SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (739464)9/14/2013 5:34:25 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574267
 
>> Why not raise it to $100 per hour?

Right. If there is no downside, why stop at $20?



To: Bill who wrote (739464)9/14/2013 8:32:21 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574267
 
>
Why only $20? Why not raise it to $100 per hour?

I was the one that said it shouldn't be. $17ish is supposed to be around the tipping point, and it seems like we should go slowly after that. But all of this stuff is pretty theoretical.

-Z



To: Bill who wrote (739464)9/14/2013 10:31:58 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574267
 
Bill,
Why only $20? Why not raise it to $100 per hour?
Liberals can easily argue against that by calling your question a "slippery slope."

But they'll never, ever define what a "living wage" is, even though they always argue that the minimum wage should represent it.

And that's because they'll never understand how the free market would define a "living wage."

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News