Anonymous wrote:

there are other ways of helping people start businesses other than setting a low minimum wage. what if the government gave free health insurance to everybody so small business owners didn't have to shoulder that expensive? What if the government had lower taxes for businesses that employed under 100 people? What if the government gave tax breaks to small business owners, like no sales tax, making them cheaper than big box stores? Why not envision a win-win for small businesses and for the workers?

Why not rely on capitalism? It works a lot better than what you are suggesting. Not perfect, but better than the alternative. Small businesses have had lower taxes the last few years, but it appears they will be rising. That is one reason why businesses and employment was doing so well until the pandemic. The health insurance is still a dilemma. But, health insurance has gone way up since the ACA. And, don't say Medicare For All. Most people would be surprised to know that Medicare is far from free--and the people receiving it have paid towards it for many, many years and most still pay premiums.

there are other ways of helping people start businesses other than setting a low minimum wage. what if the government gave free health insurance to everybody so small business owners didn't have to shoulder that expensive? What if the government had lower taxes for businesses that employed under 100 people? What if the government gave tax breaks to small business owners, like no sales tax, making them cheaper than big box stores? Why not envision a win-win for small businesses and for the workers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think things have really changed and a lot of people are carrying old attitudes from the experiences of previous generations. And some people have a scarcity outlook - like "I had to suffer so you must also" or "I don't want to share any pie"

But I think of things like this -

My grandpa was a welder and he was a wealthy guy in a small town. Supported a family of 4, drove only Mercedes, bought many sports cars for my teenaged dad. Retired early to life of leisure, left money behind when he died.

My great uncle worked in a liquor store. He had only a wife to support, but the had homes in both Virginia and Florida, where they lived half the year, and they wanted for nothing.

My FIL worked summers during high school and college, and made enough money to pay for all his college tuition, no debt. (So now he thinks kids can still work to pay for all of college, ha)

These things seem unbelievable now, that guys with blue collar and/or customer service jobs could live so very well.

I am for this big minimum wage, to help these families who can't make ends meet, and sure, to help a 17 year old pay for school or make a great start in life. Things are out of balance now. This helps even it out.

It's not going to help families. It is not going to give that 17 year old a job to help out or save for college. It's not going to help a cousin start a business. Basic common sense.

And, most people are NOT making minimum wage--they are making more. This will not help teens get work experience or be able to help with family or save for college. You need to get over that idea. We will see more "screens" for rodering in restaurants--where kids were employed before. I know a teen working at the mall more than ten years ago who was making better than minimum wage.
And, if a business cannot get started, it will never employ people.

Minimum wage raises will cause more people to lose jobs. That is not a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I think things have really changed and a lot of people are carrying old attitudes from the experiences of previous generations. And some people have a scarcity outlook - like "I had to suffer so you must also" or "I don't want to share any pie"

But I think of things like this -

My grandpa was a welder and he was a wealthy guy in a small town. Supported a family of 4, drove only Mercedes, bought many sports cars for my teenaged dad. Retired early to life of leisure, left money behind when he died.

My great uncle worked in a liquor store. He had only a wife to support, but the had homes in both Virginia and Florida, where they lived half the year, and they wanted for nothing.

My FIL worked summers during high school and college, and made enough money to pay for all his college tuition, no debt. (So now he thinks kids can still work to pay for all of college, ha)

These things seem unbelievable now, that guys with blue collar and/or customer service jobs could live so very well.

I am for this big minimum wage, to help these families who can't make ends meet, and sure, to help a 17 year old pay for school or make a great start in life. Things are out of balance now. This helps even it out.

Anonymous wrote:I think things have really changed and a lot of people are carrying old attitudes from the experiences of previous generations. And some people have a scarcity outlook - like "I had to suffer so you must also" or "I don't want to share any pie"

But I think of things like this -

My grandpa was a welder and he was a wealthy guy in a small town. Supported a family of 4, drove only Mercedes, bought many sports cars for my teenaged dad. Retired early to life of leisure, left money behind when he died.

