🚀 go-pugleaf

"SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> enscribed:
> 
> "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message 
> news:13eu1qnms06vb46@corp.supernews.com...
> > jdoe <jdoe@aol.com> enscribed:
> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:52:00 -0700, Richard Fangnail
> >> <richardfangnail@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I see janitors on strike sometimes and I wonder if they deserve more
> >> >or if they're being surly.  I've heard of janitors who are paid only
> >> >$20 an hour though they work so hard.  But I heard of a guy who was
> >> >making $39 per hour as a janitor and went on strike anyway.  He said
> >> >"Well I can't feed five kids on that!"  I don't know if that's true.
> >> this is a new fallacy being promoted by the left, the buzz word is
> >> "living wage"
> >>
> >> who cares if he can support a family on his current wages?
> >>
> >> if he wants to earn more he needs to go to school or get trained for a
> >> job that has higher earnings potential.
> >>
> >> it isn't an employers responsibility to ensure that a particular job
> >> pays enough to support a family, it is the janitors responsibility to
> >> make himself worthy of being worth higher wages.
> >
> > Is it better for society as a whole that the children be brought up in 
> > poverty with lifelong
> > physical and psychological problems that rest of society will have to pay 
> > for the next seventy years?
> > Or is it better for society as a whole that the children be brought up as 
> > healthy as possible?
> 
> Since it's "better for society as a whole", perhaps the "society as a whole" 
> should underwrite the cost of the solution instead of expecting a single 

Theoretically it does. If all employers are forced to pay higher wages, then faced with the same additional costs, they can be expected to raise prices, distributing the cost throughout society.

-- 
Feh. Mad as heck.