opinion of the worker.

What you seem to ignore about your machinations is it doesn't just apply to people like you who complain about having to work and get paid a wage you've agreed to take. It also applies to people who are fine with taking a $5/hour job instead of taking $5/hour worth of welfare. Some people look at a job as opportunity not oppression and disagrees with you that they are being taken advantage of when the wage level is below a completely politically arbitrary number.

Your social determinations is a separate issue. You want their dollars to do more in their life? Then reject your entire way of being. Start telling your government you were wrong to endorse flooding the economy with stimulus money, trillions to bankers, trillions is unpaid entitlements, and trillions a year in debt. Tell your government to stop raising the cost of living with so much inflation.

Of course, it's easier to tell poor people what's good for them.

 

[Famous1]

It's so interesting to see you just double-down on the same bad logic.

Whether or not a person needs more than what they've earned, and the level of welfare they should get, is a social determination not an economic one. You and your kind have determined that he didn't get enough, and you and your kind decided the "living wage" he should be getting. That's on you, not the employer. Your greatest fear is that the employer and employee get along just fine. The employee is fine with the wage he agreed to and the employer is fine with paying it.

That person, without your help, decided that the job was good for him. Your response is they've been taken advantage of by the employer. You're calling the wage cut-rate with no regards to the actual nature of the work being done. You've just declared the employer some kind of winner based on the wage paid. No regards to the nature of the job. No regards to the cost, outside of wages, incurred by the employer to bring on and maintain an employee. And most importantly, no regards to the actual opinion of the worker.

What you seem to ignore about your machinations is it doesn't just apply to people like you who complain about having to work and get paid a wage you've agreed to take. It also applies to people who are fine with taking a $5/hour job instead of taking $5/hour worth of welfare. Some people look at a job as opportunity not oppression and disagrees with you that they are being taken advantage of when the wage level is below a completely politically arbitrary number.

Your social determinations is a separate issue. You want their dollars to do more in their life? Then reject your entire way of being. Start telling your government you were wrong to endorse flooding the economy with stimulus money, trillions to bankers, trillions is unpaid entitlements, and trillions a year in debt. Tell your government to stop raising the cost of living with so much inflation.

Of course, it's easier to tell poor people what's good for them.

The current minimum wage is a completely arbitrary number... I wish more people would refuse to work for that amount..


sent from my almighty mutha fuggin note 3

 

[thoughtone]

Why are they bitching?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It's so interesting to see you just double-down on the same bad logic.

Whether or not a person needs more than what they've earned, and the level of welfare they should get, is a social determination not an economic one. You and your kind have determined that he didn't get enough, and you and your kind decided the "living wage" he should be getting. That's on you, not the employer. Your greatest fear is that the employer and employee get along just fine. The employee is fine with the wage he agreed to and the employer is fine with paying it.

That person, without your help, decided that the job was good for him. Your response is they've been taken advantage of by the employer. You're calling the wage cut-rate with no regards to the actual nature of the work being done. You've just declared the employer some kind of winner based on the wage paid. No regards to the nature of the job. No regards to the cost, outside of wages, incurred by the employer to bring on and maintain an employee. And most importantly, no regards to the actual opinion of the worker.

What you seem to ignore about your machinations is it doesn't just apply to people like you who complain about having to work and get paid a wage you've agreed to take. It also applies to people who are fine with taking a $5/hour job instead of taking $5/hour worth of welfare. Some people look at a job as opportunity not oppression and disagrees with you that they are being taken advantage of when the wage level is below a completely politically arbitrary number.

Your social determinations is a separate issue. You want their dollars to do more in their life? Then reject your entire way of being. Start telling your government you were wrong to endorse flooding the economy with stimulus money, trillions to bankers, trillions is unpaid entitlements, and trillions a year in debt. Tell your government to stop raising the cost of living with so much inflation.

Of course, it's easier to tell poor people what's good for them.

This whole thing was foolish, fantastic, unrealistic nonsense but the bolded part was the most foolish.
That person taking that $5/hr job in 2014 gets that AND $5/hr in public assistance in some form. They don't even have the choice of "either/or", they're going to need both, especially if they have children.

You choose to believe in your philosophy despite decades of years of contrary, real life evidence. I don't know what else to say to someone choosing to be obtuse.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Why are they bitching?

It's human nature to want more. That doesn't end just because you're winning, now you want to win by bigger margins.

 

[Greed]

This whole thing was foolish, fantastic, unrealistic nonsense but the bolded part was the most foolish.
That person taking that $5/hr job in 2014 gets that AND $5/hr in public assistance in some form. They don't even have the choice of "either/or", they're going to need both, especially if they have children.

You choose to believe in your philosophy despite decades of years of contrary, real life evidence. I don't know what else to say to someone choosing to be obtuse.

And the whole point that your politics is encouraging you to deny, is that it's not the businesses' fault that you want more than what you can earn through working. The cost of living being what it is doesn't mean it's the businesses' responsibility to provide welfare to all of you.

