Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


So the government would take the forest from you if you weren't using it productively?

Now, remove that rule, but for businesses too

Well, since it is asking for big bucks in exchange for the forest, the only way really is to exploit it. Natural resources and territory are supposed to be public, but in the way they are managed they really are just exploitation spots in the waiting for prospective corporations.

Now how can you say that it's not corporation friendly?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
"Most often, the person employed at the lowest wages are entry-level workers, part time workers or teen agers."

Interesting debunk stats mrmitchell, but we don't even need that to disagree with the statement. Just ask the opposite question: "who benefits from a stagnating minimal wage"?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Mitchell, I should have rephrased. If we had no minimum wage, jobs at any wage an employer or an employee would agree on would be created. This obvously would go a long way to creating jobs for the part time worker and the entry level employee, or for those jobs that do not justify any higher wage.

No, it means the working poor would have an even harder time making it, since they'd be making even less money. If you can't afford to hire someone at a living wage you shouldn't be hiring anyone anyway. Slavery

[Ned]

Oncle Boris, People who need jobs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ned
Oncle Boris, People who need jobs. But, most importantly, part time workers, teenagers and entry level workers.

[chequita guevara]

So basically a tiny minority of those working on min wage. Ned, enemy of the poor.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Oncle Boris, People who need jobs.

What about "those who offer them"?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, it means the working poor would have an even harder time making it, since they'd be making even less money. If you can't afford to hire someone at a living wage you shouldn't be hiring anyone anyway. Slavery

You ignored the other half of my post which said that the ability to "make it" is a need that should be addressed by society through social safety net programs. Preventing freedom of contrac hardly helps anyone.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What about "those who offer them"?

Both. Freedom of contract is important for everyone.

[chequita guevara]

Except for the fact so conveniently ignored by you where the Repugs and the Demoncratic allies gut the funding of those programs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So basically a tiny minority of those working on min wage. Ned, enemy of the poor.

Distorter.

Why don't you simply answer my questions instead of setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

[Fake Boris]

Freedom gained one way is freedom deprived the other. Social safety nets require taxation, so that money the employer is saving on salaries would be paid in taxes for wealth redistribution.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Except for the fact so conveniently ignored by you where the Repugs and the Demoncratic allies gut the funding of those programs.

No doubt that this can be a problem. There is still Catholic Charities to fall back on.

Regardless, the "living wage" argument is bogus in a time when there are other means to keep families afloat who are below the poverty line.

[DinoDoc]

Strange that I get paid more than minimum wage without belonging to a union.

[chequita guevara]

What questions, miser?