Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[DontBeStupid]

You sir, are a ignorant as to the workings of business

Says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

 

[Foxfyre]

DBS, 'hard work' should be rewarded IF it provides value to your employer. The guy who works really really hard doing his own landscaping or working on his car or refinishing his cabinets is adding nothing to the value of his work to his employer.

When you contract with your employer to do a job, hard work will almost always be rewarded IF it makes you more productive and adds value to your labor. I almost always do more than what my job description requires but that is just something built into my psyche. If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

I think you should stop looking at wages as some sort of entitlement and rather look at them as what they are. Compensation for service rendered. Your labor has no monetary value except for what it can save you in not paying somebody else to do necessary work or what profit it earns for your employer. If you do not produce profit or necessary benefit for your employer, hard work can be its own reward but otherwise is worth nothing to an employer.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

"Lebensraum" against Conservatives, the Constitution, and American Democracy.

 

[DiamondDave]

You sir, are a ignorant as to the workings of business

Says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

Does the hard working assistant who types and organizes 20% faster bring more to the company than the account executive she works for that brings 20% more in business because of a new deal that provides that added profit/revenue?? Can more people type than can draw in millions of additional income??

You are a fucking buffoon... a waste of oxygen...

 

[DontBeStupid]

When you contract with your employer to do a job, hard work will almost always be rewarded IF it makes you more productive and adds value to your labor. I almost always do more than what my job description requires but that is just something built into my psyche. If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

Ok wait now, which is it? Will hard work be rewarded if it makes the employee more productive? Which is what you say in the first sentence. Or, will hard work only be rewarded if it improve's the employer's bottom line? Which is what you say in the last sentence.

You contradicted yourself.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You sir, are a ignorant as to the workings of business

Says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

Does the hard working assistant who types and organizes 20% faster bring more to the company than the account executive she works for that brings 20% more in business because of a new deal that provides that added profit/revenue?? Can more people type than can draw in millions of additional income??

You are a fucking buffoon... a waste of oxygen...

At least I'm not an ass hole like you.

Your only criteria for annual raises is that the person involved directly increased revenue for the company. That automatically rules out millions upon millions of jobs that when done well help the company in other ways.

You're basically saying, that if you assist someone, you should never get a raise, ever.

 

[kwc57]

Think about what you just wrote. You are saying that a VP should be paid higher than his assistant, and that NO MATTER WHAT, he should get a higher percentage raise every year, because of his skill set and not because of his work. And you think this is fair.

Also, think about it again, if you raise the VP wages every year by a higher percentage than his assistant, the inequality in their incomes will grow every year. You know, kind of like I said it would, showed it did and say it will continue to do.

And you think this is all fine?

Absolutely! I went to high school with a girl who became a dental assistant. She had a taste for the finer things in life. She envied the lifestyle of the dentist she worked for. She went back to school and became a dentist. I can assure you, her take away from her experience wasn't to give equal pay to her own dental assistants. Do you even work or are you carrying a 99% sign around and posting on your capitalist iPad?

Here we go again.

There's nothing wrong with being a dental assistant. Plenty of people do that work and enjoy it and we need people to do that work! The idea, though, that because they chose that job their wage should NEVER increase, no matter how hard they work or how good they are, is just ludicrous. Plus, I would hazard to say it's un-American. We pride ourselves on hard work and being rewarded for it, but now you're the 3rd person to say that shouldn't be the case!

IamStoopid, please provide a quote from me or anyone else where it was ever stated, "their wage should NEVER increase, no matter how hard they work or how good they are". You missed my point entirely you obtuse tool. I didn't say there was anything wrong with being a dental assistant. I didn't say they should never get a raise. I told you of one person who saw the lifestyle her boss had and knew that the job she was doing would never afford her that lifestyle, regardless of how long or hard she worked or how great of a job she did. Handing the dentist tools was never going to get her a Lexus or a ski vacation in Vail. So she took it upon herself to do the hard work and get the education she needed to become a dentist and afford that lifestyle. Are you really so dense that you can't understand? If so, I pity you. Perhaps you should hang out over in general discussions and stay away from grown up debate.

 

[kwc57]

says the person who thinks a hard-working assistant contributes nothing to a company.

does the hard working assistant who types and organizes 20% faster bring more to the company than the account executive she works for that brings 20% more in business because of a new deal that provides that added profit/revenue?? Can more people type than can draw in millions of additional income??

You are a fucking buffoon... A waste of oxygen...

at least i'm not an ass hole like you.

Your only criteria for annual raises is that the person involved directly increased revenue for the company. That automatically rules out millions upon millions of jobs that when done well help the company in other ways.

You're basically saying, that if you assist someone, you should never get a raise, ever.

Be gone troll.

