Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Have you hired youth for low skill work
I understand what you're saying. I mean no disrespect to persons who have endured the most severe slavery. It is precisely because each human being matters that we must not close our eyes to any stratification of slavery. That's a different discussion than this thread; I do not retract what I said.
Actual slaves are owned by other people and don't get any wages at all. So, no.
It is easy to justify unethical behaviour, especially when it benefits you financially and you are not the one who suffers.
It's easy to justify unethical legislation, especially
Nothing will ultimately change. If the classes are pitted against each other to the critical point, heads will roll, yes. But the masses will eventually settle for some degree of scraps, as they always have. Because they are either ignorant of what it actually takes to have what they claim to want, or they are unwilling—or undisciplined enough, or both—to do what it takes to have it. That assumes they even know what they want, or what they deserve! This thread, itself, supports these assertions; look at how the minimum-wage earners are getting their wage increase—someone else is doing it for them. That tells me everything I need to know about what direction the winds are blowing.
Thank you for allowing the nuance. The nuance justifies the use of the term; a slave in any degree is a slave. Those who have endured the worst of slavery are not honored by our dismissal or allowance of lesser slavery. It's high time we stop coddling the term or being hyper-critical of its use, so that we can make the right changes in society. Says I.
Our prices are artificially low and made that way through direct government subsidies or indirect subsidies such as paying full time workers low enough wages that they still qualify for welfare. And how we're doing things just isn't working. A just, equitable society that seeks to work for as many people as possible has to pay for the cost of it. This means paying people fair and decent wages and not utilizing overseas sweat shops and paying decent wages. Our low prices only gice us the illusion of comfort as they come with great exploitation.
If I have to hire employees I consider it the moral and ethical thing to pay well. If I need to hire someone to help me keep up with my workload and make more money then why shouldn't I generously share the extra they help to bring in? After all, at this point it wouldn't be a lazy and wanting to hire but overworked and very much needing to hire someone.
The exploitation is the gouging.
Compared to Europe we have very low prices. Compared to much of tye West we have very low prices. That's because the government/tax payers pay to keep them low. Like beef. It would be extremely expensive I've it weren't for the terrible settings of factory farming and direct government subsidies. The governments of other nations aren't paying for people to eat cows like Uncle Sam does.
"Artificially low prices" assumes that without
I'm glad you want to pay people well (hypothetically speaking, since you aren't a business owner and have nothing on the line). I do as well. In fact, I don't think I've heard a single person in this thread advocate for anything else. Everyone here agrees with the principle of paying people as much as possible. And if someone believes I've inappropriately roped them into that sentiment, that person should step forward.
This is good. Now, how much of the extra do you give this new hire so that you can don the "generous and good employer" badge instead of the "greedy and unethical employer" badge? 100% of the extra this person helps you bring in? 50%? 10%?
I am arguing only for a living wage. Beyond that it is between the employee and employer to negotiate anything above that. And in any situation where I personally am neither party, I don't care.
How can you insert yourself into the question at all and at the same time not care? And who gets to declare what is, and is not, a living wage? For simple number of dependents, my family has been under the poverty line practically my entire adult life. We've certainly never wanted for any necessities, we have good savings, our house is paid for, and we have no debt. All this time I could have been receiving government stipends to boost my more-than-adequate, though below-the-poverty-line income. Are you talking about that living wage metric?
www.livingwageforfamilies.ca
Why do you prefer that to having a
A company that charges organizations to be labeled by that company a "Living Wage Employer" gets to decide?What Is a Living Wage?
A living wage is the hourly amount a family needs to cover basic expenses, including food, clothing, rental housing, child care and transportation.
Only because I believe UBI is an unrealistic dream at this point. And serves only as a distraction.
A living wage for all workers is even more unrealistic.