Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[thereisnospoon]

I ask a simple question and not one progressive has responded with a logical response. I f you do not know what a living wage is then why do you demand it?

You were answered.

Why are you lying?

No, there was no logical response whatsoever.
Once again in the absence of a logical rebuttal, the liberal make the "lie"
accusation. Sheesh.
Why do you bother posting here. You contribute nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

Well technically they are. The money you pay employess ultimately comes from taxpaying cosumers. I'm just curious who he thinks the money to pay employees is supposed to come from, if not the tax paying consumers..........

That post is the pinnacle of stupidity.
The consumer market transfers earnings to merchants for goods and services.
Taxes are collected by GOVERNMENT and transferred to various departments and agencies.
These two instances are mutually exclusive.
To attempt to tie these two together defies common sense and logic.

 

[pgm]

Will you pay double for my products over a competitor if I pay all of my employees a living wage?

To be fair, those advocating an increase in minimum wage are not saying that you and you alone should pay your employees a living wage. They are saying your competitor should as well (increasing your competitor's costs as well).

Live within your means.

That is a problem for those who are trying to get by on the bare minimum and still finding their means to be insufficient. These people usually receive food stamps or welfare, proving that the costs still go somewhere.

Who is working two jobs just to pay living expenses for an extended period of time? I've had plenty of minimum wage jobs and have always gotten a raise after a few months for working hard. Clock punchers who don't want to put forth the effort to get ahead are stuck, that's true.

Who? Primarily single mothers. You are right that most people working minimum wage jobs tend to get raises after a period of time if they show up for work, etc., but those wages won't necessarily take them above the livable wage threshold.

Our minimum wage laws are only a tiny factor in the income inequality, though. Australia has much lower income inequality than the U.S. to show for its $15/hr minimum wage. However, Japan has a minimum wage at 645 yen an hour (which is $8.40 an hour now, but was much lower a few years ago--less than $6.50 an hour in 2007). Japan's income inequality is better than Australia's.

 

[bripat9643]

What happens when employers build Widgets and don't pay a wage their employees can support their families on?

The taxpayer steps in and subsidizes food, housing and healthcare for that family. Employer gets to profit off of cheap widgets.....taxpayers make up the difference

The solution is simple: don't step in and subsidize food, housing and healthcare for that family.

 

[bripat9643]

That is a subjective question. The answer is there really is no living wage since the cost of living varies so widely depending on where you live. It's why a minimum wage is so pointless. Hell my kids got 8 or 9 bucks an hour at Taco Bell when they were growing up. And the minimum wage was far below that.

The idea that everyone should earn enough to support a family is absurd. Why should teenagers who can't even put a happy meal together correctly be paid enough to cloth and house 4 people?

 

[bripat9643]

The libs dont understand if they raise the min wage or have 15.00 an hour everything else raises and they will still be in the same position and just making more but also paying more for the goods.

Actually, no they won't. Inflation isn't caused by the minimum wage. It's caused when the government finances it's expenditures by printing money.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will cause widespread unemployment, mostly among teenagers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

An automatic increase in wages would have to be funded by price increases. Period. The money has to come from somewhere.
You idea on consumer spending is actually quite amusing. You make unfounded observations that wealthier people buy less stuff. I cannot think of anything that could be farther from the truth. If any one group spends less of their income it is the blue collar middle class earner. These people are used to having little so even when their earnings rise, they tend to be frugal spenders. These are the people who are like me. We make decent money, buy used cars instead of new, pay cash for things rather then credit, buy store brands at the grocery store. Shop at discounters, flea markets and garage sales. Keep our homes longer, live within our means.
Please stop the nonsense about business sitting on money. It's crap. Those who are informed and intelligent, know business owners will not expand and hire due the uncertainty coming from Washington. Incidentally, what a business does with it's private finances is none of anyone's business unless they are a stockholder or investor. Employees are not privy to this information as well.
I am a baby boomer and I am not wealthy. You people have a lot to learn.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, what we need is a society where more money is used to pay people at the bottom of the pyramid, and less at the top of the pyramid. Then, prices don't have to rise after all.

No such society will ever exist.

 

[bripat9643]

Henery Ford figured out that if you pay enployeess enough to buy your product then you do very well.

That's labor union propaganda. Ford didn't pay his workers more so they could buy his product. His entire workforce couldn't have purchased more than 2% of the cars he produced.

Everything you know is bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, so forget the libs for a moment. Forget raising the minimum wage. If more money were spent paying the bottom of the pyramid, and less on paying the top, raises would be better, prices would be the same, or maybe even less, and a much more stable economy would emerge. Where's the bad side?

And your evidence for this is?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just a thought...