My great uncle worked in a liquor store. He had only a wife to support, but the had homes in both Virginia and Florida, where they lived half the year, and they wanted for nothing.

My FIL worked summers during high school and college, and made enough money to pay for all his college tuition, no debt. (So now he thinks kids can still work to pay for all of college, ha)

These things seem unbelievable now, that guys with blue collar and/or customer service jobs could live so very well.

I am for this big minimum wage, to help these families who can't make ends meet, and sure, to help a 17 year old pay for school or make a great start in life. Things are out of balance now. This helps even it out.

I'm sorry you find having to pay your employees a living wage so confounding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why so many people have endless compassion for the poor poor business owners, but are so quick to shout let them eat cake at workers?

You're not entitled to a successful business at the expense of exploiting others. What you should be entitled to is a living wage for your work.

1. A business is not always successful--especially a new one. A just starting business is likely not successful and the owner is trying to build it into one that is. Especially, with the pandemic, it is going to be more difficult for new start ups--and some formerly successful businesses. Do you really think the shops at the mall and the local restaurants are doing well?

If you can't afford to pay your workers, you shouldn't be in business. The answer to your business problems is not exploiting people for their labor and your enrichment.

2. You are assuming that the business owner is making a good living. Some business owners are not even able to pay themselves at the beginning.

I'm not assuming anything. I dont care what the business owner is making or not making. If you can't pay your employees m, then guess what? YOU DON'T GET EMPLOYEES.

3. A business that goes under is not employing anyone. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that some people would rather have a low paying job than no job?

Someone working a full time minimum wage job (let's be honest, probably more than full time) and struggling to make ends meet has no time to look for a better job. They'd be better off focusing on finding a job that can sustain them rather than getting stuck in a poverty cycle. That's what the social safety net is for.

Failing businesses should go under, and we shouldn't prop them up by allowing them to exploit poor people. They are a drain on the economy and aren't somehow helping the employees they are taking advantage of.

Do you really think that a business is successful and exploiting people just because it exists? I suggest you drive around to some local shopping centers and warehouses and see the shuttered stores and other businesses. At least, that is what I am seeing.

When did I say a business is exploiting people just because it exists? What I said was that if you can't afford to pay a LIVING WAGE without your business failing, you already had a failing business model that was predicated on exploitation.

Also, do you think a 17 year old is entitled to a living wage?

If they're working a full time job, performing the same work as the adults around them, why shouldn't they be? What does their age have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that there are no 17 year olds working to support their families?

No words. Scratching my head to think how anyone could ever hope to start a business with these rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why so many people have endless compassion for the poor poor business owners, but are so quick to shout let them eat cake at workers?

You're not entitled to a successful business at the expense of exploiting others. What you should be entitled to is a living wage for your work.

1. A business is not always successful--especially a new one. A just starting business is likely not successful and the owner is trying to build it into one that is. Especially, with the pandemic, it is going to be more difficult for new start ups--and some formerly successful businesses. Do you really think the shops at the mall and the local restaurants are doing well?

If you can't afford to pay your workers, you shouldn't be in business. The answer to your business problems is not exploiting people for their labor and your enrichment.

2. You are assuming that the business owner is making a good living. Some business owners are not even able to pay themselves at the beginning.

I'm not assuming anything. I dont care what the business owner is making or not making. If you can't pay your employees m, then guess what? YOU DON'T GET EMPLOYEES.

3. A business that goes under is not employing anyone. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that some people would rather have a low paying job than no job?

Someone working a full time minimum wage job (let's be honest, probably more than full time) and struggling to make ends meet has no time to look for a better job. They'd be better off focusing on finding a job that can sustain them rather than getting stuck in a poverty cycle. That's what the social safety net is for.

Failing businesses should go under, and we shouldn't prop them up by allowing them to exploit poor people. They are a drain on the economy and aren't somehow helping the employees they are taking advantage of.

