Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In most countries considered First World, there are public infrastructures aimed at serving basic needs. We have a few here, but they're far less comprehensive than in most of our peers.
So, naturally, a lot of these things, like healthcare are shifted towards employer benefits. In effect, the expectation is that employers should handle most of the burden of things like care.
This discussion doesn't even really touch the benefits side of a minimum wage, since there is no such thing currently, but to even suggest that the bottom of the pay scale be slightly higher is apparently taboo.
So far, it's supposedly something that would discourage people from moving further in their careers, and that employers shouldn't be responsible for providing basic needs anyway.
So I guess the question becomes: if you don't think employers should provide basic needs, then why even accept your employer's benefits package if you're offered one?
Clearly, a lot of employers view providing basic needs like healthcare as a responsibility to their workers.
Wrong. Employers don't provide extra benefits out of a sense of obligation to provide basic needs to employees. They provide those things as a means of competing for employees.
It isn't taboo to bring up the wages of the lowest wage earners. It is taboo to suggest that your wages should be raised for no other reason than you need more to live on.
STILL no one of you living wage proponents will answer the question; why is it your employers responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for your basic needs?
Bern, I've changed my mind. I prefer to have a wage floor determined by illegal labor. It's much cheaper that way. Romney seems to agree.
Why is it not your responsibility to provide for your basic needs?
JRK.
I've enjoyed your posts in other threads where you do indeed take a conservative stance on other issues. On this issue, you are FAR afield of a conservative stance. You are indeed embracing a very socialist stance. Can you not see that? Companies have a business model. It takes in all sorts of factors. If your overhead exceeds your profits, you go out of business.....usually owing money to people. If your profits exceeds your overhead, you are anywhere from just barely breaking even to being able to sock away some cash. any number of things can upset the apple cart. If a component of the product you make costs you 5 cents and it suddenly jimps to $1, you're kind of screwed if you can't find a replacement closer to the cost of your model. If you were selling your product for $1 and that one component went up by 95 cents, your product now will cost $1.95. Your customers may not be willing to pay double for that product. Same goes for pay. If you have figured an hourly wage into your model that will allow your profit to exceed your overhead and the government all of a sudden mandates that you have to double that wage to pay a "living wage", you are screwed. Let's say that you are paying a minimum wage of $7.75 and the government says you have to pay $15, will that fit your model? Will your customers be willing to pay a substantially higher price for your product? Probably not......and you go out of business.
The idea of a living wage sounds good. The execution can be devastating.
Its working fine in Australia
I also know a little about what I am talking about. That company is paying the highest corporate tax in the world because of the entitlement programs we have in place, such as welfare because people who do not make a living wage.
That consumer that purchases a widget pays for either the minimum wage of 13.00 and hour or he/she will be paying for the corporate income tax that has to be where it is because so many people do not make a living wage
Its a wash as long as the companies tax rate goes down if the minimum wage goes to the level that would be above the poverty level
eliminate most all well-fare, replace it with a living wage. whats the diff?
You were already told 'what the diff' is? If you effectively double the min wage in the U.S. unemployment among jobs paying that rate is going to go up.
But frankly the math is irrelevent. Why do you not have the character to answer my question? Why is it not your responsibility to provide for your basic needs?
My friend I know your going to take this personal, but your so far off of what this is about your on a different planet, I cannot discuss this with you because you keep thinking the employee owes the employer everything and the employer can use the employee any way he chooses to
That has nothing to do with political beliefs, that is just cruel
I have managed many people in my life, I truly understand the value of a person who has that can do attitude and is trying to get it done. When it comes to a minimum wage in why we pay them, your way is working okay?is it not?
We have more people on welfare and food stamps by a long ways than we have ever had before
Please note that the state of Texas will be paying me close to 500 a week in Un Employment when I get my ROF
This is called a living wage, that will prevent me from getting wel fare, food stamps and allows me to pay my own bills until I am called back to work (if I decide to take this route)
I read above what goes on in Australia matters none here. Our 1.00 and there 1.00 is today 0.04 cents a part per dollar
I never said 15.00 an hour was the amount, but there making it work and have now for years. It is the very event that changed my mind on all of this
It eliminates welfare, dont you get it?
If we keep paying people a wage that is less than the poverty level then we are going to pay them in govt subsidies
THINK
we can do it in the free market, or we can do it with entitlement programs. your choosing entitlement programs
My friend I know your going to take this personal, but your so far off of what this is about your on a different planet, I cannot discuss this with you because you keep thinking the employee owes the employer everything and the employer can use the employee any way he chooses to
That has nothing to do with political beliefs, that is just cruel
I have managed many people in my life, I truly understand the value of a person who has that can do attitude and is trying to get it done. When it comes to a minimum wage in why we pay them, your way is working okay?is it not?
