Black Lives Matter plan to 'completely dismantle' society

Post Reply New Topic

You've been posting this on multiple threads?

#MeToo

Able-bodied need to be productive to pay for non-able-bodied.

and?

But Trump doesn't pay taxes? Or maybe he is not able-bodied?

Then business should do their part and pay workers to work. Again, they come up with the most unbelievable reasons why they have to cut their work force, and pay starvation wages. And yes, burger flippers deserve to be gainfully employed, too.

If Trump didn't pay tax, it's because he didn't make any money.

do NOT put pressgangs past these people.

Or maybe he's a tax cheat.

Employees are expected to develop skills, and take on greater responsibility, so they earn more money.

That doesn't always materialize in real life. Are those who get left behind flipping burgers supposed to just wallow in poverty? Sounds pretty hardhearted to me.
As a matter of fact, there's a family owned burger joint in Seattle called Dicks, where the starting wage is eighteen dollars, and the costliest burger is four dollars. They are a successful business, because the owners are capable of empathy, and lack greed.

We have a few restaurants in Melbourne that operate on an honour system where you pay if you like/appreciate the food (literally like a tip). People with financial problems can eat for free. They are profitable.

I imagine the concept would horrify most republicans

Is it a hate crime? Is there any evidence of that as a motive?

Simply increasing wages isn't exactly the panacea it is presented as, given the minimal change (potentially as little as a 5% gain for an employee when their hourly wages go from $7.25 to $15 an hour) the employee receives as a result ...[1]

Source: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/a-new-take-the-minimum-wage-paradox/
Created using: https://www.forsythfutures.org/benefits-calculator/

Of course, the location where people live may alter the "Social Benefits" they receive, and state taxes will differ, but taking a simplistic "increase minimum wages" shows a complete lack of awareness of the subject matter they are discussing.

It is also interesting that "burger flippers" are used as the example of those whose employers can afford to pay more, commonly in the misguided belief that their employer is the "big name" on the sign, whilst in fact the majority are franchises - the equivalent of a "family business", but granted the benefit of a "universally known name\brand\products, for which they pay fees to the owner of the "named company" - https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/what-percentage-of-mcdonalds-restaurants-are-owned.aspx. So while a company like McDonalds may make large amounts of money, it is not the company who is responsible for paying the wages (or providing any financial input into stores, instead the company takes money from them in exchange for their ability to trade under the company's name) of those burger flippers...

[1] It would be interesting, however, to see if there is some point where wages can be increased to, whilst the changes to the employee's benefits\taxes don't have such a detrimental impact on the extra money they earn - a 51% "pay rise" (and expence for their employer, often a small\family business) only positioning a person 5% ahead of where they were before receiving it seems a poor return for the employee, whilst it looks good to those who believe simply increasing wages will solve everyone's problems. Maybe it's possible that a more modest (maybe as low as 10%) wage increase would provide more meaningful\higher final income to the employee and put them further ahead than the fasionable "$15 minimum wage" that many push for?

At the very least shouldn't minimum wage be raised until the state can stop subsidizing the wages of low income earners?