Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[kwc57]

It is a local issue, i agree 100% there, and i was using my home town as well as health ins being partially provided by the employer, so in reality its closer to 13.25 to 13.50 an hour

you could "survive" with allot less
10% in savings
vehicle
500.00 a month apt

2100 a month on a 4 week month
200 savings
200 9% IRS with 9-9-9
500 apt
400 food

leaves 150 a week in fuel oil maint... etc...ins on car

tight

But who qualifies for this living wage? Does any company that employees people have to pay it. Is it only for full time employment or part time employment? Does it apply to 16 year olds or does it apply to someone with a spouse and/or children only?

good question, for every-one is the answer

Look the cost gets a pass thru
when I estimate work we have a bare rate as well as a all-in rate
all we would do is up that bare rate, same would be for Exxon, Subway, etc....

Your answer sounding like you were thinking outloud, it doesn't really flow. Bare rate? All-in Rate? You need to expand your response a bit. It simply sounds like you are describing a minimum wage which we already have and the living wage folks don't like.

 

[JRK]

But who qualifies for this living wage? Does any company that employees people have to pay it. Is it only for full time employment or part time employment? Does it apply to 16 year olds or does it apply to someone with a spouse and/or children only?

good question, for every-one is the answer

Look the cost gets a pass thru
when I estimate work we have a bare rate as well as a all-in rate
all we would do is up that bare rate, same would be for Exxon, Subway, etc....

Your answer sounding like you were thinking outloud, it doesn't really flow. Bare rate? All-in Rate? You need to expand your response a bit. It simply sounds like you are describing a minimum wage which we already have and the living wage folks don't like.

It is a minimum wage and my point is it would to some degree de-value the dollar and drive up the cost of everything
I agree with them. Look I dont listen to Rush much, but he says the same, if we are going to have a minimum wage make it enough that it matters
If you get out of bed, stay off of well-fare, give a good weeks work, then get paid for it. The cost of a gallon of gas would not go up that much as its composite rate to make 1 gallon is hi already, but to but a hamburger, go to a movie, tire repair, etc... would be effected

 

[thereisnospoon]

The problem is not with those amassing great wealth.

The problem comes when those with great wealth use that wealth to influence elected officials to get things to go their way effectively rendering your and my vote virtually meaningless.

Removing the influence of large political contributions....Great concept.
Question is, how do we get there while taking care to protect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fine line, don't you think?

 

[JRK]

The problem is not with those amassing great wealth.

The problem comes when those with great wealth use that wealth to influence elected officials to get things to go their way effectively rendering your and my vote virtually meaningless.

Removing the influence of large political contributions....Great concept.
Question is, how do we get there while taking care to protect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fine line, don't you think?

when I buy a gun, I pay for the NRA
when i purchase a cigar, same
have people to lobby the things you believe in is a good thing, people lobbying for the things you do not, is the 1st amendment

 

[thereisnospoon]

i guess people seem to think a living wage is all nice and comfy????

Not at all. We just want the folks who keep asking for it, to define it.....just like "fair share". If you are going to use the terms and demand those things, you need to be able to define it. Otherwise you are like a toddler pointing and grunting wanting your mommy to figure out what you want.

Now that you mention it, nobody has defined a 'living wage' have they. Mostly we are seeing complaints about those who make a lot more than we do and/or those who aren't getting compensated by as large a percentage as others and how unfair that is.

A few sub texts have suggested that minimum wage should be a 'living wage' and all employees should share equally in the prosperity of a company. Of course those same people probably think all citizens should share equally in the prosperity of a nation.

And the beat goes on. . . .

