Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm arguing that an employer can't take away someone's ability to earn a living.

You’re arguing a lot of things. Back that one up.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re arguing a lot of things. Back that one up.

An employer can choose to not employ someone. But they can't choose to prevent that person from getting another job elsewhere and earning a living.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An employer can choose to not employ someone. But they can't choose to prevent that person from getting another job elsewhere and earning a living.

I didn’t realize employers now have to hire people just because they wanted to work there. When did this happen?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I didn’t realize employers now have to hire people just because they wanted to work there. When did this happen?

No part of my statement implied an obligation by either party. Which is as it should be.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

No part of my statement implied an obligation by either party. Which is as it should be.

So what you’re saying is, an employee can’t force an employer to hire them or keep them employed and that should be considered as an even playing field even when you consider the fact that most employees need an income to live?

Am I following you correctly?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So what you’re saying is, an employee can’t force an employer to hire them or keep them employed and that should be considered as an even playing field even when you consider the fact that most employees need an income to live?

Am I following you correctly?

Most business owners need employees in order to make an income to live.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Most business owners need employees in order to make an income to live.

That doesn’t answer my question.

Does an employer have to hire anyone who wants to work for them or keep them employed once employed?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That doesn’t answer my question.

Does an employer have to hire anyone who wants to work for them or keep them employed once employed?

An employer has to hire someone (by definition), but not anyone.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

Care to start us off so we can sing along?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An employer has to hire someone (by definition), but not anyone.

And would most employees be able to survive if no one hired them?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And would most employees be able to survive if no one hired them?

Why has no one hired them?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And would most employees be able to survive if no one hired them?

I don’t know why you’re going back and forth with him. His entire premise is predicated on the idea that desperation and extenuating circumstances don’t ever exist, that nobody has any power over anybody else in these situations, and that nobody would ever agree or need to agree to something that is not in their best interest.

It’s either purposely obtuse to reality for the sake of argument, or you’re talking to someone so totally naive that it could only be explained by never having had to do something like look for a job.

Either could be true, given the poster’s history, but neither reason seems like a good reason to spend any time. You can’t reason someone out of a position that isn’t grounded in the reality people actual live in.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Why has no one hired them?

Because employers have the ability to choose whom they hire and there are only a finite number of jobs available.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Because employers have the ability to choose whom they hire and there are only a finite number of jobs available.

Why didn't they hire this hypothetical someone over the other people, then?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Why didn't they hire this hypothetical someone over the other people, then?

Perhaps there were 10 equal candidates and only 1 position available. That’s just one of many possibilities.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Perhaps there were 10 equal candidates and only 1 position available. That’s just one of many possibilities.

Gotta hate that 90% unemployment rate.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Gotta hate that 90% unemployment rate.

That’s another possibility.

Are you suggesting that every unemployed individual is unemployable?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s another possibility.

Are you suggesting that every unemployed individual is unemployable?

I'm suggesting that an employer can't prevent someone from earning a living simply by choosing to not employ them. That was my original point, and it remains my point.

An employee always has the right to convince someone that their labour has value.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm suggesting that an employer can't prevent someone from earning a living simply by choosing to not employ them. That was my original point, and it remains my point.

An employee always has the right to convince someone that their labour has value.

Ok let’s really explore this one shall we?

What you’re saying is that if there are say, 3 jobs available and there are 4 workers qualified and capable of filling those jobs, all 4 workers will be employed since their labour is equally valuable?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Ok let’s really explore this one shall we?

What you’re saying is that if there are say, 3 jobs available and there are 4 workers qualified and capable of filling those jobs, all 4 workers will be employed since their labour is equally valuable?

I am saying no such thing. My statement is unambiguous. It underpins my claim that since employees have agency a minimum wage is inappropriate. It limits their agency. It's limiting their agency because we "know what's good for them better than they do."