Do you really think that a business is successful and exploiting people just because it exists? I suggest you drive around to some local shopping centers and warehouses and see the shuttered stores and other businesses. At least, that is what I am seeing.

When did I say a business is exploiting people just because it exists? What I said was that if you can't afford to pay a LIVING WAGE without your business failing, you already had a failing business model that was predicated on exploitation.

Also, do you think a 17 year old is entitled to a living wage?

If they're working a full time job, performing the same work as the adults around them, why shouldn't they be? What does their age have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that there are no 17 year olds working to support their families?

Anonymous wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why so many people have endless compassion for the poor poor business owners, but are so quick to shout let them eat cake at workers?

You're not entitled to a successful business at the expense of exploiting others. What you should be entitled to is a living wage for your work.

1. A business is not always successful--especially a new one. A just starting business is likely not successful and the owner is trying to build it into one that is. Especially, with the pandemic, it is going to be more difficult for new start ups--and some formerly successful businesses. Do you really think the shops at the mall and the local restaurants are doing well?

If you can't afford to pay your workers, you shouldn't be in business. The answer to your business problems is not exploiting people for their labor and your enrichment.

2. You are assuming that the business owner is making a good living. Some business owners are not even able to pay themselves at the beginning.

I'm not assuming anything. I dont care what the business owner is making or not making. If you can't pay your employees m, then guess what? YOU DON'T GET EMPLOYEES.

3. A business that goes under is not employing anyone. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand that some people would rather have a low paying job than no job?

Someone working a full time minimum wage job (let's be honest, probably more than full time) and struggling to make ends meet has no time to look for a better job. They'd be better off focusing on finding a job that can sustain them rather than getting stuck in a poverty cycle. That's what the social safety net is for.

Failing businesses should go under, and we shouldn't prop them up by allowing them to exploit poor people. They are a drain on the economy and aren't somehow helping the employees they are taking advantage of.

Do you really think that a business is successful and exploiting people just because it exists? I suggest you drive around to some local shopping centers and warehouses and see the shuttered stores and other businesses. At least, that is what I am seeing.

When did I say a business is exploiting people just because it exists? What I said was that if you can't afford to pay a LIVING WAGE without your business failing, you already had a failing business model that was predicated on exploitation.

Also, do you think a 17 year old is entitled to a living wage?

If they're working a full time job, performing the same work as the adults around them, why shouldn't they be? What does their age have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that there are no 17 year olds working to support their families?

Can someone please explain to me why so many people have endless compassion for the poor poor business owners, but are so quick to shout let them eat cake at workers?

You're not entitled to a successful business at the expense of exploiting others. What you should be entitled to is a living wage for your work.

Anonymous wrote:

Try reading. Her friend shares a house and can STILL BARELY PAY HER BILLS. This should not be happening when someone works full time, while the executives at the company she works at take home millions that they made on the backs of people like her. It's disgusting, and you're defending it.

And, there are people who make good salaries and can STILL BARELY PAY THEIR BILLS. Sometimes, it is the way they spend their money. As my dady said about a cousin: "he can afford the luxuries but not the necessities."

As for minimum wage, only about 2% of workers are working for minimum wage--and half of them are teens or under 25. I'm guessing most of the others are not single households. If you raise minimum wage, teens will lose their jobs-as will others. All workers will have to have their wages raised and that will destroy many, many small businesses. Lots of owners start their businesses hardly paying themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$15 minimum wage will not affect you at all, unless you are a small businessperson.

The .01 cent increase in the size of Big Macs is non-relevant, and you should probably stop eating all those Big Macs anyways.

It won’t effect you. It WILL effect the minimum wage workers at the counter, because their jobs will simply be eliminated, and they will be replaced by automated ordering kiosks.

I guess libs will then tell them “they should learn to code” or “start building solar panels”.

no, that is Ivanka's line.