A Good Question.

[wmLambert]

So, a couple of things.

You take every other category of theft, and I mean *every* one, add them all up, and it is significantly less then estimated wage theft. As in, employees being screwed out of the agreed upon compensation that they are due for their labor. I don't think shoplifting is moral or right. I also don't think it's a sign of the apocalypse. Lots of other, higher level theft going on that is actually hurting working class people, not a corporation's bottom line.

I'm also not getting the conservative kickback on the economy here. They all complain about how no one wants to work anymore, meantime they're complaining about minimum wage jobs. Good lord, if you go off of federal minimum wage I'd be very interested to see what parts of the country you could even rent a studio apartment on minimum wage. It's not flagged to increase with inflation, and every time a vote comes up to increase it conservatives get on the House floor tearing their shirts about how it will destroy America.

I mean...okay? Obvious BS, but where I get confused is ya'll immediately turn around and fight against bringing in immigrants to work for super low wages, because they're used to being treated like *censored*.

Pick a lane, guys.

Stop calling it "minimum wage jobs" as if a first-time employee must support a family with the wages. If it is cheaper to put in a self-serve kiosk at McDonald's - then that is where the industry will end up. The only salvation for first-time workers who need to learn how to earn is to accept starting wages and work their way up with increasing competency. Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

The mindset that needs to be fixed is the USA: "I deserve a high wage without earning it!" A company I worked for was an engineering-expert emergency-type solution for Daimler/Chrysler that was called in when their inhouse engineers had problems. We were also called in to tutor all factories how to use all the new machinery as it was developed for the assembly line. When Chrysler opened up a line in Mexico, the new employees there were so pleased for a chance to work for good wages, that they actually did good work. They did what was needed without dragging their feet and sabotaging the line to get out of work. In the USA plants have whole lots with thousands of vehicles in it that have vehicles with flaws that need repairing before being released for sale. In Toluca, there was no such lot, because the Mexican workers using the same machines as here in the USA made them without flaws. Here in the USA our techs would grab a white smock and a clipboard and stand at an assembly-line station, and miraculously, no flaws were found from that area, so long as the tech was standing there.

IOW. one must learn how to work, and a minimum wage just is more of the same at victimization.

Immigrants may actually do a better job as home-grown workers - but they also accept lower wages - getting paid real wages, like in Toluca, is part of the draw for illegals to pay the Cartels to cross the border. There are good and bad from these possibilities - but anyone who decides to break the law just to come here has already proved themselves criminal.

[Tom]

That's certainly a point of view that someone could choose to have, for sure.

[wmLambert]

BTW, did anyone respond to the huge number of gotaways that have come into the USA? 19 terrorists brought down the Trade Center Towers and hit the Pentagon. Is the potential worth it?

[Tom]

I'm not sure what sort of response you think would be apropos. It's been a couple decades, and obviously some of the relevant laws have changed, but IIRC the majority of the hijackers were in the country legally. If your point is that it's futile to try to stop a tiny, committed handful of people who mean to do us harm from getting into the US, I absolutely agree with you -- but that point would seem to undermine your larger argument.

[TheDrake]

Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

[DJQuag]

Lambert, I really am curious about this.

Why is the federal minimum wage not linked to inflation, and why hasn't it ever been?

Just making up numbers now, but if the minimum wage is 7.50 and inflation is reported to be ten percent...seems to me minimum wage should go up by 75 cents. Can you explain why you think this shouldn't happen?

[DJQuag]

Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

He's old, and he grew up in a Boomer economy where he literally had everything handed to him. He's unable to understand that things have changed. Perhaps a bit blunt, but that's your answer.

[Fenring]

Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.

[Fenring]

The mindset that needs to be fixed is the USA: "I deserve a high wage without earning it!"

If by "high wage" you mean the ability to pay rent and subsist on your wage, then I'd say working the shift with due diligence means you "earned' it, wouldn't you? Unless you are implying that the ability to pay for basic bottom-priced needs constitutes a "high wage"?

