On Feb 11, 4:34 pm, Wes <[email protected]> wrote: > right, the question is should i pay wages that pay the employees bills > or just pay him whatever he will submit to. People are always going to > settle for less wages than they need therefore you wil always have a > high percentage of the population that works for less than it takes to > pay the bills. they will tun to socialism to meet their needs. thus > socialism is caused by to much capitalism. as i said it's a morality > question. everyone who works should have their bills paid and then > some but they will settle for less.
Pay "the bills?" There are many assumptions in your post. first, just what do all these bills entail? Cable TV? Is that included? 2) "People are always going to settle for less wages than they need" Not true! Lots of people start their own businesses or get promoted to higher paying positions. Certain people will settle for less, but if you really look at it close, they settle for "what I have to do to get MORE is too hard" or "this is the most I will do to get money" so really, they are limiting themselves. Sure, if you have no skills in which to make more money, then you have a problem. You could try and get those skills, or you could face the pure and simple reality that you as a human being have a limited amount to offer society and thus you should be happy to get whatever it is you can get, which inevitably is a low paying job. Not every job is equal. Some jobs require specific skills or talents. Some are really easy, and almost anybody can do them. That is just the way life is. Those who have the best skills get paid the most, sorry. Life is not fair. Your "policy" seems anti-incentive to me. Not only that but it makes ALL jobs "equal" (which they are NOT) Why? Because you "pay the bills" no matter the job! That would never work. I could go on and on about it but I won't. > > On Feb 9, 7:44 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At 08:24 PM 2/8/2011, you wrote:>The "problems" you seem to be alluding to > > exist BECAUSE of the > > > Government's intervention. > > I just heard on fox news this morning that the white house just > > started a hotline where you could get legal help if u feel victimized > > at work. isn't that gov'ts job (govt is paid well to do his job) to > > protect people and dispense justice? > > Victimized? By these invented 'crimes' or something else? > > Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures rights <period>.My point is > > that so much love is given to business and an unsucessfull > > working man is viewed lowly. That's the opposite of justice. I suggest > > that minimum wage be more than it takes to pay the bills, I know at > > first that sounds crazy but it also sounds right. ungainful businesses > > should be boycoted but outlawing them is also a good idea. There never > > would've been a civil war if people refused to buy cotton from slave > > owners. > > Given? > > Minimum wage only ensures that someone MUST be paid at least X. > > It does not guarantee employment. In fact, those worth LESS than > > X will not be employed. > > Talk about a VIOLATION of rights.Every citizen who has produced or acquired > > a product, should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use > > or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give > > him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option . > > . . solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize > > an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. -- Frédéric > > BastiatLincoln's War occurred over his lust for tax dollars that would be > > provided > > by (largely) Southern States. He was elected to implement Clay's American > > System (which had been rejected for decades) which would have 'spent' those > > dollars (largely) in the Northern States. Liberty lost and the nation was > > subsequently enslaved. Slavery was already becoming a loser and would have > > gone by the wayside (peacefully) as it had in surrounding Western Hemisphere > > areas."But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery > > [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go > > on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their > > ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" -Lincoln to > > Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to > > determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861quote - Roosevelt's > > argument was that the "political rights" > > guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved > > inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." > > Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which > > would guarantee: > > Employment, with a living wage, > > Which is a VIOLATION of rights. The remainder of the socialist wet dream > > so contained in that nonsense is as well, > > One cannot have a right to what another must provide WITHOUT slavery. > > Regard$, > > --MJ[The New Deal gave us a] state-supported economic system > > that will continue to devour a little at a time the private > > system until it disappears altogether. > > -- John T. Flynn, Journalist, 1948 -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
