Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

Try and get past the "feel good" aspect of this idea and really think this through. Do you really think this is a good idea?

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

I understand the feeling to a degree, but how much value does an employee bring to the table that lowers French fries into a vat of hot oil-pushes a timer button, and raises them up when the timer goes off???

I will say that I believe you vocation is far more valuable than that.......same with firefighters and police.

This is kind of like raising the minimum wage significantly. It will throw people out of jobs, primarily teens and minorities.

It will also lead to discrimination against people with families as they have to earn more to stay above the poverty line than a single person.

McDonald's is already experimenting with self-serve kiosks.

Now what might be a good aspect of your idea would be transparency. Being able to produce a report that showed how many employees of company XYZ were on welfare. Kind of a public shaming without "fining" them.

Not corporations’ fault that some workers turn entry-level, low-wage jobs into their career. Quit trying to micro-manage, particularly when you just make the numbers up out of thin air, i.e. muh $15 “living wage”.

Company's are FAR more cognizant of their public image than they used to be. They get a lot of pressure at shareholder meetings and, whether or not it is more important to new grads than it used to be (I'm skeptical of the assumption that it is), they are more vocal about it being important.

(08-25-2018 08:45 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Not corporations’ fault that some workers turn entry-level, low-wage jobs into their career. Quit trying to micro-manage, particularly when you just make the numbers up out of thin air, i.e. muh $15 “living wage”.

There are people who aren't capable of more.

(08-25-2018 08:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 08:45 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Not corporations’ fault that some workers turn entry-level, low-wage jobs into their career. Quit trying to micro-manage, particularly when you just make the numbers up out of thin air, i.e. muh $15 “living wage”.

There are people who aren't capable of more.

This type of legislation (along with muh $15 living wage) won’t do anything but put them out of a job entirely.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?
Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.
What a novel idea.
The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.
Thoughts?
Two quick thoughts.
How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?
Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.
I do like the idea though.

You like the idea because you have never looked at it from the employer side. Serious question. Have you ever owned a business? I mean a real one, with employees.

I have five guys that I pay $8/hour to work on my loading dock. You tell me I have to pay them $15/hour. I find an automated device that costs me $40/hour to run, including amortizing the purchase price, and I pay one guy $20/hour to operate it. That doesn't make sense when I'm paying $40/hour for my labor crew, but now that crew costs me $75/hour, so it does. I'm saving $15/hour, and you've got four more people on welfare. They'll be reliable democrat voters, which is what you want, so now we are all happy. Except instead of $40/hour to run my loading dock, it now costs me $60/hour, so I raise my prices to cover the difference. It's only a small raise at first. But my suppliers are all facing the same economics, so their prices go up too, and when it all flows through, then everybody's pay check buys less.

Here's the way I see it. Workers should be paid equal to the value of what they produce. Anything else and somebody is subsidizing somebody. And the market does a pretty good job of setting that price. If I'm paying a guy $8/hour, and nobody is willing to offer him $8.25, I'm probably paying pretty close to market value. If the state has an interest in seeing that everyone has a living income, then let the taxpayers pay for that. Im perfectly fine with the state doing that, but I would do it more efficiently with something like Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund.

(08-25-2018 08:51 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 08:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 08:45 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Not corporations’ fault that some workers turn entry-level, low-wage jobs into their career. Quit trying to micro-manage, particularly when you just make the numbers up out of thin air, i.e. muh $15 “living wage”.

There are people who aren't capable of more.

This type of legislation (along with muh $15 living wage) won’t do anything but put them out of a job entirely.

I agree on that aspect.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

Well, great.

So you’ve finally admitted you’ve gone full socialist, full national socialist for that matter.

Are people not free any longer? Free to move? Free to do as they please with that which they earn?

Let me guess, will the government bureaucrat, sucking the teet of the productive people in this country, be the ones “overseeing” this new programme? What will they be producing?

Good freaking grief Mach. When do you announce your next “5 year plan”?!?

(08-25-2018 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?
Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.
What a novel idea.
The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.
Thoughts?
Two quick thoughts.
How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?
Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.
I do like the idea though.

You like the idea because you have never looked at it from the employer side. Serious question. Have you ever owned a business? I mean a real one, with employees.

I have five guys that I pay $8/hour to work on my loading dock. You tell me I have to pay them $15/hour. I find an automated device that costs me $40/hour to run, including amortizing the purchase price, and I pay one guy $20/hour to operate it. That doesn't make sense when I'm paying $40/hour for my labor crew, but now that crew costs me $75/hour, so it does. I'm saving $15/hour, and you've got four more people on welfare. They'll be reliable democrat voters, which is what you want, so now we are all happy. Except instead of $40/hour to run my loading dock, it now costs me $60/hour, so I raise my prices to cover the difference. It's only a small raise at first. But my suppliers are all facing the same economics, so their prices go up too, and when it all flows through, then everybody's pay check buys less.

Here's the way I see it. Workers should be paid equal to the value of what they produce. Anything else and somebody is subsidizing somebody. And the market does a pretty good job of setting that price. If I'm paying a guy $8/hour, and nobody is willing to offer him $8.25, I'm probably paying pretty close to market value. If the state has an interest in seeing that everyone has a living income, then let the taxpayers pay for that. Im perfectly fine with the state doing that, but I would do it more efficiently with something like Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund.