They use these on line living wage calculators. Such as the one that states a living wage for Los Angeles County, CA is over $30 per hour. Poppycock!
Look at this....For a family of four, this calculator indicates a living wage of $34.07 per hour!....Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for Los Angeles County, California.
Apparently those in the living wage debate who are of the notion that even entry level jobs should pay living wages insist low skilled workers deserve these pay rates.
Hell, if I made thirty four bucks an hour I'd have that RV I've always wanted. And a bunch of other stuff too. The point is, $34 per hour based on a 40 hour week is over $70k per year. That would put that person in the region of the 25th percentile of wage earners in the US. Oh!!!!! Then of course the libs would want to tax the shit out them because they make too much money.
It's not about the logic of the issue. What mattes is how it looks, right Liberals?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not with those amassing great wealth.

The problem comes when those with great wealth use that wealth to influence elected officials to get things to go their way effectively rendering your and my vote virtually meaningless.

Removing the influence of large political contributions....Great concept.
Question is, how do we get there while taking care to protect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fine line, don't you think?

Not only a fine line but remember, the super rich are 1% of the population. Not enough votes there to make much of a difference. There's lots and LOTS of folks receiving some sort of government assistance, however, and who have a vested interest in keeping certain people in Congress who don't ask many questions of those receiving the assistance and don't much care what folks do with the money. They represent a LOT of votes.

So who has the most power? The guy who can use his/her money to bribe a vote from a Congressman? Or a Congressman who can bribe people to vote for him?

Tough call, huh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

My sons friends are all recent college graduates and they ARE working jobs in childcare, bar tending and lawn maintenance

None are paying a living wage

My son knows college graduates in his field of study who have jobs waiting for them when they graduated, some making 6 figures. It depends on what you study. If you seek an engineering degree in fire protection and safety technology like my son instead of a phd in medieval literature like my neice, you'll make a pretty nice living. My neice has been a Starbucks barista and a child care worker. Obce she gets a phd, she will have to wait for some old white haired professor at some obscure college to die before she can get a job. Until then, low paying jobs. Choices, choices, choices. You have to live with them.

Very true. Many people go off to college, thinking it's all about having fun and taking classes that they like, and just assume "a college degree" guarantees that they're employable afterward. They never give any thought to whether what they're studying is USEFUL to anyone else, or think to look at the job market and find out if it's already glutted with people with the same degree.

I can't count the number of college students I've talked to, asked what they're majoring in, then said, "With an eye toward doing what when you graduate?" and had them look at me blankly as though I just lasped into Esperanto or something.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The problem is not with those amassing great wealth.

The problem comes when those with great wealth use that wealth to influence elected officials to get things to go their way effectively rendering your and my vote virtually meaningless.

Removing the influence of large political contributions....Great concept.
Question is, how do we get there while taking care to protect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fine line, don't you think?

Not only a fine line but remember, the super rich are 1% of the population. Not enough votes there to make much of a difference. There's lots and LOTS of folks receiving some sort of government assistance, however, and who have a vested interest in keeping certain people in Congress who don't ask many questions of those receiving the assistance and don't much care what folks do with the money. They represent a LOT of votes.

So who has the most power? The guy who can use his/her money to bribe a vote from a Congressman? Or a Congressman who can bribe people to vote for him?

Tough call, huh.

BINGO!!!
The lib/progressives think the well monied have all the political clout. That's a kick in the balls to reality.
When nearly half the wage earners have no stake in the system other than what they can get out of it in the form of entitlements, the fact they vote for those who provide the goodies comes as no surprise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If someone is working a full time minimum wage job, they probably don't have a college degree.

So, at the very least, it would be reasonable to pay them enough that they could afford to work and go to college at the same time. We have grants that are available to help out with this, but unfortunately, there has been talk of ending them.

If that happens, we're going to have a lot more people on welfare than before.

Are we talking an 18 year old senior in high school or a 30 year old man with a wife and kid? In an earlier post I talked about the choices we make in life. No 30 year old man with a family should be working a minimum wage job. A guy who lost his job and is doing it temporarily to have some cash flow until he finds a job that pays more for his skill set is one thing. If he has been working minimum wages jobs since he was a kid, he has made some really poor choices along the road of life. That is what I don't get when everyone keeps talking about minimum wage jobs should be a living wage. No, they shouldn't. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs to get your feet wet in the workplace, get some experience and move up. It isn't a stopping point.

