It always fascinates me how some folk - most often those shielded from the real world as a result of working in the "public service" - have so little understanding of the laws of cause and effect.

Passy, of course the sky won't fall in, nor will there be mass starvation. You're just being a drama queen.

But a business will be able to afford to employ fewer people, because while expense increase as a result of the PML, it does nothing to improve the business' profit margin.

But this is the one that really cracks me up:

>>And since workers create all the wealth in society<<

Who do you think puts up the capital to provide them with jobs in the first place? The tooth fairy?

And where do you imagine that capital comes from?

For the vast majority of small businesses it is saved from after-tax income,or borrowed from the bank, or a combination of the two.

>>why not reward them with some small benefit like PML?<<

It is discriminatory. You are not benefitting "them", as in "the poor downtrodden and oppressed working class", you are benefitting "some", at the expense of "others".

>>It will benefit capital too. Happy workers are productive workers.<<

Where is the evidence that PML will improve productivity in a small business? You don't have any, because it does not.

This isn't a capital vs labour argument anyway, Passy. As far as the backbone of our economy - small business - is concerned, it is a "sensible allocation of scarce resources" discussion.

Passy,

I was looking forward to some actual arguments. You know, NOT like 'it is social justice so it will happen'.

Just how does a socialist like yourself justify someone getting 6 months full pay on $150k, while a single mother of two on $30k pays for it?

Doesn't sound like social justice to me.

How do you address the arguments against Churn for example?