Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 13 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 10:47 a.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Meethook (72) 13 years ago

I love the title. The content is good too.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply
[-] 0 points by Coriolanus (272) 13 years ago

"once the healthcare mandate goes into effect, workers comp should be eliminated as requiring both is an overlap."

That is an excellent idea, but the issues of wage replacement and permanent impairment need to be sorted out. If labor and business are both willing to compromise, that would be great. This would remove a lot of redundancy.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Misfit138 (172) 13 years ago

What is a living wage? In Louisiana, the cost of living is extremely low compared to a New York or California. The business that would have to pay the difference would just move to these lower costs states and the larger, more expensive, states would be left with only jobs that the majority of the people there wouldn't qualify for.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Misfit138 (172) 13 years ago

I thought you meant just the corporations, not every single job site. Then we could kiss the Mom and Pop's goodbye as most pay minimum wage to local kids at after school jobs and many depend on their summer hires who tend to be kids needing work between semesters. The fact is, there isn't a "one size fits all" solution to our problems and I would rather that we worked to not harm the small, local businesses.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Misfit138 (172) 13 years ago

But what raising wages artificially does is raise the cost of goods which means that the poverty level would increase to meet the artificial increases. Or there is the other possibility that if the minimum wage was raised to, say $18 an hour, then those who had worked up to that point would have no incentive to try any harder as any high school kid off the street could earn what they took years to work for. Corporations would either raise prices to meet the new wage increases or lower the wages of the higher earners all in the name of keeping profits constant.
I think it would be easier (in theory) if boards and stock holders were to set CEO's and president's pay based off of the lowest wage earner in the business. As it stands, the highest paid CEO's "earn" over 200 times more than their lowest paid employee. If that were changed to 50 times, then you would see more pay at the lower level for less pay at the higher level and would be closer (still pretty far off in my opinion) to reflecting the amount of value each provides the business.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 13 years ago

There is not such thing as "welfare". Do some research and educate yourself on TANF before you post nonsense.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply

[Deleted]

[Removed]

[Removed]