We’ve discussed the idea of livable wages here before. There’s a feeling among some people that businesses should required to make that its employees make enough money to sustain a “good” life (I’m not sure who gets to consider what good is). This includes enough pay to support you and your family and generous benefits to cover what your salary doesn’t.
This sounds great on the surface and it can be pretty easy to expect businesses with a lot of money to have no problem shelling out the extra money. The business has the responsibility to the worker, doesn’t it? Isn’t the business is the livelihood of its workers?
Try looking at it from a different perspective. A worker sells his labor to the employer. The business isn’t trying to do anyone any favors by giving people jobs. Selling your labor is no different from you selling anything else. You and the buyer agree on a price and you make the transaction. You don’t need the government helping you set prices on eBay, do you?
Anyway, let’s assume that it is the employer’s job to ensure the livelihood of its employees. How far does that extend? Say you hire someone to cut your grass every two weeks. You pay him $40 to perform the work. You think he does a good job and he’s satisfied with the pay, so you’re both happy. This job, though, is the only employment that he has—you are his sole employer. Are you then responsible that he’s clothed, housed, and fed?
The answer to this will be “Of course not, he’s just mowing your lawn.”
What if he’s just sweeping your floors? What about if he’s just greeting patrons?
Like so many “You should do XYZ,” there’s never a place to draw the line. And no one ever agrees on the spot either.
While I am not advocating anything like paying the lawn guy $40K annually, or obligating any corporation to guarantee dental care for every temporary employee, I simultaneously don’t trust any large corporation to do anything except squeeze every nickel out of every opportunity, every time. If given the chance, I fully believe collusion is inevitable.
Last night during a long phone call I was asked if I believed that government was “us” or was it “they”. The question was about the end of the mayan calendar, and what that actually may mean. I don’t think the utilities are going to shut off in the next two weeks, I don’t think people are going to leave cities as it seems the mayans did, rather, I believe it regards an awakening. I believe that interest in snoopi and the rest of the Jersey crowd will wane while a communal mentality will develop. I should probably be more interested in the wellness of my neighbour than I currently am, I figure we should at least know each other’s name.
The lady said yesterday that while the Connecticut shooting is clearly a tragedy and loss, that she even thought her government could be involved (so as to stimulate support for a UN proposed small arms global restriction), whether the government was involved or not, that she could consider that as a possibility is evidence that faith in the feds is basically vanquished.
So is the government currently us, or is the government currently them? what say you? Or, while I will accept that Romney would have been better than Obama for countless reasons, my question is if anyone thinks that Romney and the GOP would have been good for America.
The bark scorpion lives here in the valley, and apparently if struck the antidote is critical for many or most. Turns out that injections vary in cost from hospital to hospital, it varies from $8000 – $23 000. Seems a local police officer’s 3 year old boy got bit recently (about 300 reported bites per year) and for the four hours in the hospital and the single injection, he received a bill for $80 000. The public insurance covered $50K leaving him with a $30 000 debt.
Since the vaccine was developed in Mexico and is currently available there for $100, and since the vaccine was ripped off by a major pharmaceutical company then patented, the Mexican provider of the natural version has been prohibited to export to American health providers (citing an inability for the FDA to provide QAQC).
Now. Back to the question of liberty. Should I be allowed to import 100 doses of said vaccine and sell to the public for $200 per? NAFTA seems to have been introduced to guarantee me that opportunity, instead, as I’m sure we will all agree, if I were to do so, there would be a SWAT team at my door within weeks of me posting my first advertisement.
So my question, is the government us or is it them, if it is them, at what point do we say we’ve had enough, and then, what do we do about it?
“Or, while I will accept that Romney would have been better than Obama for countless reasons, my question is if anyone thinks that Romney and the GOP would have been good for America. ”
Absolutely not. Romney and the rest of the GOP will essentially do the same thing that the powers in charge now are doing. They may do it at a little slower of a pace, but they’ll still be doing the same thing.
“Should I be allowed to import 100 doses of said vaccine and sell to the public for $200 per?”
You absolutely should be able to. It’s your body and you have the right to put what you want into it. This protectionism by the government for (in this case) pharmaceutical companies is what drives the costs up so high.
Excellent comment, Lance.
Well its been a few days there Tarkus. I figured gun control would be the obvious topic d’jour. So I make my own post on the subject.
Cheryl read me a quote suggesting that “everyone who is about to advocate new gun legislation could lead by example and disarm their own body guards first.”
Yesterday I read a response to the suggestion to project the outcome of any future gun prohibition as a stimulation of the black market and a whole new industry for organized crime.
And while the obvious parallel between cars and guns is oft over used, what I can say for certain is if those who are responsible to fight the war on drugs and the war on terror suddenly are commissioned to fight a new war on guns, I would be stunned to find anyone who would expect a different result.
Maybe we should look at the use of prescribed medication and these school house shootings to see if we can find any correlations, and instead of trying to fight a war on guns, instead the powers that be could fight a war on prescription medication instead.
You beat me to it…that article will be up in a few minutes.