Now you get to study the differences between public transit in pretty much the rest of the developed world and the United States.
I'll give you a hint, the US doesn't win.
Why should a poor person own a car? Use public transportation like tens of millions of Europeans do. And why do they need an apartment all to themselves? Never heard of roommates?
We dont "allow" business to exist. Did Compaq ask your permission to form? Did Intel decide to start its entire business for you? Of course not. Did the local hardware store get your permission to buy a building and stock it?
The idea business exists for the sake of citizens is some misaligned Socialist "We are the world" theory. Its not entirely wrong. If everyone on the planet died, certainly business would stop. But business doesnt exist "for the sake of" people.
Now the brain defective have diverted the thread into business rights etc. instead of the fact their ain't enough jobs to employ all the people who want to work. They just can't face the fact that the market doesn't work because when the supply of workers is high workers are worthless. The brain defective worship of the market is destroying people's lives and the collective horseshit worshipers are responsible for preventing any change.
If an FTE employee can qualify for public assistance, then an employer can use that as a negotiating tool during recruiting. In other words, the prospective employee who is willing to supplement his income with public assistance has an advantage over the employee who is not so inclined, as they will settle for a lower wage. And the employer is able to externalize a portion of their labor costs. This upsets the labor market and should be strongly discouraged.
Mike Rowe would strongly disagree with you. in fact he would (righlty) state there are millions of jobs simply waiting for someone to want to fill them. Of course it requires a bit of hard work, requires getting a bit dirty, so of course the special snowflakes of this generation have no desire whatsoever in doing them.
Why should they? Much simpler to blame their own failings on some unnamed corporate CEO I suppose.
Our public transportation has lagged because of our relative wealth and because our population has historically been more independent and more spread out. Europe by contrast has been more poor and more concentrated. Even Canada, though sparsely populated as a whole, is concentrated into huge megacities. Now that we're conentrating into big cities, becoming poorer on average, and being educated on the benefits of the State, we'll catch up.Now you get to study the differences between public transit in pretty much the rest of the developed world and the United States.
I'll give you a hint, the US doesn't win.
If an FTE employee can qualify for public assistance, then an employer can use that as a negotiating tool during recruiting. In other words, the prospective employee who is willing to supplement his income with public assistance has an advantage over the employee who is not so inclined, as they will settle for a lower wage. And the employer is able to externalize a portion of their labor costs. This upsets the labor market and should be strongly discouraged.
Private transportation in the US is more affordable because it's much less taxed, so the poor don't need public transport, and there's also not much financing for public transport as a result.Our public transportation has lagged because of our relative wealth and because our population has historically been more independent and more spread out. Europe by contrast has been more poor and more concentrated. Even Canada, though sparsely populated as a whole, is concentrated into huge megacities. Now that we're conentrating into big cities, becoming poorer on average, and being educated on the benefits of the State, we'll catch up.
There are reasons why employers are more receptive to foreign labor as each year goes by. Running a business in the U.S. is becoming increasingly complicated to the point where you have to generate large revenues and be very efficient at it, in order to have enough extra cash to afford lawyers to interpret and handle all the legal matters the government lays on the business.
Wrong, the policy worked exactly as Republicans intended. The wealth concentration at the top is not a side effect, it's the goal of trickle down supply side economics.To break down your argument, it basically goes, "Republicans during the 1980's did not implement an economic policy that worked as intended, therefore you must be wrong and I must be right."
Fucking waste you are. Have fun continually begging for a high paying unskilled job, while I continue to provide for others from my skilled labor.
Exactly this. An employee clearly needs to have some minimum standard of living in order to successfully work. If their wages are not sufficient to provide this and the government picks up that tab, the employer is simply using the US government to externalize their wage costs to get a competitive advantage. That's bad economics, regardless of your ideology.
If Walmart can only keep their prices low because we subsidize their employees then their prices aren't actually low. This should be discouraged.
Try opening a business without a business license and see where that gets you.
Go back to the beginnings of 'state' (i.e a social collective based on a common self identification) and 'business' (i.e. the concept that one can trade one thing for another thing and do so on a regular basis and feel that you gain something from each exchange) has always existed at the whim of the state.
[somewhat awkwardly phrased but it's understandable]
Exactly this. An employee clearly needs to have some minimum standard of living in order to successfully work. If their wages are not sufficient to provide this and the government picks up that tab, the employer is simply using the US government to externalize their wage costs to get a competitive advantage. That's bad economics, regardless of your ideology.
If Walmart can only keep their prices low because we subsidize their employees then their prices aren't actually low. This should be discouraged.
But thats not what is happening. In fact thats not even logic, thats just made up lies to try to garner emotional responses.
I promise you, in writing, Walmart will not raise its wages if you stop giving people welfare. I promise it. Walmart doesnt base its wages off what welfare pays. I promise you, they dont.
Thats the big lie the Democrats want you to believe, that the government is somehow having to subsidize companies who pay low wages. But its just patently not true. Employers set their wages without any regard to whether welfare is available or not.
Exactly this. An employee clearly needs to have some minimum standard of living in order to successfully work. If their wages are not sufficient to provide this and the government picks up that tab, the employer is simply using the US government to externalize their wage costs to get a competitive advantage. That's bad economics, regardless of your ideology.
If Walmart can only keep their prices low because we subsidize their employees then their prices aren't actually low. This should be discouraged.
But thats not what is happening. In fact thats not even logic, thats just made up lies to try to garner emotional responses.
I promise you, in writing, Walmart will not raise its wages if you stop giving people welfare. I promise it. Walmart doesnt base its wages off what welfare pays. I promise you, they dont.
Thats the big lie the Democrats want you to believe, that the government is somehow having to subsidize companies who pay low wages. But its just patently not true. Employers set their wages without any regard to whether welfare is available or not.
As per the numbers I posted previously Walmart almost certainly pays a living wage for a single adult.
I'm sorry, what exactly is a living wage again?
Again, why is it up to the employer to provide your minimum dtandard of living (of which we'd probably disagree on the details). To provide a MSL for someone going to college while living at home is FAR different from the liberal posterchild single mom with two kids. Theyre not even allowed to ask about situations during the interview. Walmart actually privides jobs that would sustain either situation I provided.... but not necessarily an entry level position..
If their wages are not sufficient to provide this and the government picks up that tab, the employer is simply using the US government to externalize their wage costs to get a competitive advantage. That's bad economics, regardless of your ideology.
It isn't up to the employer to do that, this is just a market inefficiency that we have to deal with due to our choice not to let people starve to death, etc. Right now employers like Walmart have their wage costs artificially depressed because they have been able to externalize some of those costs. That's bad economics, so we should change that.
Companies "set" their wages according to the labor market, which varies wildly based on the job, the job requirements, the job location, and negotiations with individual job candidates.
In other words, there are no "set" wages except those "set" by the market. And the availability of public assistance dollars is affecting the bottom end of the labor market, holding wages down.