Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Now if the guy gets a flu and is bedridden for a week, I'll pay him if
>> he's worth the expense to keep, but I don't owe someone a new kidney
>> just because he mops my floor.
> 
> But at the same time, you pay him not quite enough for him to live if he 
> can't afford the kidney operation.  Let's see, kidney operation or 
> eating.  Kidney operation or paying the rent.
> 
> Nice compassion.
> 

The employee and I have a contract. He sells me his time and effort at 
an agreed price. Many believe the way you do: that because I have a 
contract with my employee, I owe him whatever YOU believe he may need 
for a "complete" life. That's ludicrous.

What if, instead of an employee, he were a vendor. Would I be 
discompassionate if I did not pay enough for his goods that he could 
afford insurance, housing, transportation, etc.

The employee is selling labor, the vendor goods. The ONLY difference is 
that I can hold the vendor's product in my hand. But that's against 
years of programming, isn't it? Employees are a majority and employers 
are a minority, so every election cycle, the candidates sell the idea to 
  people like yourself that the employer owes the employee more and more.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message