We have more people on welfare and food stamps by a long ways than we have ever had before
Please note that the state of Texas will be paying me close to 500 a week in Un Employment when I get my ROF
This is called a living wage, that will prevent me from getting wel fare, food stamps and allows me to pay my own bills until I am called back to work (if I decide to take this route)
I read above what goes on in Australia matters none here. Our 1.00 and there 1.00 is today 0.04 cents a part per dollar
I never said 15.00 an hour was the amount, but there making it work and have now for years. It is the very event that changed my mind on all of this
It eliminates welfare, dont you get it?
If we keep paying people a wage that is less than the poverty level then we are going to pay them in govt subsidies
THINK
we can do it in the free market, or we can do it with entitlement programs. your choosing entitlement programs
I don't take offense to any of that because it isn't a reflection of my beliefs. Now, my friend, do someone the common courtesy of answering their question; Why is it not your responsibility to provide for your basic needs? And yes, this conversation IS about that. Because the minute you institite a living wage law you have also shifted the responsbility of providing for yourself from yourself to your employer.
No its not, in your mind it is, but its not. Like I said look how good your way is working, you know what the definition of insanity is? Keep doing the same thing and expect a different result
you think an employer owns the employee
I believe the employee has a service to sell that demands a minimum rate in which that service should be rewarded
You should be happy, your side has won and it cost me 20,000 in taxes to keep it working every year (just in federal)
No its not, in your mind it is, but its not. Like I said look how good your way is working, you know what the definition of insanity is? Keep doing the same thing and expect a different result
you think an employer owns the employee
I believe the employee has a service to sell that demands a minimum rate in which that service should be rewarded
You should be happy, your side has won and it cost me 20,000 in taxes to keep it working every year (just in federal)
No it's not? No that responsibility has NOT been shifted to the employer when you require them to pay a living wage?
Your past being aggravating
where is it I stated that it is?
Like I said bud your side has won, thanks to that we pay 100s of billions in tax dollars that me and that employer pay that you keep defending as gods first choice in the food chain
Bud you got what you want, SHUT UP ABOUT IT OKAY
the employer is not paying 100s of thousands of employees enough money to eat. So we pay for them to eat
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
Your past being aggravating
where is it I stated that it is?
When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are the saying the same thing.
1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.
2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.
Like I said bud your side has won, thanks to that we pay 100s of billions in tax dollars that me and that employer pay that you keep defending as gods first choice in the food chain
Bud you got what you want, SHUT UP ABOUT IT OKAY
the employer is not paying 100s of thousands of employees enough money to eat. So we pay for them to eat
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage.
Your past being aggravating
where is it I stated that it is?
When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are saying the same thing.
1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.
2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.
Like I said bud your side has won, thanks to that we pay 100s of billions in tax dollars that me and that employer pay that you keep defending as gods first choice in the food chain
Bud you got what you want, SHUT UP ABOUT IT OKAY
the employer is not paying 100s of thousands of employees enough money to eat. So we pay for them to eat
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage and maybe even a lot more depending on where the market is currently valuing those skills. But burger flipping doesn't pay less than a living wage because of some conspiracy JRK. Take some basic econ classes and maybe you'll start to understand it.
Your past being aggravating
where is it I stated that it is?
When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are the saying the same thing.
1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.
2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.
Like I said bud your side has won, thanks to that we pay 100s of billions in tax dollars that me and that employer pay that you keep defending as gods first choice in the food chain
Bud you got what you want, SHUT UP ABOUT IT OKAY
the employer is not paying 100s of thousands of employees enough money to eat. So we pay for them to eat
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage.
Bravo. One small observation though. You'll get your living wage IF that living wage is worth it to the employer. Make that living wage higher than what it is worth to the employer and nobody will be hired.
When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are the saying the same thing.
1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.
2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.
It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage.
Bravo. One small observation though. You'll get your living wage IF that living wage is worth it to the employer. Make that living wage higher than what it is worth to the employer and nobody will be hired.
If either of you understood economics and stopped and listened to what I have said. It is not about the employer. He could care less what he pays for my service as long as he an make a profit on it
If every-one has to pay a minimum of 12.50 an hour, then by golly every-one is going to keep doing the very same thing there doing today and making the same % profit
but lets dont do that
Lets make sure we spend 500 billion every yea subsidizing those people who make 15,000 a year so, well I have no idea why would we would keep doing that
you keep trying to tell me its not the employer place to pay someone for a good days work, well your right with many people it looks to me
Bravo. One small observation though. You'll get your living wage IF that living wage is worth it to the employer. Make that living wage higher than what it is worth to the employer and nobody will be hired.