A certain amount of accountability is vital in every society, but shit happens.

There are 30 year olds working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes people make dumb decisions. They pay for it by working a job like that, but my point is that paying them just a tad more isn't a bad thing.

The comment was made earlier that if a living wage was the same as minimum wage, there would be no motivation to move up, but that's not true for about 95% of the population. Almost no one wants to work that kind of job for the long term, even if they can live off of it.

It's a bad thing if what they're doing isn't WORTH a tad more. You think business owners don't have other things to do with that money? As the left is fond of trumpeting when telling us how we don't need "eeevil corporations", the vast majority of employers in this country are small or mid-sized businesses.

Your employer is not your parent, and is in no way obligated to take care of your life problems for you. Grow up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder if the nutters here would do me a favor and list their top five choices for a place to live and raise a family. Anywhere in the world?



I'd also like to know why they think that a person making who makes $8 per hour today and is willing to pay $2.00 for a hamburger will, if his pay is raised to $20 per hour, be willing to pay $4.00 for the same hamburger tomorrow? Will the the increased labor cost that the restaurant faces necessarily double the price of the burger? Hmmmmm?

You obviously have no fucking clue how to run a business. YES, raising the cost to the business of the halfwit working the cash register from $8 an hour to $20 an hour is going to increase the price of everything on the menu, and probably by more than $2 a burger. It's also going to put the restaurant out of business, because the competitor down the street isn't going to be that fucking stupid.

Anywhere I wanted to live and raise a family would be right here in the States, thank you. I have no desire to live somewhere less-free, or somewhere even more overrun with retarded leftists than here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A certain amount of accountability is vital in every society, but shit happens.

There are 30 year olds working minimum wage jobs. Sometimes people make dumb decisions. They pay for it by working a job like that, but my point is that paying them just a tad more isn't a bad thing.

The comment was made earlier that if a living wage was the same as minimum wage, there would be no motivation to move up, but that's not true for about 95% of the population. Almost no one wants to work that kind of job for the long term, even if they can live off of it.

Of course they do! Once an individual has reached a comfort level they have no inclination to move beyond it. They only move when it's uncomfortable. They are especially resistent to move up if it takes more effort than they wish to put forth.

I could live off of my current salary for the rest of my life, but I still want to move up in my company.

My comfort level is pretty high, but that doesn't eliminate my ambition.

Has it occurred to you that ambition is not a universal trait? It is not, as far as I can see, even a terribly common one. And, of course, not everyone has the SAME ambitions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What would you suggest one do about single mothers and their kids, if we're not allowed to ask them to work to support them because it's "not fair"? How are we defining the perennial kindergarten, has-no-real-meaning word "fair" in THIS instance?

Whose responsibility are those kids and the fact that her life situation sucks if not HERS?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then don't have kids you cant afford.... that is the simple part of personal responsibility.

Yes it is very fair to ask that of a single mother. Her child, her responsibility. What does fair to the child have anything to do with any of this?

If working 80 hours a week is what it takes for her and her child to make it... then yes...tough...work the 80 hours. I am sure she is not the only single mother out there.... band together and take care of each others kids. That is not such a far out idea ya know.

(100 hours. 80 was insufficient in my example).
Lets say the father and primary bread winner dies. Then a single mother of one wouldn't look so irresponsible. I use the single mother example because a large number of those working minimum wage jobs over the age of 25 are single mothers.

Anyway, we'll all end up paying the costs of it eventually. You either pay for the woman's welfare through taxes. Or you pay when that kid decides his only option out of this way of life is to turn to selling drugs (his mother certainly can't afford school).

I'm not saying that raising the minimum wage is the answer. I just think it's callous and short-sighted to criticize someone who is working 40 hours a week at well below a livable wage for not getting a second or third job. Someone working 80-100 hours a week and raising a family is not lazy.