View attachment 15770

 

[Foxfyre]

When you contract with your employer to do a job, hard work will almost always be rewarded IF it makes you more productive and adds value to your labor. I almost always do more than what my job description requires but that is just something built into my psyche. If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

Ok wait now, which is it? Will hard work be rewarded if it makes the employee more productive? Which is what you say in the first sentence. Or, will hard work only be rewarded if it improve's the employer's bottom line? Which is what you say in the last sentence.

You contradicted yourself.

No I didn't. Hard work that makes you more productive AND adds value to your labor will usually be rewarded. Adding value to your labor means that it is worth more to your employer and that usually means improving his bottom line.

Try reading what's there and you'll be better off in these debates.

 

[DontBeStupid]

please provide a quote from me or anyone else where it was ever stated, "their wage should NEVER increase, no matter how hard they work or how good they are".

Ok. Here you go. Do I win a toaster?

If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

You missed my point entirely you obtuse tool.

Actually no, you missed mine.

I have never said that an assistant should earn as much as the person they assist. I've never said it, because I don't agree with it. No amount of hard work on the part of the assistant should translate into raises that would equal the pay of the person they assist. There are different skill sets for different positions and that translates to some people earning more than others. The world will always be like that. Oddly, we all agree on this, yet several of you have been attacking me and insulting anyway. Curious.

My point has always been, that if a person works hard at their job, regardless of the position, then they should be rewarded with a raise, and one that is more than just cost of living. This idea that raises should ONLY go to people who directly increase company revenue is down right insulting. Those Execs would not have the time and resources to increase revenue if it weren't for all the other people working at that company.

If everyone at company is working hard, and the company is doing well, why do you not want everyone to be rewarded? None of you have answered that yet.

 

[kwc57]

When you contract with your employer to do a job, hard work will almost always be rewarded IF it makes you more productive and adds value to your labor. I almost always do more than what my job description requires but that is just something built into my psyche. If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

Ok wait now, which is it? Will hard work be rewarded if it makes the employee more productive? Which is what you say in the first sentence. Or, will hard work only be rewarded if it improve's the employer's bottom line? Which is what you say in the last sentence.

You contradicted yourself.

No I didn't. Hard work that makes you more productive AND adds value to your labor will usually be rewarded. Adding value to your labor means that it is worth more to your employer and that usually means improving his bottom line.

Try reading what's there and you'll be better off in these debates.

Don't waste your breath FF. He is intentionaly being obtuse and playing childish games. If he can't understand the wise counsel from people with far more years of real life experience than him, let him wallow in his stupidity. You can lead a horse to water........

 

[DontBeStupid]

When you contract with your employer to do a job, hard work will almost always be rewarded IF it makes you more productive and adds value to your labor. I almost always do more than what my job description requires but that is just something built into my psyche. If doing more does not attract customers or improve my employer's bottom line, it won't be rewarded nor should it be.

Ok wait now, which is it? Will hard work be rewarded if it makes the employee more productive? Which is what you say in the first sentence. Or, will hard work only be rewarded if it improve's the employer's bottom line? Which is what you say in the last sentence.

You contradicted yourself.

No I didn't. Hard work that makes you more productive AND adds value to your labor will usually be rewarded. Adding value to your labor means that it is worth more to your employer and that usually means improving his bottom line.

Try reading what's there and you'll be better off in these debates.

Try not contradicting yourself in one paragraph and then fewer explanations will be needed.

 

[Againsheila]

Why does home ownership have to be the goal?

Purely an assumption on my part. I think the average American wants to get married, buy a house and raise kids. In this example, the average American can't do that.

siily mindless assumption isnt it .

I think if the average american wants to get married . buy a home and raise kids he/she should do what he /she has to do to obtain those goals .

just like the american who owns the average priced home did .

just because he /she want to own a average price home and cant afford to doesnt mean we should GIVE him or her more money .

Is the AVERAGE american in your example doing a AVERAGE job for AVERAGE pay and contributing to society like the the AVERAGE does . it he or she planning his or here future and looking for ways to improve his or her income level like (for example ) education and learning new skills just like the AVERAGE american does .

i could go on

We've already pointed out people working two jobs and barely paying the bills, how are they gonna save money for college, let alone find the time to go?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok wait now, which is it? Will hard work be rewarded if it makes the employee more productive? Which is what you say in the first sentence. Or, will hard work only be rewarded if it improve's the employer's bottom line? Which is what you say in the last sentence.

You contradicted yourself.

No I didn't. Hard work that makes you more productive AND adds value to your labor will usually be rewarded. Adding value to your labor means that it is worth more to your employer and that usually means improving his bottom line.

Try reading what's there and you'll be better off in these debates.

