You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Current Events Thread
Honestly, if the wealthy have every avenue to side step tax law, exploit loop holes, and companies get subsidies they don't need but take anyway, why are you blaming people for taking advantage of the situation? If you can get paid more from these checks than working, you're most likely going to ride it as long as you can, exactly the way wealthy Americans would if positions were reversed.
All of this,
plus:
Companies could pay a wage that’s not shit and people would rather work. Yes, even entry level jobs. Not everyone is an Einstein on the way to CEO.
Re: Current Events Thread
misterID wrote:Honestly, if the wealthy have every avenue to side step tax law, exploit loop holes, and companies get subsidies they don't need but take anyway, why are you blaming people for taking advantage of the situation? If you can get paid more from these checks than working, you're most likely going to ride it as long as you can, exactly the way wealthy Americans would if positions were reversed.
All of this,
plus:
Companies could pay a wage that’s not shit and people would rather work. Yes, even entry level jobs. Not everyone is an Einstein on the way to CEO.
It’s such a strange dynamic...it’s like those who stay home and collect are vilified and the ones that basically cross the picket line and go back to work are deeply proud of doing it despite making minimum wage and no benefits.
And the ones that did go back to work look down on the ones who stay home and make more doing so.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
bigbri wrote:misterID wrote:Honestly, if the wealthy have every avenue to side step tax law, exploit loop holes, and companies get subsidies they don't need but take anyway, why are you blaming people for taking advantage of the situation? If you can get paid more from these checks than working, you're most likely going to ride it as long as you can, exactly the way wealthy Americans would if positions were reversed.
All of this,
plus:
Companies could pay a wage that’s not shit and people would rather work. Yes, even entry level jobs. Not everyone is an Einstein on the way to CEO.
It’s such a strange dynamic...it’s like those who stay home and collect are vilified and the ones that basically cross the picket line and go back to work are deeply proud of doing it despite making minimum wage and no benefits.
And the ones that did go back to work look down on the ones who stay home and make more doing so.
This perplexes you? Millions who worked through the pandemic are upset there exists a contingent of people perfectly ok with “free” money that far exceeds their current earning potential?
I know you don’t view the “American dream” as I do, but a lot of people believe people should have to earn their comfort through labor as it’s been for all of recorded history.
Re: Current Events Thread
That's the fault of the people who made the bills. They just gave billions to California to pay off debt while they have a budget surplus (thanks to silicon valley, but that might change sooner rather than later). That's not the fault of the people. A lot of people got hazard pay during the worst of the pandemic, a lot didn't. There's plenty of things that aren't fair.
And we're talking big business, not workers. They outsource and automate rather than raise wages for their employees. One thing I loved what Trump did was the TVA here in TN attempted to fire a large swath of employees and replace them with cheap workers from India... Trump had the exec fired and the idea was nixed saving those jobs. So when you're dealing with a mentality like that, it gets pretty difficult to blame workers for getting a little extra piece of cheese.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
Plenty of things about US labor law, I don’t like. H1Bs and outsourcing being #1. But if your argument is we need to pay people more to make an inflated unemployment compensation untenable, I’m going to disagree. In my state, combining federal and state unemployment equals about 55k a year. A waitress shouldn’t expect to make that for her labor.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Current Events Thread
Then how can you complain when the waitress doesn’t work?
Cause federal and state unemployment are capped, and eventually she’ll get a job that pays her what her marketable skills will allow. No one voted or approved providing minimum wage employees a $25 hourly wage to sit at home. End the outrageous unemployment benefits that are clearly dissuading people from working, and they’ll go back to work. We’ve moved on from a $15 minimum wage discussion (no country pays teenagers $15 to flip burgers) to now providing 50k a year to capable people, who choose not to work because they’re paid more not to.
They’ll return eventually, and working people will rightfully look at them with scorn. Even Marx said to each their ability. No intellectual advocates people get a middle class living just for existing with no labor or effort.
Re: Current Events Thread
Plenty of things about US labor law, I don’t like. H1Bs and outsourcing being #1. But if your argument is we need to pay people more to make an inflated unemployment compensation untenable, I’m going to disagree. In my state, combining federal and state unemployment equals about 55k a year. A waitress shouldn’t expect to make that for her labor.
My argument isn't about unemployment checks/stats, it's about wages in general. I don't think there should be a "working poor." If we don't want to raise minimum wage because it hampers job/business growth, then we should seriously consider subsidizing wages for the poor, low wage, or anyone making less than $12 an hour. I mean, we already kind of do with an earned income tax credit. Wisconsin was literally paying companies to come in and hire workers. If you instituted a robotics, AI, automation tax, closed the loop holes companies like Nike use to outsource, placed an internet sales tax on Amazon and Wal-Mart size companies, it could easily be paid for.