She wouldn't? Could you tell me why a married couple with three kids and one breadwinner had no provisions for the possible death of said breadwinner? Part of being responsible involves planning for possible disasters.

And she doesn't have to get a second job. She could also get the training for a better job, as many single mothers, in fact, do.

Point being, it's HER responsibility and problem to solve, not anyone else's. And if she happens to be bitching about how her wages should be raised based on her need rather than her value to her employer, then she deserves criticism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Minimum wage was, and should be again, a living wage....meaning one person working a 40 hour a week job makes enough money to rent their own apartment, provide their own transportation, pay their medical bills, their utility bills, and buy their clothes.

Today you can't even get an apartment on minimum wage.

In 1968, my brother, on a mw job, got his own apartment, his own car(brand spanking new), and went to college part time in the evenings....can't do that anymore on a mw job.

sorry... i dont think so.

Get some room mates and split bills. OR work two jobs, that is not a new concept.

No it's not, and people do have roommates and do work several jobs...they still aren't getting anywhere. There is something wrong when you have to work two jobs in the richest country in the world just to provide a roof over your head and food in your belly.

BTW, we work more hours and have fewer vacations than any other industrialized nation...you really think this is a good thing?

We've not made progress, we've lost progress and you are just saying "get another job." What happens when two jobs aren't enough to pay the bills? You give up sleeping????

Once upon a time a person worked two jobs to get ahead, or to send their kid through college, now they are working two jobs just to pay the bills and you think that's a good thing?

No, there's nothing wrong with the fact that you might have to work two jobs to get anywhere with shitty job skills. There IS, however, something wrong with the mindset that "richest nation in the world" should guarantee YOU anything other than the opportunity to work your butt off for what you want.

What happens when two jobs aren't enough? You learn to do something that people want to pay for, that's what.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fair has nothing to do with anything.

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

No, it's actually the child in you, seeking to create cosmic justice. Doesn't exist, ain't gonna happen, no such thing as "fair".

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.

There's nothing "lazy" and "complacent" about saying, "Your life is not my problem" to total strangers.

It's not "the way the system is set up", unless the system you're talking about is the universe. There will always be costs to anything, and they will always be felt by someone. There is no way to change that.

You are at least right that it's a bad idea to raise another generation of people who aren't productive. As we can see here, it produces lazy, greedy, fuzzy-thinking losers who think the whole world should be geared toward making life easy for them, and whine about "not fair" when it doesn't.

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.

Why is it that none of your options involve THEM fixing their own problems? Why is that not on the table? Why do WE have to either give them money via the government, give them money via government-mandated raises on their already not-valuable labor, or give them government-mandated training? And don't even try to tell me we wouldn't be talking about government-mandated and taxpayer-funded training here. Why can't THEY look at their shitty lives, decide they need better job skills, and get that training themselves? Is there a shortage of trade schools in America that I'm unaware of?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Then I would suggest they not attend those schools unless they can afford to pay for it themselves.

 

[Bern80]

The problem is not with those amassing great wealth.

The problem comes when those with great wealth use that wealth to influence elected officials to get things to go their way effectively rendering your and my vote virtually meaningless.

Removing the influence of large political contributions....Great concept.
Question is, how do we get there while taking care to protect the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fine line, don't you think?

Personally I don't think so. Maybe one thing I agree with Obama on is that the Supreme Court made a mistake when they stated that giving money to people is a form of free speech. That's essentially why there can't be a law prohibiting people from donating monetarily to elected officials.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Not at all. We just want the folks who keep asking for it, to define it.....just like "fair share". If you are going to use the terms and demand those things, you need to be able to define it. Otherwise you are like a toddler pointing and grunting wanting your mommy to figure out what you want.

Now that you mention it, nobody has defined a 'living wage' have they. Mostly we are seeing complaints about those who make a lot more than we do and/or those who aren't getting compensated by as large a percentage as others and how unfair that is.

A few sub texts have suggested that minimum wage should be a 'living wage' and all employees should share equally in the prosperity of a company. Of course those same people probably think all citizens should share equally in the prosperity of a nation.

