Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (37106)	9/15/2000 11:30:09 AM
From: donjuan_demarco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"Why should a worker not receive a wage which places them above the federal poverty level in exchange for their labor?" Why shouldn't a self-employed person be guaranteed a minimum wage in exchange for their labor? Taking money out of the hands of the employer (who is taking all the risk) in order to give it to the employee is communism.

To: flatsville who wrote (37106)	9/15/2000 11:33:11 AM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Because their productivity might be at a low level, much like many union employees, who do the minimum amount of work to avoid getting fired. And they pay union dues to protect their laziness.knc

To: flatsville who wrote (37106)	9/15/2000 11:35:22 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Unless the person is the head of a household, or makes substantial contributions to the household maintenance, it is an unnecessary interference with the labor market. Income supplements will suffice to raise the working poor above the poverty level, and will directly benefit the needy.