The emotionalism on full tilt regarding verifying identity is beyond belief.
Does anyone think the "honor" system still exists in this world?
Trust, but verify.
Six months for 95% of people to get their sh*t together enough to head down and verify themselves is HARDLY a challenge, much less anything to attempt political leverage with.
I'd even work in special exceptions in circumstances where that cannot be done.
Al -- what changed your mind and why?
You understand you are in the category of us "bigoted" and "racist" Republicans, now.
Sounds like you are agreeing with me on some marginal level.
All human life, inconvenient or not, has value, and shouldn't be terminated due to circumstances out of its control.
...And this is coming from an Atheist.
I am posing the question because as evidenced in this thread concerning the matter of abortion, very few people can answer a simple question regarding the value of human life.
Clearly rape and incest is an abomination and a horror.
My point is that "the means do not justify the ends." A human life spawned in horror does not make it any less of a human life.
And I, nor anyone else who thinks deeply about this manner, has the moral certitude to terminate life without a clearly rational, probable threat to the host.
Which is why I leave the only exception for abortion to occur when the mother is exposed to high levels of risk of death.
Not including the threat of death to the mother, is an innocent, human life ever so inconvenient that it should be terminated?
In response to Al:
"I can see that argument during the starting up phase of a business establishment. But what about after the business has been operating for five years, profitably all the way?
There are businesses with stiff competition that have slimmer profit margins than others, but fast food is not one with slim margins at all. Profits are quite extensive."
That's what you don't understand; profits are the net result of the risk taken by the investor -- the profits are HIS proceeds for putting his assets and personal name on the line.
Now what HE decides to do to pay his employees is HIS business. Not yours.
Remember, his employees can walk away with zero risk and financial responsibility from problems the company is having anytime.
"Whatever happened to loyalty in this nation. Everyone has this attitude that if you don't like it, leave. &^% that. It's time for loyalty to be restored in this country. Loyalty is what built this nation."
With a personal sales force of two dozen in a highly-competitive market, I personally agree with you regarding loyalty, and agree that I run my business with the idea of paying a premium for quality.
...But the difference between me and you is that I will not FORCE another to pay a premium if their business does not allow for it, as that is not my call to make (nor yours).
"Apparently, minimum wage workers are not valued and they are not paid what the market will bear."
Bad reading comprehension again -- An employee's economic value is equal to the wage he is paid. If the wage demand is greater than the economic limit to that job, then the job is eliminated, outsourced, or mechanized.
Sorry facts suck, but they are what they are.
"Yes...I am aware that this statement is in every Republican handbook. It's horse squeeze topped with B.S."
No, it's Economics 101. To demonstrate this fact, I would like you to tell me what the effects of a $50 minimum wage would be. Obviously it is an absurd notion, but that's not the point.
All businesses have costs to sell goods, and an increase in any of those costs will effect in some way how profitably the business operates.
"Not too many people will take a pay cut from an income that requires them to do nothing for it, to one that pays less for having to do who knows what to earn it.
Your hopes are too high for most people on welfare."
Right. But it is not the burden of the business community to provide a higher wage to folks who have the capability but lack the motivation to provide for themselves -- that's my point.
Who defines fair?
The employer? He's intrinsically at personal financial risk if his business fails.
The employee? The employee with a work ethic has options if he is unsatisfied with his current position, whether that's working elsewhere or getting another job.
Additionally, supply and demand (read facts, not fiction or subjective concepts like "fair") dictate positive wage increases where the supply of open positions is greater than the jobs, or where high-paying industry lifts the average wage for all (Subway and Walmart workers are paying $15-$20 an hour in North Dakota due to the Fracking Boom).
Bottom line -- You are paid on a combination of the value of your work and what the market will bare, nothing more.
Artificial means to increase the minimum wages causes distortions in the economy, which ends up hurting both small businesses and entry-level workers without any marketable skill-sets.
You mis-read my point -- Employers take financial risks on hiring, especially if things go south.
It is well documented the cost of mis-hires to the business.
My point is this -- increasing wages increases the risk on hiring new people without minimal or no skills. Which in return causes employers to seek alternative ways to operate the business to reduce or eliminate the cost.
Your last point avoids the problem; it is not an employer's responsibility to compete with welfare. It is the welfare recipient's responsibility to motivate themselves at the long-term benefit of work to rise out of welfare.
Employment is a contractual arrangement between the employee and the employer.
Why the government feels it has the right to dictate the terms of a volitional contract is beyond me.
And anyway, it is all an arbitrary decision -- $10, $15, $150 -- who can say with certainty what a job is worth beyond what the employer and employee negotiate it to be?
What is beyond Socialists like Alprova (and why Fairmon you continue to engage and argue with him after all these years is beyond me!) is that there are unintended consequences to forceful intervention in free market decisions.
Economics 101 -- an government demand to increase wages has the unintended consequence of (a) having businesses resort to more economical means to control costs (raising prices on customers, eliminating operations, mechanizing the workforce, etc.), and (b), it makes it harder for unskilled workers without skills the opportunity to work an economically-sensible job to prove their value and advance up the career ladder.
Look -- if you want to better your lot in life and you get paid minimum wage, either (a) get another job, or (b) work two jobs and create a plan of action to better your career.
You are NOT my responsibility; you are YOUR responsibility.
Now excuse me while I have to get ready to work, as millions on welfare depend on me.
As a small business owner, I pay $825 a month for myself, my wife, and 3 kids for a $11,000 deductible Obamacare plan.
I receive no subsidy, but my uninsurable 29-year old wife is covered, so I am grateful.
Point is -- these teachers just don't know how easy they have it, and should express some appreciation at the quality of their taxpayer-funded benefits compared to us in the private sector.
Like many Americans, I'd buy "American" (someone define that for me please) if the quality of the car wasn't complete garbage.
Who in their right mind would buy a GM car nowadays?
The UAW is smart.
What's the best way to eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
Any good salesperson knows that getting any sort of small foothold in a large account is the first step to winning to whole she-bang.
If the UAW only gets in the door, it will be a matter of time before they work their way into the account (VW) wider and deeper.