You may want to consider what "inflation" means and consider what it implies that inflation in one sector, e.g. real estate prices, does not match the inflation in other sectors, i.e. wage levels, over time. What do you make of that? How does that fit into your idea of how people in the USA are feel entitled?

[DJQuag]

"Stop calling it "minimum wage jobs" as if a first-time employee must support a family with the wages"

My friend, please stop putting words into my mouth. What I said was the vast majority of the country, this hypothetical person wouldn't even be able to afford a studio apartment on minimum wage. I didn't even bring up kids and a wife. You're the one bringing that up.

[msquared]

I mean it was that socialist Henry Ford who felt he should pay his workers enough so that they could afford the cars they were making. How dare he.

[DJQuag]

Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.

.
Don't know if we have a Hall of Fame for posts. If not, look at this. It's my argument

[wmLambert]

Dickens lied about savage employers in his books. Those workers were far better off than those barely existing on unsuccessful farms. That's why they moved to the city.

Every time I think you've got nothing new to offer, you pull off a gem like this. It's like you've actually read Dickens but completely swapped the protagonist for the antagonist. But then I remembered that the cartoon version of "A Christmas Carol" has been on recently, and you were somehow rooting for Scrooge to stay mean and miserly.

Amazingly, the fact that subsisting under savage employers in urban settings may have in fact been better than staying in rural work is the literal definition of wage slavery. It means you make this choice because it's the best option, while simultaneously being a bad option. It almost sounds like the argument being put forward is that there's no such thing as exploitation, since if they've chosen an option superior to death it must mean they like it. What a curious piece of logic.

.
Don't know if we have a Hall of Fame for posts. If not, look at this. It's my argument

If that is your argument, you need to go back to school and find our about real history.

This is a portion of an essay I wrote:

The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.

In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.

What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Charles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.

Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that

Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.

The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.
Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of Michigan, Folsom wrote:

When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.

Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business. Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources— lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.

[Fenring]

It's remarkable that you think this excerpt from your essay is at all relevant to the statements you quoted above, putting aside whether in fact it's accurate.

[TheDrake]

No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

[Wayward Son]

I'm not even sure if William made a point.

His essay seems to say that centralized government is bad, and the oppression of the working class in England during Dicken's time was exaggerated.

But just because centralized government is bad does not mean that the working class in England were not oppressed, exploited and made to be wage slaves.   

I read that Sadler's bill limited the workday to 10 hours.  Does anyone want to argue that forcing workers to do more than 10 hours of grinding physical labor each day isn't a form of slavery?  And the fact that they had to write a bill to codify that does not mean that such practices were at least fairly common at the time?

[Fenring]

No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

We weren't talking about government 

[Tom]

Does anyone want to argue that forcing workers to do more than 10 hours of grinding physical labor each day isn't a form of slavery?

The libertarian position on this is that no one in that scenario is forced to work more than 10 hours; they choose to do so, if the alternative is starvation for themselves and their children. They chose to have kids; they chose to not have valuable skills; they chose to not die. Coercion is not compulsion, to a libertarian.

Compelling a business to not offer more than 10 hours of daily labor to someone who would need to work more than 10 hours a day to meet their financial needs is, to a libertarian, actually a form of harm; the worker suffers because they cannot work enough to earn sufficient income, and the business suffers because its freedom to engage in private contractual agreements has been restricted.

[TheDrake]

No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

We weren't talking about government 

A. He always is, and I think it's implied. No need for a minimum wage, if people are taking the jobs it's better than starvation for them. No need for OSHA, if people thought it was unsafe they wouldn't work there, it's better than the even more dangerous jobs. No need for child labor laws, it's up to the family if they want their nine year old to make shoes in Indonesia.

[Fenring]

A. He always is, and I think it's implied.

The original complaint was about people thinking they deserve a higher wage, which would be true with or without a minimum wage. His argument was about people who don't deserve a good wage because they 'need to learn how to earn', which isn't really about the government but about the 'greedy' mindset of the working class.

