Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Cow Poke]

I've never argued that you're against ANY taxation, nor implied such.

I knew just as soon as I hit "post" that you'd take that wrong -- poorly worded on my part. And it's a waste of my time and yours for me to pursue that.

You have, however, made a clear distinction between volunteering to give more for social welfare and "the government forcing someone against their will" to do so.

You're reading way too much into that.

That's a moral argument, implying that such "forced giving" is illegitimate or wrong.

You're being pedantic. I have already stated that I'm not against taxation. Is it YOUR responsibility to decide what taxes I'm against?

If you don't believe that "forced giving" for social welfare is necessarily wrong then you've got to explain your position in light of your having used that in argument. If the government sets a minimum wage, is that forcing someone to provide for another's welfare against his will? If the government levies a wealth tax to fund TANF or SNAP, is that forcing someone against his will to provide for another? Is such force immoral or illegitimate?

The minimum wage debate is a specific argument - and does not indicate overall opposition to taxation in general.

Your arguments seem to have been, for a very long time, been on the side of the argument that holds that such policies are, at least in a sense, immoral and that they illustrated corruption in politicians. If this is not the case, I would appreciate something much more detailed than the above, which is somewhat vague.

Is there a question in there, Counselor?

[Starlight]

The article in the OP of this thread has now been fact checked and found to be entirely false. When fact-checkers asked the owners of restaurants that were closing why they were closing the story was consistently: "My closure is strictly due to location — nothing to do with wages" and "we did not close our … location due to the new minimum wage". Various restaurant owners described the original article claiming future minimum wage increases as the reason for closures as "preposterous" and "weird".

[Sam]

I knew just as soon as I hit "post" that you'd take that wrong -- poorly worded on my part. And it's a waste of my time and yours for me to pursue that.



You're reading way too much into that.



You're being pedantic. I have already stated that I'm not against taxation. Is it YOUR responsibility to decide what taxes I'm against?



The minimum wage debate is a specific argument - and does not indicate overall opposition to taxation in general.



Is there a question in there, Counselor?

[Cow Poke]

Well, you're not explaining your position as you promised to do if asked.

Well, instead of writing a thesis, Sam, ask a bloomin' question! For cryin out loud, I swear you just love to see yourself type for the sake of typing.

I'm giving you the chance

Oh, THANK you, kind sir!

to lay out clearly what your argument is regarding "picking the pockets" of business owners,

I said that?

Sue me.

It's hardly worth getting riled, then, when other folk try to figure out where you stand based on the implications of your posts.

Well stop bloviating, and ask a question!

[Sam]

Well, instead of writing a thesis, Sam, ask a bloomin' question! For cryin out loud, I swear you just love to see yourself type for the sake of typing.

I don't like having to repeat myself within the span of a few posts, that's for sure.

I would like to know what your actual position on this matter is; if you could provide that position with a reasonable amount of detail, I would be exquisitely grateful, as it will greatly aid my desire to avoid misrepresenting you in the future.

You did not provide any sort of explanation for your position, certainly nothing that can easily coexist with your posts on this or other threads. That's what I asked for and it's what I just re-asked you to provide.

I said that?

Sparko did. To which you approvingly responded that "liberals are addicted to OPM" (other people's money).

[Cow Poke]

"picking the pockets" of business owners,

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

[Cow Poke]

Sparko did. To which you approvingly responded that "liberals are addicted to OPM" (other people's money).

And FROM THAT, you extrapolate.... . wow! I stand by that statement, by the way.

[Sam]

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

Are you saying that it's immoral to do so?

[Cow Poke]

Are you saying that it's immoral to do so?

Apparently, you've got a bug up your butt about this "immoral" aspect -- please answer the question.

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

[Sam]

And FROM THAT, you extrapolate.... . wow! I stand by that statement, by the way.

If Sparko says that increasing the minimum wage is "picking my pocket and the pockets of the business owners" and you reply "Of course - liberals are hopelessly addicted to OPM" ... then, yes, I think it's a completely valid extrapolation that you agree with Sparko's comment and the implicit moral argument underpinning it.

If you don't agree with that comment or its implicit moral argument, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

[Sam]

Apparently, you've got a bug up your butt about this "immoral" aspect -- please answer the question.

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

Again, would it be immoral for the third party to "force [you] to increase the amount of money [you] agreed to pay"?

[Cow Poke]

If Sparko says that increasing the minimum wage is "picking my pocket and the pockets of the business owners" and you reply "Of course - liberals are hopelessly addicted to OPM" ... then, yes, I think it's a completely valid extrapolation that you agree with Sparko's comment and the implicit moral argument underpinning it.

Cool - you're free to think what you want.

If you don't agree with that comment or its implicit moral argument, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

I really don't lose a lot of sleep worrying about what you think of my posts, Sam.

[Cow Poke]

Again, would it be immoral for the third party to "force [you] to increase the amount of money [you] agreed to pay"?

I asked you first. Why can't you answer?

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

[Sam]

I asked you first. Why can't you answer?

I start a business.
It grows to the point where I need help running it.
I advertise for help at a specified dollar amount (or range) and people apply for that job.
We enter into a mutually beneficial contract - they exchange hours of their life for dollars from my earnings.

We "have a deal".

A third party decides the employee is not "earning enough", and wants to force me to increase the amount of money I agreed to pay, and they agreed to accept.

You're going to tell me this is fair?

I can answer very easily and quickly. But you've put yourself into a bind and I want to see where it leads before you rocket off on a tangent.

You've used the word "fair," implying an ethical or moral dilemma. An unfair policy would appear to be either unethical or immoral, based on your post. I'd very much like to know whether you consider the third party's actions here immoral or unethical.

And since you owe me a detailed position piece, I'll call it settled if you just answer my question first.

[Cow Poke]

I can answer very easily and quickly.

So PLEASE DO!

But you've put yourself into a bind and I want to see where it leads before you rocket off on a tangent.

Patience. And I'm way too old to rocket.

You've used the word "fair," implying an ethical or moral dilemma.

Ah! So you're going to turn this into a moral dilemma no matter what. No prob.

An unfair policy would appear to be either unethical or immoral, based on your post. I'd very much like to know whether you consider the third party's actions here immoral or unethical.

And since you owe me a detailed position piece, I'll call it settled if you just answer my question first.

i OWE you!?!?!??!!? I OWE you?!?!?!?! Is this another ENTITLEMENT?

Sam, I don't owe you SQUAT!

We're having a discussion, and as long as it holds my interest, I'll be happy to play.

So, please, answer the question already.

I'm guessing you're going to say it's completely fair, yes? Or "moral"?