🚀 go-pugleaf

"Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message 
news:13f9ja6b351i692@corp.supernews.com...
> "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,

Actually, it's more likely they'll layoff workers or send more jobs 
overseas. If the CEO is unwilling to do that, consumers will happily take 
their business to a lower-priced competitor that is willing to take that 
step.

Though I guess that does result in the cost being distributed - in the form 
of us taxpayers having to feed more unemployed welfare cases.