why? what's wrong with that line of work..people eat hamburgers..someone needs to cook them.
That's fine, but you need to put 60 in to be worth a living wage
why? what's wrong with that line of work..people eat hamburgers..someone needs to cook them.
Why would my parents force me to work some shitty job at 14 ? I did have a paper route and did some janitorial work at the church, but nothing like what you claim.Why were you not working at 14 yrs old ?
That's fine, but you need to put 60 in to be worth a living wage
The thread asks a question that is suggestive of a false dichotomy.
Profile is measurable. Ethics are subjective. This question is a little silly being as profit is the #1 priority for a business, it's the whole reason they're 'in business'. Pada seems to think that a business is responsible for its employees and their quality of life. Failing that he thinks that the government is responsible for your quality of life. It comes across as very 'give me, give me, give me' without offering anything in return. A business is not your parents. They don't feel responsible for your well being.
I maintain that the only person responsible for your finances is the individual.
I would need government assistance to pay my billsIn the example in the OP, $.01 is your profit, so you're essentially breaking even while remaining ethical
Are you saying you believe it's better to turn a $5.00 profit instead even though your employees require government assistance to pay their bills?
You're not a smart man.
That's fine, but you need to put 60 in to be worth a living wage
40 hours of tossing someone elses meat around is only worth a living wage if you have a video camera and a website.
That's fine, but you need to put 60 in to be worth a living wage
says who? and how do you arrive at this calculation?
Why is minimum wage being confused with living wage?
Everyone deserves $127 an hour, regardless of skills and effort.40 + 20 hours for lacking any skills = 60
Why is minimum wage being confused with living wage?
Everyone deserves $127 an hour, regardless of skills and effort.
Duh!!!
That's the problem, you think all "full time" jobs deserve a certain level of pay.no but certainly working a full-time job, you would expect at the very least to eat and have a roof over your head..not including utilities of course..that would be extra.
#$290bites
Ships turn cow butter shoe feet. Some lard needs fish roof dinner time.
In no way is the OP suggestive of a false dichotomy; it appears you are misusing the term. How is a business you own and the wage you pay your employees of that business mutually exclusive?
That's the problem, you think all "full time" jobs deserve a certain level of pay.
You know what happens in places utilising unskilled labour get a "mandate" like that?
They fire the full timer and hire two part timers on 18.5 hours each.
dude, that's been so done here, haven't you been listening to me?..even when i was still in the biz..starting in 2000, i noticed the trend for part-timers only.
"One time, at band camp ..."