Quote from: BBazaar on August 08, 2013, 04:23:56 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on August 08, 2013, 04:19:52 PM

Quote from: BBazaar on August 08, 2013, 03:50:52 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on August 08, 2013, 02:02:36 PM

why? what if i do a piss poor job? what if my employer asks me to pick up all of the sticks in his yard and i walk at like 1/10th of a mile per hour. instead of picking up 10 sticks and carrying them to the bin i pick up 1 and carry it to the bin then walk back into the yard and pick up 1 more. what if my work is creating significantly less value than is required to sustain my person? why am i entitled to more compensation than my labor is worth? where is this money supposed to come from? it necessarily must come from someone elses surplus productivity, why does that person owe me anything?

Completely different argument. You made a pure Employer-Employee contract argument. If you don't do the job you're hired to do, you get fired. That doesn't mean I don't pay you a reasonable wage to do the job when you do the job I hired you to do.

You can't negate the fact that the 1% controls the majority of the wealth in the world. We aren't talking about redistribution, we are talking about supporting the base of the pyramid that the entire economy is built on. If you don't take care of the foundation, the rest of the house will crumble. The stronger the foundation, the bigger the house can be built.

Let me pose it differently. If tomorrow McDonalds raised their wages and exceeded other fast food chains, would you still have the same argument that bums watching hentai and breaking bad all day worked there? Or would you instead be dealing with a higher class employee striving to get a job at the better paying McDonalds?

There is nothing wrong with paying employees more to do jobs, all it means is that there is an immediate reduction in profit margins for teh business and reduction in take home at the top tiers. It is a better long term stance in terms of growing corporate profits through adding spending power to the consumer base.

I will never understand the comments about getting paid what you're worth. The lowest levels of labor should get paid the lowest of wages, but those wages should be the bare minimum needed for food and shelter and wages should rise from there. If you're workers can't survive, how can they continue working for you and further, how could your business continue to thrive? It's again very simple economics.

To argue the alternative is to basically say, corporations are entitled to all the profits they make and owe no one anything. The CEO's at the top should be able to take the chunk they want because they are at the top of the entity that deserves it all. Clearly this is misleading, because corporations wouldn't have profits without consumers and they wouldn't have profits without workers providing their services or producing their goods. Lose the economy, you lose the profits and the benefits of running a business. Again, econ 101.

Lastly, consider that workers are paid because they are NEEDED by the company. Do you really think you get hired at McDonalds to flip burgers because they are just looking to help you out? It's a fair transfer and should have a mutual benefit for both parties involved, even if it requires low skilled labor.

Won't be long until machines are able to replace many of the labors we do on a daily basis I read an article this week about artificially generated beef, grown through stem cells. So how far away are we from artificially grown beef, automated cooks and serving machines and a prerecorded voice taking your order at the drive thru? Should be a super fun argument when we start debating labor and fair living wages then.

You said before that anyone who does work deserves a living wage. this necessarily includes employees who violate employee employer contracts. If we have a contract that says you pick up ALL the sticks and you only pick up 1 stick, you have violated the contract yes but you have also done work, according to your previous statement you are still entitled to a living wage even though you have broken the contract. since your position is that even contract violators are entitled to a living wage i dont see how drawing a distinction between people who uphold their contracts and those who violate their contracts is relevant.

If it's not relevant why are you bringing it up again? If you don't do your job you get fired. Is it complicated to you?

Because you appear to be under the impression that it is relevant, and while it isn't relevant, the fact that it isn't relevant is relevant.