Reply #95: I can see we are not going to agree on this. From what I gather, any job

[kelly1mm]

that cannot pay $20 per hour (plus benefits?) should not be done. I think you should work on changing the minimum wage laws. In fact, I believe that all the cities with 'living wage' laws are below that so maybe that would be an easier place to start. Although a $20 minimum wage would mean that my employees would be let go. Shoot, I don't make $20 per hour once you count in that I have to pay both sides of the SS tax. I guess I should let myself go as well????

I told you exactly to the dollar what they produced. 100% of there production would net them $15.25 per hour. Not $20+.

About the bother of employees - there is a crap load of paperwork that needs to be done when you have employees. That is the 'bother' I was referring to. I am not quite sure what your problem with the word "having" was..... I think it makes sense in the context of the sentence. What would be my enlightened self interest to employ others if I did not reap any rewards from that situation? It is a serious question. I really don't know what you mean. Could you please enlighten me?

At least there seems to be a few others here that understand what I am trying to say.