[DJQuag]

The slaves built the pyramids, and we build the roads. And the internet. And every other little thing that people just take for granted. Where would Amazon be without those things? Apple? Microsoft? Google?

They would all be most likely successful companies, difference being they wouldn't be enjoying us paying for all of the infrastructure. And the profits therein.

Honest question, who do you pay for your mobile service? For your cable service? How lowdown, POS are those companies?

[DJQuag]

According to the latest exchange, I pay roughly 23 dollars for unlimited, high speed internet, and another 23 dollars for unlimited data on my phone.

What in the world is the US doing?

[msquared]

I have a Tracfone and pay approx $10-$15 per month for basic service. I could probably use the internet on my phone but I dont't.

I pay about $60/month for home internet.

[DJQuag]

Tracfone's service model is like AOL's. It takes advantage of people who don't know any better. Just saying.

[Wayward Son]

Well, I have a Tracfone, too, and pay about $20 every 3 months to recharge the account and get more minutes, text and data.

Admittedly, I don't use it much (especially data), but I haven't seen a better deal elsewhere. 

[cherrypoptart]

I've got Ultra mobile. Only $3 a month.

https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans/pay-go

I turn off the data so only use free wi-fi.

One month I did need to talk a lot more so paid $10 for 7 days unlimited but it's been good the rest of the time.

I look at friends and family paying $45 a month and just want to cry for them. They talk a lot more on their phones though so may not be able to go my route but that's a lot of money and most of them can't really afford it.

[DJQuag]

I've got Ultra mobile. Only $3 a month.

https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans/pay-go

I turn off the data so only use free wi-fi.

One month I did need to talk a lot more so paid $10 for 7 days unlimited but it's been good the rest of the time.

I look at friends and family paying $45 a month and just want to cry for them. They talk a lot more on their phones though so may not be able to go my route but that's a lot of money and most of them can't really afford it.

I'll admit that's a good deal, Cherry. It might be an age thing, as well. My phone is my library, phone, quite often my television. I use it for a lot of different things. It's why I spring for the unlimited everything plan, but I was just commenting on the difference in prices. Forty five dollars for unlimited data on both my phone and my wifi. You won't find that in the States. And I'm in the UK, not eastern Europe.

Hey, remember when private telecom companies were handed billions to hook subarban areas up to the internet and they came back a few years later and just shrugged their shoulders?

[wmLambert]

No it supports his facile argument perfectly. Every step private businesses make is inherently good and every step government takes is inherently bad.

We weren't talking about government 

A. He always is, and I think it's implied. No need for a minimum wage, if people are taking the jobs it's better than starvation for them. No need for OSHA, if people thought it was unsafe they wouldn't work there, it's better than the even more dangerous jobs. No need for child labor laws, it's up to the family if they want their nine year old to make shoes in Indonesia.

Totally incorrect. The Drake and Fenring assume whatever they gravitate toward without real understanding. Too bad. I post about Free Enterprise - and they want to make everything about the Marx/Engels mantra of the pejorative term, "Capitalism" which the KGB admitted during Glasnost and Perestroika when they released files that they publicized it only to denigrate the successful Western economic philosophies.

The marketplace must decide how much salaries and pay rates should be based on what is needed to both attract workers and make businesses successful. As entry-level workers learn how to work, their contributions are less than established workers who make the business more profitable. Yes, one should be paid what one earns through ones contributions to the work. Government mandates have no place in this.

In past eras, low pay ruined businesses because no one would work for such low wages. But too high wages that made little impact on success was also bad. The argument shoulkd be on monopolies - not on "Robber Barons." Tenure and unrealistic Union contracts have ruined many businesses. Unions had to use political machinations to offset unsustainable pension plans forced on business owners all over the nation.

Free Enterprise believes the best way to establish fair wages is by good people running things honestly and economically. Minimum Wage laws do not make economic sense. Like Limbaugh said, " If a political  minimum wage should be pegged at $20/hr, why not $200/hr, or even a million dollars an hour?"