What ever happen to the idea of working two jobs to EARN your "living" wage?

Many do. But is it fair to ask a single mother to work 80 hours a week at the expense of watching her kids? What does that do to the kids?

Take a single mother raising one kid in El Portal, Miami (a neighborhood with about 22% living below the poverty line). According to the living wage calculator, one adult would need to earn $18/hr to care for one kid. Since Miami's minimum wage is only $7.50 an hour, this woman would have to work 2.5 full-time minimum wage jobs (100 hours a week) to care for one kid. This assumes she doesn't have more. She can earn enough to just stay above the poverty line with a minimum wage job, however.

This also assumes she's able to find more than one job.

Fair has nothing to do with anything.
First, "single mother" Usually a choice made by the mother. Especially one who decided to bear a child or children out of wedlock. We as in the rest of us should not be punished for the decisions of others.
If you are so concerned about the kids of mothers who decided that getting to bed and screwing without exercising some form of birth control, go right ahead and sign up to help out.
Meanwhile as a business owner I am not going to pay a higher wage to an unskilled person just because he or she is a "single parent". I cannot be held liable for that person's problems......Now. If that person showed me they are ambitious and willing to learn my business, I will offer them all kinds of incentives to stick around. I believe most businesses keep their key people happy. That is because the cost to hire and train new people is high.
So if a worker let's me know they are a go getter, they get perks and raises. They are more valuable to me as a happy worker who goes the extra mile to get things done the way I want them done.
That's how it works. Whining about fairness is the fastest way to be told to hit the door.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Doe you lefties know what is the primary purpose of a business?

Do you?

Typical liberal. Answering a question with a question.
IN other words you admit you have nothing.
Typical.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Life isn't "fair".

So life is not fair, but the wages are always fair, without a doubt, unquestionably, as sure as the sky is blue? Oh, and Jesus rose again, right?

Some people are good at being creative and/or business.

Wait, you said pretty much anyone could do it. Now you're saying only some people will be good at it. Which is it? I think you're a bit lost in this tangled mess of a hole you're trying to dig yourself out of.

We made the right choices. We made good choices.

Okay, so you're saying that simply choosing to go to college makes it happen? That, of course, could be true if your theory of education being free in this country were true. But college costs money. What is a person to do if they don't have the money for college? No amount of "choice" will change the fact that they cannot afford the expense. Maybe you just need to learn to count your blessings and be a little more humble, instead of thinking that you are such hot shit that you can simply will anything into reality you want. You're not God, you know.

Even though we do nicely, we don't bitch about those who have more than us

Nobody is bitching about people who have more money. We're discussing here how our society has taken turns and is making choices that to not encourage the greater good or general prosperity, or a structurally sound society or economy.

I appreciate them because they can hire me and pay me what I'm worth based on the choices I made.

Oh, bummer. I guess the self righteousness simply boiled over before I could get you to turn down the heat. What you're basically saying is that your choices (neglecting your good fortune to have had the means to pursue them in the first place) make you worth a livable income for your work. But other people are not worth a livable income. That you are more deserving of fancy house decorations than they are of providing the bare necessities for their families. That the people who hired you are more deserving of a yacht than the poor are deserving of full meals. I have to say, it's pretty disgusting that you would engage in such class warfare like that.

Anyone can have a decent life, whether they build a business or decide to just be an employee.

Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick.

As far as free education, I was speaking of the basics, the foundation, the mandatory education our tax dollars provide. You can be successful with just a public education.

Yeah, that's why the vast majority of non-college-educated people make significantly less money than the college educated.

Now, for those kids whose parents don't make much money, they can get a free higher education too.

Really? How? Please enlighten the rest of the world.

But again, it comes down to choices. In Oklahoma where I live, if a kids parents make less than $50k per year during their 8th grade year, they can register their child in a state program called Oklahoma's Promise.

I'm sorry, did I miss the global exodus where everyone moved to OK? Also, this contradicts what you said a moment ago. You said that the students could get a free education based on choices. You didn't say that they had to DEPEND on someone else's choices.

Now, if you decide to piss that away at 18 because you want to lay out a few years and play video games, drink beer and make some sweet coin at a burger shake, well that is your choice and you'll end up paying for it when you are 30 and working minimum wage and being envious of all those unfair fatcats with more money than they can ever spend.

1) Either provide evidence that this is what happens, otherwise do not repeat the claim again.

2) You just said that the student must depend on their parent's choice to get signed up for the program. Now you're claiming that it's the student's choice. You must choose one or the other, but you cannot have both. Make a choice.

3) You have yet to explain how this singular state program does anything for the rest of the country where we supposedly have free education.

No, life isn't fair, but it is all about choices.

