Cons think it's better for a company to survive by paying less, while libs want individuals paid more even if?
Is this the difference between the two camps? liberals: even if a company fails, it's better for individual citizens to make good money and have good benefits. conservatives: don't let companies fail, if they have to pay slave labor, or move jobs to Indonesia, it's better than a company failing because they paid good benefits. You conservatives don't have to get all emotional over it... what you're saying is basically, "if the company fails they don't pay anything," so low wages and no benefits are better than nothing, right? Which is what I stated above. Tell me if I'm wrong, not just restate what I said the con position was, and then say something emotional like the other guys are dumb. Not that I expected much, but a little more logic than that. Yes, there are slave wages in this world Mjolnir... but you can have them, which is why I suppose your ancestors carried Mjolnir, and mine Gungnir, the master's weapon.
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
cameron dew
2 :
Do you think the conservative approach actually helps America? Do you think that sending jobs elsewhere is the American thing to do? Conservatives talk about their love of America, but this strategy seems very un-American, doesn't it?
3 :
Yes; Dems treat people like humans. Repubs do what's good for big business at the expense of human decency.
4 :
The company serves a purpose. The welfare recipient simply takes up space.
5 :
That's kind of black and white, there are a lot of gray areas in this topic. Republicans have generally and historically favored corporations over worker rights and compensations, while Democrats have generally and historically favored labor over corporations, but there are nuances and not all democrats and republicans are alike.
6 :
The last two companies I worked for contributed heavily to republicans. One sent an entire plant to Mexico and the other sent my job to India. Spare me.
7 :
Inconvenient Muslim: Low-wage employees are generally not on welfare. They work for a living. and they serve a purpose. employees are the backbone of any business.
8 :
Ummm, I might be nitpicking here, but.... how is it good for the workers if all businesses fail? .....crickets chirping. Ooooh, you didn't think of that.
9 :
Conservatives believe in Limited Government. Limit Power and you Limit Corruption. Anything that is too big to fail is Too Big. - Reduce its size. Reduce its Power and reduce Corruption. Conservatives believe if a Corporation is Failing, they deserve their end. No More Bail-outs. Let the more competent thrive. Powerful Corporations are Corrupt and Conservatives will have nothing to do with them. You FAIL because your question in BOGUS.
10 :
If a company fails.. then they're not paying anybody anything. Something liberals are all too stupid to figure out.
11 :
Conservatives think it's better for a company to keep employing people. Liberals want companies to STOP employing people. Liberals: It's IMPORTANT to make sure a company closes-up; we actually claim workers will be better-off if their employer stops existing. Conservatives: Don't MAKE companies fail because no one gets paid when they do.
12 :
How many Steel Mills do you see out there or ship builders,we used to have the best in the world and they paid good wages. What killed them? Enviromental mandates Union greed High taxes The companies were operating in the RED,so they closed their doors,42000 of them.
13 :
You’ve presented the extreme sides of the issue but essentially you’ve captured the spirit of where the two sides stand. Under the conservative approach investors will prosper but the American workers suffer. Eventually Americans will be unable to be major consumers and the companies will have to open overseas markets in order to make money. Under the liberal approach, companies paying decent wages can’t compete with companies who outsource overseas for cheap labor. That situation requires some sort of protectionist system and there are problems inherent in international trade with any protectionist approach. Since all individuals are not investors and most people have to earn money in order to become investors, we must protect the wages of American workers. American workers can't compete with low-paid foreign workers. Evidently some sort of area in between is necessary.
14 :
That's why I say that outsourcing should be illegalized and if a foreign company wants to sell in the US then they need to provide Americans with gainful employment. Repugnicans are not partial to common sense, there is no way around it, if Americans workers are gainfully employed then they have money to spend fueling the economy.
15 :
Conservatives just feel that the government doesn't belong in the business of dictating wages. Why doesn't this make sense to liberals? If I owned a McDonald's and wanted to pay my employees $1 an hour, and the Burger King across the street was hiring people at $10 an hour, who in their right mind would work for me? I just think it should be up to the employer what they choose to pay their employees. I would rather have the free-market setting a minimum wage than have a government tell business owners what they have to pay their employees. Where I live, all businesses pay well above the minumum wage because of the oil-industry. Fast-food restaurants start their employees off at $10 an hour, even though the minimum wage is over $2 an hour less. At the very least, I think individual states should be the only governments that can set a minimum wage.
16 :
I'm always amused when some dipstick comes on here and tells me what I allegedly think or believe. You don't realize just how arrogant and ignorant it makes you appear, especially considering how wrong you are about it. Conservatives do not believe any such thing; conservatives believe in economic freedom, where the company decides for itself what compensation agreement it should reach with its employees, and whether it should move operations in order to improve its profitability. We also believe that companies should be allowed to fail and that they should go through bankruptcy proceeding if they do fail, with senior creditors getting their repayment per very longstanding rules of bankruptcy law. We understand far more about economics and business than you seem to be capable of. We know that employees are a resource and commodity that commands certain prices in the market. Companies cannot just reduce pay without consequences, which is why they will generally automate what they can, outsource those areas that are least cost-beneficial to the company and try to increase productivity of those employees it deems essential to its success. No "slave wages", because that's simply a fantasy or crackpipe-dream on your part - it isn't reality. The thing is that a company that goes bankrupt doesn't end up paying anybody good wages, so I don't know what you're blathering about, and, sadly, neither do you. -- I never said there were not slave wages in the world, you obtuse excrescence, but there certainly are none in these United States.
17 :
Um I believe conservatives are more for weak government and therefore they would let the business fail.
18 :
Let the Koolaid flow.... The problems we have aren't about companies being allowed to fail or not. That is a symptom of the root problem. The problem is in the question.... What is the role of a corporation in society? The point of a business is to provide a good or service to society. If it is a good or service that is demanded by more ppl, the business profits and can grow. And, by default, requires more employees to fulfill that goal. So, by allowing a business to be profitable, we allow it to grow which provides more jobs. Government's ONLY role in that process is to make sure that those running the business do not cheat or abuse the consumers with cheap or dangerous products or services that do not truly serve the consumer and the business does not MONOPOLIZE the market. Now here is where things get fouled up.... When the govt. starts MAKING companies responsible for "benefits" (which were originally "incentives" for getting the best qualified employees to work for the company rather than for a competitor), we make those "benefits" "entitlements" (something that every employee SHOULD get whether that employee is a benefit to the company or not). We hinder the business' original purpose. Which means we hinder its growth and without growth, less demand for more labor. OR we force that company to find less expensive options to grow.... And in a global market place we are now in, that means looking at choices such as moving operations overseas or outsourcing jobs to other countries. The job of a business is not intended to be a job creator or an insurance provider. That is forcing the company to provide different services to consumers than the company may have started out intending to provide. And the difference in approaches is.... Liberals think a company should be forced to provide entitlements even at the expense of survival of the company (because ppl "deserve" certain things). Conservatives believe that a profitable company will, by necessity, provide jobs and benefits to their employees if not forced or limited by others who may have a different agenda.