If either of you understood economics and stopped and listened to what I have said. It is not about the employer. He could care less what he pays for my service as long as he an make a profit on it
If every-one has to pay a minimum of 12.50 an hour, then by golly every-one is going to keep doing the very same thing there doing today and making the same % profit
but lets dont do that
Lets make sure we spend 500 billion every yea subsidizing those people who make 15,000 a year so, well I have no idea why would we would keep doing that
you keep trying to tell me its not the employer place to pay someone for a good days work, well your right with many people it looks to me
For the life of me, I don't see why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. There are several issues with what you propose. You get upset over the number of people and the amount spent on welfare. I do too. The government shouldn't be in that business in the first place. But all you want to do is shift the money collected thru taxes that is being handed over to folks on welfare to an employer to hand to someone doing even the most menial unskilled labor. How the hell does it make sense? Quit collecting taxes to support welfare and instead force companies to hand out the checks as a replacement. I understand that you think there is a difference bacause these people will have "jobs", but what you don't understand is that many businesses won't offer these jobs. Your next logical step is to force ABC company to hire X number of people and pay them this set amount per hour. You don't think that is crazy? You do indeed want an employer to be responsible for providing for your needs. An employer has a business model and has determined what he can pay for an particular job based on a large number of factors. YOU, just like a business owner have a product you are selling. It is your time, experience, skill and abilities. Whether you realize it or not, each time you interview for a job, you are selling your product and negoiating a price they are willing to pay and you are willing to accept. In certain businesses and circumstances, the business has a set price they can afford in their business plan to offer you. You on the other side of the table have to take responsibility for yourself and look at YOUR personal needs and whether their offer will satisfy them. If they do, you take the job. If they don't, you thank them and look elsewhere. The other option is to say that isn't enough and maybe if you're lucky, they'll bump it up. Most likely they will tell you they can't afford to pay that much.
Your past being aggravating
where is it I stated that it is?
When you claim an employer should pay everyone, regardless of their need for it, enough to live on THAT is where you are stating it (that it is an employers responsibility to provide for your needs). Believe me you are just as aggravating that you can't see that the following two statements are saying the same thing.
1) An employer should pay an employee enough to provide for themselves.
2) An employer should be responsible for providing for the basic needs of their employees.
Like I said bud your side has won, thanks to that we pay 100s of billions in tax dollars that me and that employer pay that you keep defending as gods first choice in the food chain
Bud you got what you want, SHUT UP ABOUT IT OKAY
the employer is not paying 100s of thousands of employees enough money to eat. So we pay for them to eat
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
It isn't about any side winning. The employer/employee relationship isn't a master/slave relationship. Nor do I believe it should be. It is an agreement between two parties. Compensation in exchange for service. Maybe as part of your compensation you want enough to live on. That's fine, but an employer is under no legal or even moral obligation to agree to that demand. Whether an employer agrees to that in a free market merely depends on whether or not he can find someone else who will agree to less than what you're demanding. If that's what it takes to keep you and their is no viable alternative then you'll get your living wage and maybe even a lot more depending on where the market is currently valuing those skills. But burger flipping doesn't pay less than a living wage because of some conspiracy JRK. Take some basic econ classes and maybe you'll start to understand it.
you know whats the saddest of all of this?
you think you know what your talking about
Dude what ever you think is fine with me. I am going to say this every time
your claim to fame is working so good, that we went thru close to 600 billion in welfare and UE benefits in 2010
It has nothing to do with understanding how an economy works, if it did Australia would be in a worse mess than us. Class dismissed
If either of you understood economics and stopped and listened to what I have said. It is not about the employer. He could care less what he pays for my service as long as he an make a profit on it
If every-one has to pay a minimum of 12.50 an hour, then by golly every-one is going to keep doing the very same thing there doing today and making the same % profit
but lets dont do that
Lets make sure we spend 500 billion every yea subsidizing those people who make 15,000 a year so, well I have no idea why would we would keep doing that
you keep trying to tell me its not the employer place to pay someone for a good days work, well your right with many people it looks to me
For the life of me, I don't see why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. There are several issues with what you propose. You get upset over the number of people and the amount spent on welfare. I do too. The government shouldn't be in that business in the first place. But all you want to do is shift the money collected thru taxes that is being handed over to folks on welfare to an employer to hand to someone doing even the most menial unskilled labor. How the hell does it make sense? Quit collecting taxes to support welfare and instead force companies to hand out the checks as a replacement. I understand that you think there is a difference bacause these people will have "jobs", but what you don't understand is that many businesses won't offer these jobs. Your next logical step is to force ABC company to hire X number of people and pay them this set amount per hour. You don't think that is crazy? You do indeed want an employer to be responsible for providing for your needs. An employer has a business model and has determined what he can pay for an particular job based on a large number of factors. YOU, just like a business owner have a product you are selling. It is your time, experience, skill and abilities. Whether you realize it or not, each time you interview for a job, you are selling your product and negoiating a price they are willing to pay and you are willing to accept. In certain businesses and circumstances, the business has a set price they can afford in their business plan to offer you. You on the other side of the table have to take responsibility for yourself and look at YOUR personal needs and whether their offer will satisfy them. If they do, you take the job. If they don't, you thank them and look elsewhere. The other option is to say that isn't enough and maybe if you're lucky, they'll bump it up. Most likely they will tell you they can't afford to pay that much.
I never said to force anyone to do one thing, and this employer providing my needs, I have no idea where that came from, I never have said it, The one who is fixated on the employer owning everything said that
The term 'living wage' should be self explanatory.
The term 'living wage' should be self explanatory.
Except it isn't. A living wage for how many people to live off? In what geogrpahic region? What if I don't need a living wage?