Just through government, you know you can't afford your own wish-list of welfare and what you think you deserve in life, so you want any random employer to be responsible.

Every random employer isn't Mcdonalds or Walmart and can afford to be your welfare provider.

And every random worker isn't you thinking it's a job's nature to be welfare.

The only years of real-life evidence present is people like you enforcing these policies, not that they're working.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

And the whole point that your politics is encouraging you to deny, is that it's not the businesses' fault that you want more than what you can earn through working. The cost of living being what it is doesn't mean it's the businesses' responsibility to provide welfare to all of you.

Just through government, you know you can't afford your own wish-list of welfare and what you think you deserve in life, so you want any random employer to be responsible.

Every random employer isn't Mcdonalds or Walmart and can afford to be your welfare provider.

And every random worker isn't you thinking it's a job's nature to be welfare.

The only years of real-life evidence present is people like you enforcing these policies, not that they're working.

What?

Employers don't provide any welfare, they pay for work done. Since productivity has been up for years, it's incumbent on employers to fulfill their end of the contract and match the wages with the productivity.
If I engage you long enough, and it never takes long, you further expose your anti-worker mentality and philosophy.
If the business can get a worker for the lowest possible price, that's okay. But to have the government, which at it's best is the people's representative, force them to not pit workers against each other in attempts to underbid the other, that's wrong and that's forcing jobs to provide welfare.

 

[Greed]

Employers pay what was agreed upon. Employers are looking to pay the least for the amount of work done and employees are looking to be paid the most for the amount of work done. Neither one is evil and neither one is the victim. I understand that about both. You can only comprehend it about the employee.

You think employers are cheaters which is why you think you're justified in sticking your nose in any random agreement between workers and businesses. That's also why you think it's your place to decide what productivity is worth, then dictate that a business pays that while being completely oblivious that tens of thousands of workers are doing that everyday as they quit and start new jobs.

But to have the government, which at it's best is the people's representative, force them to not pit workers against each other in attempts to underbid the other, that's wrong and that's forcing jobs to provide welfare.

You must live a sad life if that's how you view the entire dynamic. I see you talk bad about conservatives, but that's the exact mind-set they use to talk bad about Mexican workers.

Wages are not the only determination an employer uses to hire someone. There are millions of people everyday who are willing to underbid a lawyer, an accountant, a machinist, a janitor, a mechanic, or a CEO. Businesses don't hire someone who can't do the job just because they are cheaper. All workers in a labor market are not interchangeable. All workers in a sector are not interchangeable. All workers in a firm are not interchangeable. All workers in a division in a firm are not interchangeable. All workers in a team in a division in a firm are not interchangeable. You can't just have someone offer to work for less and that's enough incentive to replace who you already have there.

You have a typical American savage's idea of the labor market. Someone who can't do your job is not a threat to your job security. Someone who can isn't looking to be paid less for it. If someone can replace you at half the pay, then you were delusional regarding how much value you actually added and you should work on that. That's not the employers fault and its not the fault of the worker who replaced you.

You should reject the savage notions politicians encourage you to have whenever they want more power. Just because they make you feel smart doesn't mean you should go along with it.

Now,

I am for the totality of a worker's decision-making to be made by the worker, and his choices should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding its correctness as long as his decision doesn't hurt someone else.

You are just pro-government.

Tell me again how you're the one pro-worker.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Employers pay what was agreed upon. Employers are looking to pay the least for the amount of work done and employees are looking to be paid the most for the amount of work done. Neither one is evil and neither one is the victim. I understand that about both. You can only comprehend it about the employee.

It just seems that you need to say false things to buoy your ridiculous processes. You need simplistic ideas of "good and evil" when no one is suggesting anything of the sort.
Of course employers want the most labor for the best price, that has never been an issue with me.

Now,

Tell me again how you're the one pro-worker.

I keep telling.
Your philosophy, when ferreted out to it's logical conclusion, will always lead to worker's being in a worse position and with less power in every single way.

 

[Greed]

It just seems that you need to say false things to buoy your ridiculous processes. You need simplistic ideas of "good and evil" when no one is suggesting anything of the sort.
Of course employers want the most labor for the best price, that has never been an issue with me..

That's good that you reject the notion that employers are wrong. Now if you would only put as much effort into rejecting the idea that anyone is a victim. Once you reject the victim status, then you won't see a need to insert yourself into anyone's decision-making when it doesn't involve you.

I keep telling.
Your philosophy, when ferreted out to it's logical conclusion, will always lead to worker's being in a worse position and with less power in every single way.

I agree, you do keep saying it.

You keep saying that without some outside dictation (by you), poor people will be in a "worse position."

One thing you won't say is how my definition will leave them worse off. The logical conclusion you reject is that you won't be able to tell people how they should live their lives.

 

[playahaitian]