On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:51:55 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:03:04 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/16/2012 01:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/16/2012 09:56 AM, Han wrote:
SNIP


Opinions versus facts. What I say are my opinions. I think I was paid
what I was worth at most if not all points in my career. I know that
others in similar positions and with similar capabilities were paid less
and others more, but that is besides the point. My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are paid
insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make everything more
expensive. You may or may not agree, but my opinion is that more income
equality would benefit our society.



You're missing the point. Unless force it brought to bear to MAKE you
take a job, you're always "paid what you're worth" because you are
"worth" what the market will bear.

So if there are way more people than jobs. Then a person's worth may be close to negligible

That's right. This is called the law of supply and demand. All min
wage laws do is distort economic feedback and prevent new jobs
from being created.

You'd have to convince me of the societal benefit of having an economy
run purely on the basis of supply and demand versus one that provides a
little for those that have a lot less than enough. Are you willing to
watch people go hungry in the streets in order to maintain the purity of
your religion (S & D)?

Strawman alert! You assume that people actually live on minimum wage jobs.
These are entry-level jobs, usually held by kids living at home. All minimum
wage laws do is make these jobs disappear. Do you really think it's a good
idea to eliminate entry-level jobs?

If they're capable of work, I have no problem seeing bums starve (they won't).
If not, charity works.

And eliminate entry level jobs so people never learn how to hold one.

No answer noted.