Minimum Wage

It's legally enforceable.
It's a law.
The law backs it.

Mumbo jumbo don't mean dick.
Your break the NDA you got to court you get punished.
It's a law.

Not signing it?
WTF?
You don't sign it you don't get the job.

You sign it, you abide by it, or the law punishes you.

It's the law.
Contract Law.

 

The first two are rather irrelevant, as they should be well compensated for their worth. This is a discussion for raising the wages of lower paid workers to match with the rising cost of living. Workers who are often forgotten for their worth, as you know, someone has to take out the trash and keep the office clean. These workers don’t have a distinct dollar value to them, but no one wants to work in a filthy office environment. As long as the government keeps an interest in crushing workers’ unions, the minimum wage will be a thing.

In my opinion, someone working 40 hours a week shouldn’t need food stamps. $15 is just a goal, won’t work everywhere, but it is a figure to look to accomplish. If we can do tax cuts for immensely profitable global corporations, we can do tax cuts for small businesses to pay their workers a wage they can live off of.

 

I sympathize with that.

 

I don't see how outlawing jobs will reduce government assistance. Can you explain this interesting logic?

 

Minimum wage demands are appeals to emotion and subjective morality.

 

Being against slavery is subjective morality and appeals to emotion.

 

We can solve the low wage problem with balanced trade that brings good factory jobs back to America and removal of illegal aliens from this country

 

Then there we stand.

I'm not buying yours, you aren't buying mine, so we're both at loggerheads so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Someone in China, or Bulgaria, or Banglidash will always work for less. I appreciate the effort, but manufacturing is going into robots inevitably. Hand crafted goods will always have a place in the market, and they already do in America, personally, a good amount of the music equipment I buy is made in the USA, I pay a little extra when I’m looking for tools as well. I also used to work making handcrafted furniture, right after high school no less.

At the end of the day, it’s a global economy, and there’s some good with the bad. You don’t want to pay $2000 for your smart phone, or $3000 for your basic computer. And if you’re the business owner you don’t want to pay your workers for their wages because the international market is destroying you.

Do you want America to be China? Or Banglidash? No, you don’t. You want to bitch about the now with no real understanding of how the world is working. Just saying, “bring manufacturing back” is the mantra of a ****ing lost child. It’s that great libertarian conception of I want less taxes but all the benefits it comes with.

 

If that day arrives I want the robots to be designed, manufactured and deployed here in the US not Bulgaria

But I suspect its not as close as you think it is

And if we are to be a global economy then we will have to be ruled by a global government

Dont assume that government will giva damn about Americans because it wont

 

Receiving food stamps is a matter of where the government says the person should receive them and has nothing to do with the value of the labor the provide to someone else. So jobs are simply not worth the value for someone to raise a family alone. OTOH If someone can't work a job at a certain pay scale without supplimental income stop the supplimental income and the employer will have to raise the pay in order to get someone to do the job.

 

This is silly, Baff.
IF it were a law, it would be on the books as a law. "Contract law" refers to the concepts of legal balance a contract must have to get support in a challenge. It's not about what the contracts says or demands or limits or who is affected- just that certain fundamentals must be observed in the way it's written. More like the rules of grammar that tell us how to construct a proper sentence.

A simple legal definition of an NDA:
"A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement, is a contract between two or more parties that is executed in order to protect specific company information. In a non-disclosure agreement, one or more parties agree not to disclose certain information to third parties."

The legal system enforces laws. They do NOT enforce contracts. A party to a contract may file civil suit to ask the court to examine the contract and determine first if it is written in in the proper way, and if so, what the obligations actually are. IF you win, you get a "judgement", meaning only that "The court agrees that Party A owes Party B $XXX dollars". That is it. Nobody is arrested or fined- and the court won't do a damn thing to help you collect. The judgement does give you the ability to garnish and take actions to collect, but they will be your to do and yours to pay for. You can be the winner and owed money- but you have to get a collection agency to work for you (and they will take at least a third of what is collected) or, you can try to find property the loser owns and try to attach property to collect, which is another civil process that will cost you a large part of the money.
A piece of paper- that is all you get. If the person who owes you had made themselves judgement proof, it's as valuable as toilet paper.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about.You don't lose face by understanding this. You are losing face by denying the obvious.

 

So you think an employer will lose money in order to keep someone employed?
Doesn't work that way. IF a company can't benefit by having an employee- then there will be no employee. No job. The work can be contracted out, sent overseas or automated, but the moment the cost of an employee exceeds the value he produces for the company, the job has a terminal diagnosis.

You can't blackmail employers into losing money, becoming a charitable agency existing to support people at a loss.

 

In a recent conversation about minimum wage, an hourly wage earner was angered at the notion that new employees would be making the same wage that she was, after a couple of years of employment. Her own wage would not be affected, nor would her benefits or anything else - she just didn't like that entry level people would make the same amount that she was. It was - to me - the height of selfishness and ridiculousness.

 

They do enforce contracts.
LMAO you think contracts are unenforceable in law?
They are.

Civil law vs criminal law?
The law is the law.

You can use it to protect yourself vs your employee's.

 

If you ever go to court on something like this, you will be the prime example of a pigeon ready to be plucked. It will happen do fast you won't even know it's over before it's too late.
But, you can just explain to the judge that he isn't doing it right, and that should protect you....

 

Make your mind up mate.
Either you can take this stuff to court or you can't.

We both know you can, we both know the law can protect you from your employee's.

I won't be needing you to represent me thanks.
Explain whatever you like to the judge. Break whatever contracts you wish. None of my business.

Your broad point is still correct the balance of laws lie on the employee's side and not the employers.

 

Nobody said it couldn't be taken to court. I can sue you because I don't like your hairdo- that doesn't make my complaint law, nor does it mean it won't be thrown out of court - but the act of filing it insures it will go to court.
You fail to understand the difference between law and a legal document.

 

You're right, if you have no principle for law but simply subjective whims of the mob.

So you are arguing, then, that law ought to be based on emotion, and when those emotions and subjective morals are codified into law, they are righteous? You are arguing, essentially, that slavery wasn't wrong because it was law. Or that it's fine for the law to be wrong so long as you get what you want.

 

Eliminate the workers in the corporations from which the top 5% benefit to make them rich, and their income would crash. Their income depends on those workers. So why do you oppose sharing fairly in the gains?

 

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison. It is the economic reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

No, we can't. Government has to do that, the private sector has to seek a private profit motive not a public profit motive.

 

same thing with tax cuts that don't cover spending.

 

I hope someone has mentioned it, but in individual places like San Francisco or New York, where the cost of living is astronomical that might be worthwhile. In rural Iowa or something, where the cost of living is far lower, it doesn't make much sense.

 

then do it yourself if not worth it to pay someone to do it

it's not worth their time to work 40 hours for you for 3.50 an hour

that is why we have a min wage, or people like you would only be paying people 3.50 an hour