In article ,
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Much of the cost of having employees these days is the other
costs... ins, workers comp, etc.

How is that relavent to the discussion?

We were discussing costs to employers. Wages are just one of many
costs.

I'm curious. Working where? I live in the poorest state in the
nation and we can't hire fast food workers at minimum. You have
positions where you work that would ordinarily be at minimum? In the
Bay area? Please expand with details.

In the bay area, but not currently, as I'm not in a management
position, being self-employed... probably, I'll be staying that way,
at least for the next couple of years... pays better, lower stress,
more free time. G

Sorry, but a lot of them are considered poor. Paying more than the
minimum required doesn't ensure they're above the poverty line.

The post had nothing to do with the minimum. Had to do with people
who choose not to work. They might be poor, but unlike your original
comment to Max's post, it is actually their fault.

Most poor want to work - most poor do work. The working poor are at
fault?

Let's see, done this before but I'll try again. You take a job at
entry level whatever the scale is you work hard and do well and you
move up. You keep working hard and doing well and you keep moving up.
When you have a reputation of working hard and doing well, moving up
is almost automatic.

That's not likely to happen at say McDonalds. Maybe in a factory, but
certainly unlikely in a production line. How long do you have to work
there before you have a living wage?

That's the concept you can't understand, right? That's why you think
it is appropriate for individuls to refuse to work, because they can't
move up?

Huh? I think you're blatherin now.

Why should I care whether or not you like my comment. Sure, there are
people who choose not to work or refuse to be trained or whatver, but
most people want to work. That argument is as old as the hills but
continues to be simplistic and inaccurate.

You admit that there are people who won't work, then you say the
argument is simplistic and "inaccurate". How could it be both true
and inaccurate?

Because that doesn't address the issue. There are always people who
don't act on what is best for them. But, to use that as an argument,
leaves out quite a bit.

Significant phrase... small percentage... and yes, it's better just to
support them as dead weight than to let them die. It's the right thing
to do... not everything is required to be beholdin to the bottom line.

They called that welfare when it started. Did a great job. became
self perpetuating and grew with gusto. After slavery, the greatest
disservice that has ever been done to those at the bottom of the rung
in this country.

I believe Clinton fixed a large part of the welfare problem. But,
being a moderate (now called left-wing) he must have been wrong.

is. Or figure out how to blame Bush for people refusing to take those
jobs or to prepare themselves to take any job.

I don't have to .. it's obvious.

You do realize that tax dollars from that bottom line are where the so
called support you advocate comes from. Or do you?

That "bottom line"? Which bottom line? The corporate/Halliburton/
cutting and running offshore bottom line?

Just came back from Nashville. Booming. Just came back from
Colorado, booming every place I went. Maybe it's just a California
thing. You should get out more.

Maybe you should. Did you take a poll or just look in the paper for
want ads?




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com