Try not contradicting yourself in one paragraph and then fewer explanations will be needed.

I didn't contradict myself. Your reading dysfunction however will likely make you less productive and valuable to an employer.

 

[DontBeStupid]

This discussion has been pretty interesting. Quite the eye opener! You would think with all the talk we see about people needing to work harder to get ahead, coupled with others who talk about the need for higher wages of workers, that that would translate into a large majority agreeing that if an employee works hard, they should be financially rewarded. You would think we could all agree on that. Nope.

That's not what we see. Instead we see a significant group of people who feel that only certain positions within a company warrant raises and bonuses and increases. And they warrant them at a higher rate than others in the company. Not because of hard work, mind you. But solely based on the supposed skill set needed for that position in the first place.

During tax and tax rate discussions, many people claim that a flat tax is fairest, because if you work and earn money, then it doesn't matter how much you made, we should all pay the same. Yet, when we flip this around, that argument goes out the window. If we all work hard and earn our money, only the top earners deserve raises. What? I always wondered why the hypocrisy, but now I know it's not hypocrisy. Many people simply see no value in lower paying jobs. None. Zero.

This is why a living wage discussion is so hard. If you're a person that looks at a job and sees no value in that job, then how can you even begin to talk about adequately paying the hard-working employee in that job? You can't.

I think before we talk living wage, I think we need a shift in this country. People need to start respecting all work and all jobs and all people in those jobs.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

Both of you are right, and there in lies the problem.

If you do nothing Business will take advantage of Labor. If you go from a 7.50 an hour to a 15.00 an hour Minimum wage. You absolutely will see Inflation of prices that will eat up most if not all of any gain the workers will see in their actual ability to get ahead.

Raising the Minimum wage has unintended consequences that hit the poor very Hard.

First of course is the inflation of Prices Business that rely on Minimum Wage Workers charge. The Very places the Poor rely on, Like their grocery store, Walmart, Fast food, basically the things that are cheap, are usually things made, or provided by companies that Employ Minimum Wage workers. The Cost of all that stuff will go up. If you Double the Minimum Wage they will sky rocket.

Second it makes small Businesses reluctant to hire, and likely even to lay off people. It puts a big Damper on Entry level Job Hiring.

Labor is a commodity like any other commodity or input for production of goods and services. As long as people are willing to work for minimum wage, there will be minimum wage jobs. But if we generate an economy in which people don't have to work for minimum wage if they don't want to, you see minimum wage jobs disappearing. Which is why McDonalds is paying entry level workers well above minimum wage right now and a Big Mac, fries, and a medium coke will cost you as much as a broiled trout, salad, bread, and ice tea down the block at the diner where the staff is paid below minimum wage but makes up the difference in tips.

As I previously posted, I worked for 60 cents an hour at the college dormitory front desk and for the college laundry and was glad to get the money as I was able to study while doing both jobs and it provided a little extra spending money. But, if the college had not been able to hire students at 60 cents an hour, they would have either paid more or increased hours of the regular staff. An increase in wages would have reflected in the cost of our tuition, meals, books, fees, etc.

There are no free lunches. Somebody somewhere pays for everything we get that we don't work for.

See around here McDonalds and BK and the like were paying more then Minimum Wage about 7 years ago or so as much as 10 to start and I even saw adds with signing bonuses (100) bucks, but now they are all hiring at 8.00 Just over min Wage. My wife applied at best buy for a second job and they wanted to start her at 7.50

 

[JRK]

This discussion has been pretty interesting. Quite the eye opener! You would think with all the talk we see about people needing to work harder to get ahead, coupled with others who talk about the need for higher wages of workers, that that would translate into a large majority agreeing that if an employee works hard, they should be financially rewarded. You would think we could all agree on that. Nope.

That's not what we see. Instead we see a significant group of people who feel that only certain positions within a company warrant raises and bonuses and increases. And they warrant them at a higher rate than others in the company. Not because of hard work, mind you. But solely based on the supposed skill set needed for that position in the first place.

During tax and tax rate discussions, many people claim that a flat tax is fairest, because if you work and earn money, then it doesn't matter how much you made, we should all pay the same. Yet, when we flip this around, that argument goes out the window. If we all work hard and earn our money, only the top earners deserve raises. What? I always wondered why the hypocrisy, but now I know it's not hypocrisy. Many people simply see no value in lower paying jobs. None. Zero.

This is why a living wage discussion is so hard. If you're a person that looks at a job and sees no value in that job, then how can you even begin to talk about adequately paying the hard-working employee in that job? You can't.

I think before we talk living wage, I think we need a shift in this country. People need to start respecting all work and all jobs and all people in those jobs.

