On 1/22/2014 4:56 PM, Andrew Strasfogel wrote:
Walmart is able to charge so litle because it pays its workers so little.
Many of them are on public assistance to make ends meet because WM doesn't
pay them a living wage.
I am troubled by the living wage concept. How much would that be,
for how many hours, for what part of the country and who decides?
Different wages for an individual and the head of a family? If for a
family is it assumed that one adult stays at home with the children?
If grandma lives next door? Or if there are no children or many or
special needs? There would be so many ways to finagle such a system.
What would it cost to administer and enforce? Would it not encourage
employers toward further automation of low skilled jobs? Should the
government make work for the unemployed?
In contrast, the present safety net approach looks much more
practical - encourage people to earn what they can and supplement their
income if they are in need. Many people - low budget students for
example - want temporary or part time work. Wouldn't we as a society be
better off to encourage people to better themselves in this way rather
than settle into a living wage sort of dead end job?
The joke is that a Liberal Paradise would be a place where
everyone is guaranteed employment, free healh care, free education, free
food, free housing, free utilities, and only law enforcement personnel
have guns. Such a place does exist. It is called prison.
Dave Gilmore, Cameron WV
We're neither pure nor wise nor good.
We'll do the best we know.
We'll build our house and chop our wood.
And make our garden grow.
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