And the beat goes on. . . .

During our debate the other night I gave a living wage based on conditions in Fort Smith, AR. I was attacked, insulted, neg repped, pick one, it happened.

And now you all want to claim that no one has ever given an example?

Wow. Unreal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Rightwinger posted

"My sons friends are all recent college graduates and they ARE working jobs in childcare, bar tending and lawn maintenance

None are paying a living wage."
Hey rightwinger.....Boo freaking hoo hoo.

When one decides on which school they wish to attend, it is incumbent upon them and their parents to figure out what the child wants to do when he grows up AND pick a school that offers that particular major so that when said young skull full of creamed farina gets his or her degree, the sheepskin would then say to prospective employers "Hey I'm a college graduate with a marketable education. Please give me a chance to show you what I can do"..
No instead many college attendees do not decide what it is they wish to do after they get their degree and often it is some useless degree like a degree in Eastern Philosophy or that old industry standard "business administration".
DO you really think your sons should be paid more for their work that they are doing now? Why are they not attempting to acquire some marketable skills.
Here's how I think...When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Your landscaper son for example. If he likes what he is doing, he can go to the local community college and take all of their horticulture courses. He can even continue on and get a degree in turf management. Upon that he is instantly marketable as a golf course assistant superintendent with a potential to be the super. Those guys make tons of money. Some supers even in smaller metro areas like this one here make in excess of 50 to 60,000 per year.
The bartender....so why not take the initiative to latch on to the manager of the restaurant. Learn the food and beverage business from top to bottom. Learn to manage the inventory and how to purchase. First in the bar. That makes him eligible to become bar manager. He can learn the food end of it. With a college degree and some long hours, he can become the general manager and do quite well financially..
The childcare provider. I cannot think of but a few industries that are growing faster.
He or she could start learning the management end of the business. Then get some experience Take night courses on child psychology and teaching. She then could seek positions as a manager of a day care center. Inside the doors of a larger corporate chain there is great income potential...
Moral to the story....Once one gets their degree, the hard work has just begun....
There are always alternatives. No whining.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Rightwinger posted

"My sons friends are all recent college graduates and they ARE working jobs in childcare, bar tending and lawn maintenance

None are paying a living wage."
Hey rightwinger.....Boo freaking hoo hoo.

When one decides on which school they wish to attend, it is incumbent upon them and their parents to figure out what the child wants to do when he grows up AND pick a school that offers that particular major so that when said young skull full of creamed farina gets his or her degree, the sheepskin would then say to prospective employers "Hey I'm a college graduate with a marketable education. Please give me a chance to show you what I can do"..
No instead many college attendees do not decide what it is they wish to do after they get their degree and often it is some useless degree like a degree in Eastern Philosophy or that old industry standard "business administration".
DO you really think your sons should be paid more for their work that they are doing now? Why are they not attempting to acquire some marketable skills.
Here's how I think...When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Your landscaper son for example. If he likes what he is doing, he can go to the local community college and take all of their horticulture courses. He can even continue on and get a degree in turf management. Upon that he is instantly marketable as a golf course assistant superintendent with a potential to be the super. Those guys make tons of money. Some supers even in smaller metro areas like this one here make in excess of 50 to 60,000 per year.
The bartender....so why not take the initiative to latch on to the manager of the restaurant. Learn the food and beverage business from top to bottom. Learn to manage the inventory and how to purchase. First in the bar. That makes him eligible to become bar manager. He can learn the food end of it. With a college degree and some long hours, he can become the general manager and do quite well financially..
The childcare provider. I cannot think of but a few industries that are growing faster.
He or she could start learning the management end of the business. Then get some experience Take night courses on child psychology and teaching. She then could seek positions as a manager of a day care center. Inside the doors of a larger corporate chain there is great income potential...
Moral to the story....Once one gets their degree, the hard work has just begun....
There are always alternatives. No whining.

Paragraphs are your friend. Why do you hate them?