We have bumped heads until we bleed, I cannot agree with you more.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Colleges and universities have costs which are defrayed by tuition collected from students.
As a matter of fact, MOST students receive some sort of financial aid or grants.
There is no guarantee to success just because one goes to college. It just helps.
NOT going to college is NO guarantee that one will be "stuck in a caste for life"...
There are state schools and community colleges that off solid programs at affordable prices.
Your post is an example of liberal whining.
Unless one goes through proper channels to receive financial assistance or grants, no one should get a free college education.
What you suggest is that anyone may attend the college of their choice and their education would be funded by guess who? THE TAXPAYERS. No thanks. We have to fork over enough money so people can get free shit. Enough already.

 

[Utilitarian]

Libs believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of money. They will never consider living within their means, the means should rise up to the level of entitlement. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage. It would be detrimental to have minimum wage one that someone could live on. If that were so, there would be little to no incentive to move beyond minimum wage. Entry level would be quarantined into itself. Workers are expected to move out of minimum wage quickly. Unless they are kids with summer jobs, or elderly looking for pin money, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to last very long, a year perhaps.

I have known and worked for companies that have a minimum wage time limit. As short as 90 days, as long as a year. Either you become qualified to move up, or you are out of a job.

If minimum wage is something that you shouldn't be able to live on, then what are you supposed to do when the only job you have pays minimum wage? Getting a second job isn't exactly something you can quickly acquire in this economy.

You're supposed to do something else. If the only job you have pays minimum wage and you are at the age where you have to provide for yourself, you fucked up somewhere along the line.

Yes, we've established that, but if you allow a lot of people to become desperate, crime increases and so do welfare expenditures.

Again, holding people accountable for their bad choices is important, but it's also good to have something in place that aids mobility.

 

[Foxfyre]

Both of you are right, and there in lies the problem.

If you do nothing Business will take advantage of Labor. If you go from a 7.50 an hour to a 15.00 an hour Minimum wage. You absolutely will see Inflation of prices that will eat up most if not all of any gain the workers will see in their actual ability to get ahead.

Raising the Minimum wage has unintended consequences that hit the poor very Hard.

First of course is the inflation of Prices Business that rely on Minimum Wage Workers charge. The Very places the Poor rely on, Like their grocery store, Walmart, Fast food, basically the things that are cheap, are usually things made, or provided by companies that Employ Minimum Wage workers. The Cost of all that stuff will go up. If you Double the Minimum Wage they will sky rocket.

Second it makes small Businesses reluctant to hire, and likely even to lay off people. It puts a big Damper on Entry level Job Hiring.

Labor is a commodity like any other commodity or input for production of goods and services. As long as people are willing to work for minimum wage, there will be minimum wage jobs. But if we generate an economy in which people don't have to work for minimum wage if they don't want to, you see minimum wage jobs disappearing. Which is why McDonalds is paying entry level workers well above minimum wage right now and a Big Mac, fries, and a medium coke will cost you as much as a broiled trout, salad, bread, and ice tea down the block at the diner where the staff is paid below minimum wage but makes up the difference in tips.

As I previously posted, I worked for 60 cents an hour at the college dormitory front desk and for the college laundry and was glad to get the money as I was able to study while doing both jobs and it provided a little extra spending money. But, if the college had not been able to hire students at 60 cents an hour, they would have either paid more or increased hours of the regular staff. An increase in wages would have reflected in the cost of our tuition, meals, books, fees, etc.

There are no free lunches. Somebody somewhere pays for everything we get that we don't work for.

See around here McDonalds and BK and the like were paying more then Minimum Wage about 7 years ago or so as much as 10 to start and I even saw adds with signing bonuses (100) bucks, but now they are all hiring at 8.00 Just over min Wage. My wife applied at best buy for a second job and they wanted to start her at 7.50

Yup. Not only is the economic downturn affecting just about everybody's bottom line right now, but the flood of employable people on the open market is also bringing down the wages. It is all inter-related. When the economy picks up, unemployment comes down, and McDonalds and other places will likely be offering more for entry level positions in order to attract people. Labor is like any other commodity with costs governed by supply and demand.

I was talking to a lovely well dressed woman in one of our more high brow art studios in Old Town when we were entertaining guests last week. In the course of the conversation I asked her if she was the owner and she said no, she was a volunteer employee. I had to ask more about that and she said the recession has especially impacted stores like theirs offering high quality and beautiful merchandise but the sort of stuff that people don't have to have and don't buy when things are tight. So she was laid off because the owner simply couldn't afford to pay her hourly wage.

So, she renegotiated the employment contract. She would work strictly for commission on anything she sold, but otherwise for free. She spends three to four hours a day there now and sometimes sells stuff and does pretty well and sometimes doesn't sell anything but she says it is enough for her just to be in Old Town and have something to do for a few hours a day.