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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (106677)	6/5/2001 3:31:12 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Grace - ...As an employer it behooves me to pay my employees exactly the wage that it would take to replace that employee with another employee of similar skill and experience. The job has a market value, the employee has a market value. ... Good post, with the proviso that the wage is not so high that you cannot afford to pay it and stay in business. You have no control over the market wage. All you can do is refuse to pay it and either restructure your business or shut it down. Regards, Don

To: GraceZ who wrote (106677)	6/5/2001 4:03:30 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The unintended impact may be that what little benefits those employees receive from employers may be cut back to offset the increased cost. But more uninsured workers is not a concern to those who who've pushed community rating in health insurance.

To: GraceZ who wrote (106677)	6/5/2001 4:18:41 PM
From: flatsville	Respond to of 436258

Grace- I agree that "deserving" has nothing to do with this. But, I've been around the dance floor with a number of partners the past day or two on this. Your lyrics are not different from what's been sung already. I've addressed many of the issues you raised. You're late to the cotillion. My dance card is full right now and I need to move on to new arguments on this issue to get back to fight weight. (Sorry for mixing metaphors.) I guess what I find most perplexing coming from those who genuinely appear (or even merely pretend) to care about workers/employees is this argument-- It's pretty straight forward, if you increase the cost to an employer of these entry level jobs you reduce the number of jobs available. If you reduce entry level jobs you are going to find it is more and more difficult for people to make that jump from unemployable to employable. It's not unlike the same argument Don made here-- Message 15889934 My response to him-- Message 15890189 (Suprisingly the only reponse back I got was from DAK who, though I doubt was aware of it, made a rather diabolical case for a high minimum wage at the cost of higher unemployment to stem the tide of illegal immigration by making U.S. border jumping less attractive. IOW don't bother to come, no jobs here. If he weren't so often incoherent I would engage him in conversation on this. Though it is hardly the kind of policy I could support.)