Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Anonymous wrote:At some point the question becomes whether corporations and employers are responsible for the well being of their employees. How much profit is enough when it comes at the expense of society? We are continually told that "job creators" need subsidies and tax breaks and concessions for the betterment of our general economy. Corporations are given BILLIONS in concessions and then, when asked to spare some of this largess for their employees at the bottom, they scrimp and cut hours, benefits, and other basics.

You can say, oh, but the free market! But the free market shouldn't include subsidies and tax breaks, then. At what point are corporations socially responsible and required to preserve hours and pay well - even if it means a slight hit to the bottom line (but still being profitable). That's the shame about Walmart. They screw their employees, they screw their suppliers, and all so they can be even richer than they already are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why not keep up with inflation every year?

How about not causing heavy inflation in the first place. A little bit is natural.

But printing $$$ endlessly for every want and debasing the currency is what causes inflation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP here.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Do you really believe Americans will fill those jobs in sufficient numbers? I don't.

yes they will, or the business will go out of business.

What right does the government have to control markets?

What right do you have to mandate that workers be paid slave wages and conditions to pick your organic strawberriers?

Anonymous wrote:
Why not keep up with inflation every year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

the easiest way to raise the wages of low skilled workers is to limit the supply of low skilled workers. We can limit the supply by limiting immigration. It really is that easy. And it would help our country immensely. Nothing racist about it. just economics.

“The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

and

Today immigration is very starkly polarized, like everything else, Cannato says. Generally Democrats are “pro-immigration,” or in favor of large-scale immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans – not all – are in favor of some kind of restrictions.

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-barbara-jordan-current-gop-rhetoric-have-in-common/

OP here.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Do you really believe Americans will fill those jobs in sufficient numbers? I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

the easiest way to raise the wages of low skilled workers is to limit the supply of low skilled workers. We can limit the supply by limiting immigration. It really is that easy. And it would help our country immensely. Nothing racist about it. just economics.

“The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”

and

Today immigration is very starkly polarized, like everything else, Cannato says. Generally Democrats are “pro-immigration,” or in favor of large-scale immigration. On the other hand, many Republicans – not all – are in favor of some kind of restrictions.

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/what-barbara-jordan-current-gop-rhetoric-have-in-common/

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it nice that you live a comfortable enough life that you don't have to worry about living on that line?

And for what it is worth, most Walmart employees in this situation are retirees doing what they can to make ends meet before they meet their healthcare doom.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.

Anonymous wrote:but income decreases. The best laid plans/expectations of government rarely succeeds as it projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV

If you are going to have a minimum wage keep up with inflation. But you aren't going to help anyone by sitting on your bureaucratic ass for years then raising it over a few years to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It's what conservatives have been saying....if you raise the minimum wage, there will be fewer jobs (or hours) to go around.

In the Seattle case, the employers cut hours. But when NYC raised the minimum to $15, the employees themselves asked their hours to be cut so they wouldn't make too much for government assistance (that they were on were before wages were raised). Apparently, they felt no stigma at all having to rely on taxpayer support, and when the opportunity came to be self-supporting, they decided they'd rather stay on the dole.

And that brings up a related topic. On another thread, liberals are complaining that WALMART pays so little that their employees get food stamps, and that the minimum should be raised. But who says the employees WANT to get off food stamps? Maybe they'd prefer to work less (for the same money) and still get food stamps, as what happened in NYC.