[NobleHunter]

Free Enterprise believes the best way to establish fair wages is by good people running things honestly and economically.

I found the problem!

[msquared]

Wm

So you should be in favor of laws that require companies to list salaries and prevent companies from punishing employees from discussing compensation with other employess with in the company? Rigth? I mean Capitalism requires good knoweldge on the part of every one.

[TheDrake]

Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary if workers were paid according to what they contribute as opposed to what the market will bear as desperate people choose being underpaid to being unemployed with no social safety net if they refuse abusive employment.

The Boogeyman of business collapse is a mirage, a fever dream of the Anarcho capitalists who think there should be no rules on workplace safety, worker age, or wages.

Australia has a minimum wage twice that of the United States, and it doesn't appear to be a hellscape of ruined businesses. What does happen is that their economy is less able to churn out billionaires, though they still manage to have their fair share.

[Lloyd Perna]

Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary if workers were paid according to what they contribute as opposed to what the market will bear as desperate people choose being underpaid to being unemployed with no social safety net if they refuse abusive employment.

How do you measure what an employee contributes?  Should we switch to a piecework model?   

[Wayward Son]

Sure, as long as Management switches first. 

[TheDrake]

How should you determine a fair wage or benefits? What would you pay a member of your family to do that job? Objectively, how much of revenue can be traced to the work of an individual. Unfortunately a ceos value is mostly in the other CEOs that they can get on the phone, or how many board members are part of their family. How do you measure their contribution? Is it worth a billion dollars? A trillion?

[Lloyd Perna]

Sure, as long as Management switches first. 

Management are employees also.

[Lloyd Perna]

How should you determine a fair wage or benefits? What would you pay a member of your family to do that job? Objectively, how much of revenue can be traced to the work of an individual. Unfortunately a ceos value is mostly in the other CEOs that they can get on the phone, or how many board members are part of their family. How do you measure their contribution? Is it worth a billion dollars? A trillion?

You are answering my question with more questions.

You made the statement.

Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary if workers were paid according to what they contribute

What does a McDonalds drive through worker deserve based on what they contribute?

What does an AP clerk deserve based on what they contribute?

What does a Plumber's apprentice deserve based on what they contribute?

What does the CEO of Microsoft deserve based on what they contribute?

[Wayward Son]

Sure, as long as Management switches first. 

Management are employees also.

True.  So how much does management contribute?  Especially compared to the person who actually makes the stuff and does the "value-added" work?

(Look up "customer value-added work" if you're not familiar with the term.  It is an interesting concept and extremely useful for making things more efficient. )

[TheDrake]

People actually delivering the goods and services deserve half of the profit. That's a pretty good starting point.

Another way to describe it is that you should pay a worker what you would pay your best friend or your brother, whom presumably you would not exploit.

Yet another metric would be to pay near the median for that job, otherwise you are under paying.

Yet another way would be to measure how much revenue you would lose as people start dropping out.

Another metric would be to pay people until your attrition rate stabilizes to industry average.

Another metric would be to pay someone how you value your own time.

Any of which would better than, "as little as I can"

[Lloyd Perna]

Sure, as long as Management switches first. 

Management are employees also.

True.  So how much does management contribute?  Especially compared to the person who actually makes the stuff and does the "value-added" work?

(Look up "customer value-added work" if you're not familiar with the term.  It is an interesting concept and extremely useful for making things more efficient. )

Ask TheDrake, It's his premise not mine.

[Fenring]

People actually delivering the goods and services deserve half of the profit. That's a pretty good starting point.

Another way to describe it is that you should pay a worker what you would pay your best friend or your brother, whom presumably you would not exploit.

Do you mean net profit? I assume you don't mean you pay the workers half the revenues. If it's net profits then that's already after payrolls are calculated. Do you mean the workers should get a bonus on top of their salary equal to half the net profits? If so, why would a financier find it profitable to invest in such a company? Granted, if the company's making a killing perhaps they could part with half a killing (although it would devalue the stock by...around half). But many or most companies don't make a killing. Or are you talking about an alternate economy where there are no financiers (i.e. not a capitalist market system)?

