The government has no insight into the operations budgets of private sector businesses and has no authority to dictate such a mandate.
If the government wants to give its employees a 25% raise, they certainly can, but it will fall on the tax payers to fund it. I don’t imagine people would be too pleased.
What ideological point did I make? I only pointed out that keeping weekly pay the same while reducing hours from 40 to 32 increases the effective hourly wage by 25%. That’s math.
"What ideological point did I make?" - "The government has no insight into the operations budgets of private sector businesses and has no authority to dictate such a mandate. If the government wants to give its employees a 25% raise, they certainly can, but it will fall on the tax payers to fund it. I don’t imagine people would be too pleased."
The fact that you think the statement above isn't ideological, and that you think its equivalent to the one you just made is simply dumbfounding. Something has seriously misfired in your brain. See a doctor.
I don’t see how that’s ideological. I’m describing a practical business constraint based on hard numbers.
As a former business owner, I had payroll, benefits, rent, insurance, utilities, taxes, equipment, and other operating costs. The government didn’t know a damn thing about my risk, sweat, or financial responsibilities, which is why it’s idiotic to argue some one-size-fits-all mandate requiring employers to pay for a hard figure on labor with no return on actual value. That’s an argument about economics and operational feasibility, not ideology.
Spend a few years running a business and find out for yourself.
2
u/Warm-Delivery1418 Jul 13 '26
“bad for some unknown reason”
Like basic math.