I'll agree to a certain extent. It's kinda like poker. It's not always fair. Sometimes it rewards the person who did wrong and punishes the person who did right. It's all about choices. But in poker, just like in life, you have to have the money first before the choice is even an available option.

You can build a business or get an education in a field that pays well or you can NOT.

You're right. Either you can or you can't. It's not true that everyone can, because not everyone has the means to do it. Many people may choose to do it but not have the funding. You continue to choose to ignore that fact.

Nobody owes you anything. They will pay you however a wage or salary commiserate with your skill, experience and ability.

This is a contradiction. If they don't owe me anything, they aren't going to pay me anything commiserate with my skills, experience, or ability. They are going to pay me as little as they can get away with regardless of my skill, experience, or ability so that they can retain as large a portion of the pie for themselves as they possibly can. They will, in fact, pay me so low that I cannot afford to adequately feed and clothe myself. They will, in fact, turn around and object to my appearance at work, and demand that I adequately feed and clothe myself, all while continuing to refuse to pay me a living wage. They will be the Jim Taggert who demands production without allowing for the means to produce.

The more you have, the more you'll make.

If you were to insert "money" after each "more" I'll agree with you. But that's about it.

 

[pgm]

Actually, no they won't. Inflation isn't caused by the minimum wage. It's caused when the government finances it's expenditures by printing money.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will cause widespread unemployment, mostly among teenagers.

Alan Kruegman did research decades ago to show that raising the minimum wage does not necessarily increase unemployment. In many instances, those with new disposable incomes find themselves in the position to afford more things and make up much of the cost of their own labor-cost increases. Kruegman found that demand was a factor that made up for increased labor costs. Australia has a $15/hr minimum wage and 5.2% unemployment. Australians also pay higher prices for things.

Inflation can be caused by an increase in the money supply. It also can be caused by increased demand without an increased supply (look at world-food-price inflation right now). Increasing the minimum wage could increase unemployment, increase prices, do a combination of the two or do neither.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What ever happen to the idea of working two jobs to EARN your "living" wage?

That's like asking what happened to using blue paint to paint the paint blue. Are you with the conversation?

 

[pgm]

Fair has nothing to do with anything.

Sorry. It's the Christian in me seeking moral justice.

If you are so concerned about the kids of mothers who decided that getting to bed and screwing without exercising some form of birth control, go right ahead and sign up to help out.

I can't afford to do so. When I have enough money to afford to do better, I'm sure laziness and complacency will affect me as hard as everyone else. Still, the way the system is currently set up, the costs are felt by somebody. It could be by tax payers in the form of food stamps. Or it could be the economy as a whole by creating another generation of people who are unlikely to ever become functioning members of society.

Meanwhile as a business owner I am not going to pay a higher wage to an unskilled person just because he or she is a "single parent". I cannot be held liable for that person's problems......Now. If that person showed me they are ambitious and willing to learn my business, I will offer them all kinds of incentives to stick around. I believe most businesses keep their key people happy. That is because the cost to hire and train new people is high.
So if a worker let's me know they are a go getter, they get perks and raises. They are more valuable to me as a happy worker who goes the extra mile to get things done the way I want them done.
That's how it works. Whining about fairness is the fastest way to be told to hit the door.

I'm certainly not advocating you pay a higher wage. I said it was one option. I said the three options that are not "let them starve" are (1) social welfare, (2) a higher minimum wage and (3) re-training unskilled workers to give them the skills to work better jobs. We really do #1 right now and we do it very poorly. There is lots room to advocate personal responsibility--asking people to work two jobs, e.g., but at some point, I think there is a moral responsibility to help people who really do work hard but can't overcome societal inertia. This doesn't have to fall to entirely to businesses or tax payers--the community has a major role--but I don't think those of us in society who are better off should completely wash our hands of it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Hey, I worked full-time and took out student loans which then took 10 years to pay back.

It can be done.

On the other hand, some schools don't even accept loans. Mine won't.

 

[Inthemiddle]

They are looking for the ONE job they WANT to work at. I am very sure all of those college grads would never consider baby sitting, housekeeping or picking fields.

And what about those without college degrees yet who are looking for work?

 

[Inthemiddle]

life sucks..... why should a "living wage" include enough for a college tuition?

Earn... old concept. Work.

Are you fucking retarded? Or are you just one of these class warfare types that think people should be forced to stay within a certain category and have no right to anything more than whatever toil their caste is entitled, with no possibility of doing anything more with themselves.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The idea that everyone should earn enough to support a family is absurd. Why should teenagers who can't even put a happy meal together correctly be paid enough to cloth and house 4 people?

Nice straw man. Nobody is talking about high school students making that much money. We're talking about adult American citizens.