Lockout discussion thread 2.0
View Single Post
11-19-2012, 10:50 AM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by
Minimum wage being revenue sharing is quite the dumbest argument I've ever read. If that's the case then please take the 200 million sharing pool off the table on the owners side and just say that the CAP itself is revenue sharing.
i was trying to find comparatives, but i edited now. Never said minimum wage = revenue share btw, that's your comprehension.
Only thing i was trying to say is that if your ok with the logic of "well they already make x amount, and if they make y, it's still 100 times better then the average worker, so they should take amount y, if not they are greedy" then poster should be ok to reduce his salary, because he's already living better then worker who makes minimum wage. (assuming his pay is greater then minimum salary, which you can usually assume with unionised workers)
Last edited by uiCk: 11-19-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by uiCk