And that wage would go up if we got better control of illegal immigration. Supply and demand. Yet the same people who want the $15 minimum wage don't want to control immigration.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

No one should have their money forced from their hands.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

Or even better, we just get rid of the welfare state all together since it has been a total failure and removes incentives for people to go out and work!

(08-25-2018 09:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?
Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.
What a novel idea.
The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.
Thoughts?
Two quick thoughts.
How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?
Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.
I do like the idea though.

You like the idea because you have never looked at it from the employer side. Serious question. Have you ever owned a business? I mean a real one, with employees.

I have five guys that I pay $8/hour to work on my loading dock. You tell me I have to pay them $15/hour. I find an automated device that costs me $40/hour to run, including amortizing the purchase price, and I pay one guy $20/hour to operate it. That doesn't make sense when I'm paying $40/hour for my labor crew, but now that crew costs me $75/hour, so it does. I'm saving $15/hour, and you've got four more people on welfare. They'll be reliable democrat voters, which is what you want, so now we are all happy. Except instead of $40/hour to run my loading dock, it now costs me $60/hour, so I raise my prices to cover the difference. It's only a small raise at first. But my suppliers are all facing the same economics, so their prices go up too, and when it all flows through, then everybody's pay check buys less.

Here's the way I see it. Workers should be paid equal to the value of what they produce. Anything else and somebody is subsidizing somebody. And the market does a pretty good job of setting that price. If I'm paying a guy $8/hour, and nobody is willing to offer him $8.25, I'm probably paying pretty close to market value. If the state has an interest in seeing that everyone has a living income, then let the taxpayers pay for that. Im perfectly fine with the state doing that, but I would do it more efficiently with something like Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund.

And that wage would go up if we got better control of illegal immigration. Supply and demand. Yet the same people who want the $15 minimum wage don't want to control immigration.

Yup and yup

even Trump agrees the MW is too low.

"The minimum wage has to go up. People are -- at least $10, but it has to go up. But I think that states -- federal -- I think that states should really call the shot. As an example, I live in New York. It's very expensive in New York. You can't buy a hot dog for the money you're talking about. You go to other states and it's not expensive at all. Now what it does is puts New York at a disadvantage if the minimum wage is up, companies move out and things, bad things happen. At the same time, people have to be taken care of. But what I'm really going to do on the minimum wage -- but it has to go up.. .. So I would like to raise it to at least $10."

I also think the tipped MW should be doubled to 4.26 an hour...JMHO

(08-25-2018 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  This is kind of like raising the minimum wage significantly. It will throw people out of jobs, primarily teens and minorities.

It will also lead to discrimination against people with families as they have to earn more to stay above the poverty line than a single person.

McDonald's is already experimenting with self-serve kiosks.

Now what might be a good aspect of your idea would be transparency. Being able to produce a report that showed how many employees of company XYZ were on welfare. Kind of a public shaming without "fining" them.

self service kiosks have been coming ever since Walmart and Kroger added 'u-scan' back in like 2000

technology only gets cheaper so it's inevitable.

(08-25-2018 10:07 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-25-2018 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  This is kind of like raising the minimum wage significantly. It will throw people out of jobs, primarily teens and minorities.
It will also lead to discrimination against people with families as they have to earn more to stay above the poverty line than a single person.
McDonald's is already experimenting with self-serve kiosks.
Now what might be a good aspect of your idea would be transparency. Being able to produce a report that showed how many employees of company XYZ were on welfare. Kind of a public shaming without "fining" them.

self service kiosks have been coming ever since Walmart and Kroger added 'u-scan' back in like 2000
technology only gets cheaper so it's inevitable.

Yes, of course.

Two points:
1) Should we hasten that day by raising the minimum wage to a point that technology displaces more jobs faster?
2) What are we doing to prepare for the day when it comes?

I think there is a more intelligent way to approach both problems than by raising the minimum wage. I've discussed at length before, no need to plow that ground again.

Here's a Ideal remove all workers that are not here legally from the work force and watch the average wage for blue collar work go up.

This wage thing really wasn't a problem till two things happened.

A large % of blue collar work started going to Mexicans because they would work cheap. What they made was 3 or 4x what they made in Mexico. Enough to live on here because you have/had 2 or 3 families living together. More than enough to send part of that money out of this country.

Those savings from lower wages was not passed down to people getting the work done. Nope it went in the pockets of those doing the hiring.

The second was removing jobs from this country that people could actually afford to live on. Take both of those into account and the fact most of those people who lost jobs in blue collar work and factories are now working SERVICE RELATED JOBS.

There is your problem. Lower paying service related jobs instead of factory or blue collar work.

(08-25-2018 07:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Should workers for corporations ever have to be on public assistance?

Bernie Sander’s has an idea to force corporations to payback 100% of the public assistance of any employee who has to have it.

What a novel idea.

The guy is smart. That would start forcing some of the money out of the 1% hands.

Thoughts?

Two quick thoughts.

How do you differentiate between a corporation and a small business? The Obamacare 50 employee threshold?

Corporations will just continue down the line of contracting out services.


I do like the idea though.

Its a good idea for large corporations, who are effectively shifting their labor costs onto the taxpayers. But there's a whole lot of mess involved with implementation. A living wage minimum wage act, and requirements for health care, child care, and education as a fundamental right would probably be a better way to go.