The thread in question is the Andrew Wakefield antivaccination Pit thread that’s been ongoing for the last year or so, off and on. Back up 10 or so pages from the end, take a deep breath, and wade in. You can decide for yourself how exaggerated it is.
Would you eat at a place that decided, because of increased costs due to Obamacare, to add automation that resulted in 10% of their workforce being laid off? IOW, having looked at the cost of automating vs complying with the new HC law, it made more business sense to invest in automation and reduce the labor costs by 10%. This is done by offering customers the option of ordering and paying through their smartphones instead of doing so through a cashier.
Not sure if 10% is the right number, but whatever % makes sense.
It’s more likely that the text will read: “Customers who ordered your selection also ordered – FRIES; MILKSHAKE, CHOCOLATE; MILKSHAKE, VANILLA; MILKSHAKE, STRAWBERRY; HOT APPLE PIE”
**ADD THESE **
TO MY ORDER
No thanks, continue to checkout
I’ve just been following along waiting for an appropriate place to post “FARGIN’ ICEHOLES!” and not really finding one, so I give up. 
I know that this is the Pit, but that’s just horseshit to impugn those kind of motives to us. All I’m saying is that there is no magic bullet so that all workers can live a comfortable existence. What’s the solution? I don’t have a clue. I’m not sure that there is one. The idea that a person with little to no education can get a factory job to support a family with a comfortable income was one unique to the United States in the post-war era. Most of the world would love to live like our poorest citizens.
I do know that mandating that small business owners who are taking a loss each year pay workers far in excess of their market value is not a solution to the problem.
If they are taking a loss each year, then they shouldn’t be the ones to determine the market value of their workers. They’re already proven themselves incompetent to run a business.
They should fail and let someone else take over who can grow the business and provide more jobs.
Meanwhile, we need to scrap the old unemployment system. With 3-4 times as many workers as there are jobs, sub-subsistence pay and time limits are no longer a desirable system.
But the successful businesses also pay poor wages. If both successful AND unsuccessful businesses pay a low wage, then by what metric should we measure market value of labor? Isn’t it what a willing employer and a willing employee settle upon in an open market?
It seems like you are arguing that the actual worth of the labor be damned: we must pay a certain higher wage (that is never defined with clarity) with, of course, health insurance added on. If that higher wage is $30k/yr, then it must be $30k/yr WITH health insurance. It can’t be $50k/yr with no health insurance.
The minimum wage increase of around $1/hr doesn’t seem to harm the economy because such a small increase can be absorbed every 10 or so years. But this “living wage” argument takes it to a whole new level. It would be a rare business that could absorb such a significant increase in labor costs.
It makes simple sense that if the law requires employers to pay significantly more for a worker than he is worth, he won’t be hired.
Except the worth of a worker is not determined by his skills but by the business owner’s desire for excess profit.
I’ve worked for several small companies who managed to grow while providing full benefits.
Walmart cut back on staff, hours and wages in an attempt to increase an already very healthy bottom line and it bit them in the ass. Obviously the workers were worth far more than Walmart valued them at.
Hasn’t happened yet. I’m waiting to see where they think the money is going to come from to fund it, and no it isn’t going to come from “savings because they won’t be going to the ER”.
Actually it’s fairly close to a lie.
I’m not sure what your definition of important is, but I have trouble believing there are that many jobs out there that cannot done by anyone with average intelligence and physical capability. Those sorts of jobs - McDs, waiting tables, delivering newspapers, etc - aren’t all that important to society as a whole, so can be done by teens, retirees, SAHMs and other folks who can do the jobs with little training, and who should be getting their main income and health insurance elsewhere. But these days, people are just too irresponsible and impatient to get an education and a good job before they start having kids and running up debt, so they take what they can get then bitch because they cannot afford their SUV, three kids and five smartphones on what Red Robin pays, and why the hell aren’t they getting cheap health insurance too!!
Yes I know that the economy sucks and yes I know that a college education doesn’t guarantee a good job and yes I know having a good job doesn’t mean it will always be there, but that isn’t what I am addressing. I’m talking about people like a friend who just had major surgery for a condition she’s had since birth, $200,000 so far and no insurance so she is just going to declare bankruptcy. She could have purchased insurance but didn’t want to spend the money on it. Or the folks across the street who have five adults and at least four kids living in a three bedroom house because the original couple bought more house than they could afford, but dog forbid they not have their SUVs, lawn service, pool service and the two kids they have had since they moved in.
The US is full of people who are entitlement minded and have little grasp of finances. When they run out of money or just don’t feel like paying for something, they look to the government to pay for it. Which over the decades has caused that ever-growing population of poor and angry, and an ever-shrinking population of elites. Before long, we will get to the point where there won’t be enough elites - i.e. “those rich people” to pay for all the stuff the angry poor expect to get for free or cheap.
Welcome to the part of Obamacare that isn’t exactly trumpeted by the media or the administration, but which was an obvious loophole which was going to be exploited by employers.
Yes. One of the problems is that many folks who have been displaced in the work force because of the 2008 recession, and couldn’t find work in their chosen profession had to take jobs that used to be reserved for students, the single mother, and people looking for some extra money. Now, people take jobs that offer benefits if they have families, and this is one of the big problems with our economy.
No solution will be perfect, but unless the US goes to a socialized medical system, people will continue to get screwed out of health insurance. Its not like you need a degree to take an order and bringing it to customers. You are replaceable.