Y
YourNameHere
Guest
I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours. About double what it is at present. Before taxes, that would net a 40-hour total of $600 or about $2,400 a month, an annual net of $28,800.
Most people can’t get a taxi permit without a license or a computer security one without a degree to back it up.And the expense for such a permit would bring about crippling debt?
Sorry you feel that way.Most people can’t get a taxi permit without a license or a computer security one without a degree to back it up.
I feel like you are really being deliberately obtuse.
How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours. About double what it is at present. Before taxes, that would net a 40-hour total of $600 or about $2,400 a month, an annual net of $28,800.
Okay first just cause its a pet peeve don’t read much more into something then that but you do know you can multi-quote someone within one post right?How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?
Then you highlight the next bit and the option to quote that line appears within one post.I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours
That’s the problem of the business. automates the parts of the job the educated guy shouldn’t be wasting his time doing. Get an intern? Streamline your company. Either way, not my problem.How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?
So we are content to let market forces drive the prices, but not content to let these same market forces drive the payroll expense?That’s called, the market. Not saying the proposal is right or wrong. But I will say again, let’s not assume all wage increases result in equivalent price increases. That argument has been proven wrong for over 100 years.
Well if he was paying them crap wages anyway they couldn’t have been needed anyway that couldn’t be streamlined by something else.How would you insure the employer doesn’t simply terminate one or more employees to keep their payroll expense in line?
Why would I want to ensure that? On a micro-econimic level, increased wages certainly will reduce jobs in many instances. At a macro-economic level, there is no historical evidence of this happening.How would you insure the employer doesn’t simply terminate one or more employees to keep their payroll expense in line?
Not just an assumption.Well if he was paying them crap
Look up “compendium” and you’ll see it is merely a summary. Do you understand that the Compendium, a letter to the Pope (not a letter from the Pope), has no Magisterial authority of its own. Any authority in the Compendium is in its footnotes. The passage you reference cites Rerum Novarum as its authority. Where else would I go to understand the teaching? The question really is: Why do you not go there?I do not understand why you are always discussing a condition in Rerum Novarum that is no longer needed. I am not quoting Rerum Novarum. I am quoting the Compendium of Social Justice of the Catholic Church, published in 2004.
No, the Catholic Church does not teach what you cite as the paraphrase from a summary. Standard academic practice requires one to go to source documents. Refer to the Encyclicals: Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Centesimus Annus to know the mind of the Church. “Mining” sentences out of context from summaries to support a biased position is intellectually dishonest. Have you read the encyclicals? Perhaps you missed this passage from Centesimus Annus:I am not emphasizing any point, but simply highlighting the point which contradicts you statement. Again, you say “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just.”. The Catholic Church says: “The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage””.
As I have posted several times, we are no longer in the period of “unbridled capitalism.” The responsibility for a just wage does not weigh on the employer but all society and its forms of governance.Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for savings.
It’s not a prejudice, my contract if you want to make this about you is with you. Your price for your goods or services, what have you is between the customer and you. Not me.You prejudice is showing.
I am ashamed and embarrassed for you.
Your right, I would not ensure it either. I believe there are too many laws on how a small business should be run.Why would I want to ensure that? On a micro-econimic level, increased wages certainly will reduce jobs in many instances. At a macro-economic level, there is no historical evidence of this happening.
Compendium is not just a mere summary, it “a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication” or “a collection of things, especially one systematically gathered.”Look up “compendium” and you’ll see it is merely a summary
This is even more absurd. As I have expressed in my recent responses to @TheLittleLady . We cannot claim to be performing moral acts for the sole reason that they are within the law.As I have posted several times, we are no longer in the period of “unbridled capitalism.” The responsibility for a just wage does not weigh on the employer but all society and its forms of governance.
What’s your skill set? What kind of work are you qualified to do?In order to work in this market you have to have a college education leaving many of us in crippling debt. My rent right now is lower then my loan repayments every month. I need a living wage stat.
Peeps: