No, the point is you need minimum standards.
If the marketplace were left alone, most people would fine their level and their place within it. What you propose out of the goodness of your heart (and other people's wallets) is to artificially level a playing field that in no way should be artificially leveled...unless one's true goal is to punish achievement and throttle business, because that's the effect it has.
Nobody's talking about forcing people to pay incompetent workers.
Wrong. You're precisely proposing forcing people to pay incompetent workers MORE THAN THEY ARE WORTH TO THE BUSINESS.
You fire the incompetent workers anyway . . .
Good thing too, right?
What we're talking about is putting a floor on people's pay. There already is one, we're just talking about increasing it.
Then why not just immediately jack it to $20 or $30 an hour nationwide? If you really want to help "the working poor" (almost all of whom can, oddly enough, afford cellphones, tats and facial piercings), and if more money will solve their problems, why take such baby steps in increasing the MW?
So you think increasing minimum wage = forcing employers to pay incompetent people with guns.
You totally misread what I wrote. What would happen to an employer who refuses to pay MW?
That's how government works, even democratic government. The people or the people's representatives decide on a course of action. You abide by the law. If you don't like it you work to get the law changed.
What are you telling me for? Tell that to the people willing to hurt their own franchise's owners by walking out and sitting in the street all day instead of working, and THEN threatening to riot if they're not paid for their shift. That's lawlessness, and I hope you're not so far gone as to defend it.
Everyone has to abide by laws they don't like. But that's what it means to live in a society with laws.
Again, see above points about forcing people to pay undesirables more than they're worth. Because that's all it is: FORCE, so people like you can feel better about yourselves while actually solving nothing.
A Republic is a TYPE of democracy, a representative democracy.
A democracy boils down to majority rule, which depraved people naturally gravitate toward. A republic is
supposed to be bound by inviolable laws that no majority can change on a whim, and at least not without extraordinary circumstances. Hence you get presidents who complain about the restrictions of the Constitution places upon him (which was the point).