[Lloyd Perna]

People actually delivering the goods and services deserve half of the profit. That's a pretty good starting point.

That's ridiculous.  Will they be responsible for half the losses if the business has a bad month? 

Another way to describe it is that you should pay a worker what you would pay your best friend or your brother, whom presumably you would not exploit.

Paying someone a wage they are willing to work for is not exploitation.

Yet another metric would be to pay near the median for that job, otherwise you are under paying.

Not all employees doing a particular job are equally valuable.  Some are better at it than others.  Should we not reward the more valuable employees more?

Yet another way would be to measure how much revenue you would lose as people start dropping out.

Another metric would be to pay people until your attrition rate stabilizes to industry average.

How would you possibly implement these in real life?

Another metric would be to pay someone how you value your own time.

I have very rare skills, therefore my time is very valuable. The guy taking my order at McDonalds doesn't have valuable skills, therefore, his time is less valuable than mine.

Any of which would better than, "as little as I can"

When you need somebody to cut your lawn or plow your driveway, do you pay them more than they are asking for?
 

[Wayward Son]

Paying someone a wage they are willing to work for is not exploitation.

Depends what is meant by the word "willing," now doesn't it?

[Tom]

Paying someone a wage they are willing to work for is not exploitation.

I would like to investigate this a bit, Lloyd, because I think it's at the root of a lot of quasi-libertarian shibboleths involving labor. Do you consider that a tautological truth -- that one cannot voluntarily agree to something and be exploited in so doing at the same time?

[Fenring]

People actually delivering the goods and services deserve half of the profit. That's a pretty good starting point.

That's ridiculous.  Will they be responsible for half the losses if the business has a bad month? 

To be fair to TheDrake, he didn't say they would be de facto part-owners. That's why I asked if it would be bonuses. Obviously if someone gets a bonus based on the company's performance, it doesn't follow that their salary is docked if the company has a bad quarter.

[rightleft22]

Aside: When the future looks back my bet is that the notion of bonus, how they are applied and behaviors they ended up influencing as to the ones they hope to influence will be viewed as having a more negative impact then beneficial one.   

When anyone talks of the wealth gab the notion of the current bonus system as applied by most businesses should be top talking point. 

[TheDrake]

Lloyd:When you need somebody to cut your lawn or plow your driveway, do you pay them more than they are asking for?

Tell me you don't tip without saying so. Indeed I pay my housekeeper more than she asks for. I give servers 30% of the restaurants revenue for my visit. Sometimes I give people money for no reason at all. And if I owned a restaurant, I would make sure my employees had healthcare and a wage that didn't leave them terrified about making rent or I wouldn't open that business. I built a business plan once, and it would have worked except I was in Utah and getting a liquor license would have left too much uncertainty in the runway to break even. All I had to do was take less for myself.

The person providing the capital isn't really taking all the risk. But fundamentally you are just boiling everything down to a one variable equation where money is the only thing in the world that has value, where kindness and decency are worth zero dollars.

[msquared]

TheDrake

Of course he is.  He is a Trumpist and most probably a Christian Nationalist, so the teachings of Christ are no where to be found.

[DJQuag]

TheDrake

Of course he is.  He is a Trumpist and most probably a Christian Nationalist, so the teachings of Christ are no where to be found.

Eh. I'd rather attack his arguments then what he can be identified as, or what he believes in. First, it's much easier to prove your viewpoint that way. Second, now he can focus on you focusing on that, and it gives him a really convenient way to avoid being silent in face of superior arguments.

[DJQuag]

That being said, I would love to hear Lloyd's opinion on the tip economy. That thing where employers get to shift part of their payroll to their customers, without announcing it in their prices. Oh, and also it's only societal pressure enforcing it, so nothing stopping d-bags from not giving a tip.

[msquared]

And even then there are stories about bosses who steal their employees tips.