Republicans killed “equal pay for equal work” in the Senate today.
2
Travis Bicklespews:
He’s honest enough to say that the increase comes out of profits. Goldy might pay 50 cents more for a good Vietnamese sandwich but others may think twice. Costs that an employer can’t pass on he/she either eats, or offsets by doing more and employing less. Thanks for posting.
3
Betterspews:
@2. Again, if your business model is not profitable unless you pay less than living wages, is that acceptable?
Is it then acceptable to argue that the business should be allowed to pay only $2 an hour, so the business can be profitable?
Is it then acceptable to argue that the business should be allowed to capture serfs that will be work for no pay what so every so the business can be profitable?
At what point is too low?
4
Travis Bicklespews:
@ 2
If it is within the law, then yes, it is acceptable.
Employees are free to work elsewhere at higher wages.
Although I did hear on Marketwatch’s radio program last night that employee churn is less than 2%, so that freedom might be more theoretic than practical these days.
5
Betterspews:
@4. Oh, you are one of those people. I hope you get to work for sub minimum wage some time in your future, when you cannot find other work.
Nothing teach empathy to republicans than having it happen to them.
6
Jackspews:
How about setting a maximum wage?
7
screedspews:
As I recall from my history classes, the slave owners of the south claimed that freeing the slaves would ruin their economy, that their business model was not viable unless slavery was allowed. Not that I’m comparing a restaurant owner that pays sub-livable wages to a slave owner… oh wait, I suppose I am. Never mind.
8
Travis Bicklespews:
@7
No, you’ve got it mostly correct. Spend four years slaughtering a whole bunch of your employees, as well as those of your competitors, and you will then be able to afford to pay higher wages to the ones who are left.
Roger Rabbit spews:
Republicans killed “equal pay for equal work” in the Senate today.
Travis Bickle spews:
He’s honest enough to say that the increase comes out of profits. Goldy might pay 50 cents more for a good Vietnamese sandwich but others may think twice. Costs that an employer can’t pass on he/she either eats, or offsets by doing more and employing less. Thanks for posting.
Better spews:
@2. Again, if your business model is not profitable unless you pay less than living wages, is that acceptable?
Is it then acceptable to argue that the business should be allowed to pay only $2 an hour, so the business can be profitable?
Is it then acceptable to argue that the business should be allowed to capture serfs that will be work for no pay what so every so the business can be profitable?
At what point is too low?
Travis Bickle spews:
@ 2
If it is within the law, then yes, it is acceptable.
Employees are free to work elsewhere at higher wages.
Although I did hear on Marketwatch’s radio program last night that employee churn is less than 2%, so that freedom might be more theoretic than practical these days.
Better spews:
@4. Oh, you are one of those people. I hope you get to work for sub minimum wage some time in your future, when you cannot find other work.
Nothing teach empathy to republicans than having it happen to them.
Jack spews:
How about setting a maximum wage?
screed spews:
As I recall from my history classes, the slave owners of the south claimed that freeing the slaves would ruin their economy, that their business model was not viable unless slavery was allowed. Not that I’m comparing a restaurant owner that pays sub-livable wages to a slave owner… oh wait, I suppose I am. Never mind.
Travis Bickle spews:
@7
No, you’ve got it mostly correct. Spend four years slaughtering a whole bunch of your employees, as well as those of your competitors, and you will then be able to afford to pay higher wages to the ones who are left.