How do people survive on minimum wage?

[JoeNormal]

And there is where the subjectivity comes in... what you think is enough to survive? What is survive to you?

Now... I do believe a company that wants to succeed will compensate employees accordingly, if they want workers to stay, advance, etc... But that is still a choice of the company... In my youth I worked in a restaurant where busboys made almost twice minimum wage and still got a share of tips from the wait staff, and that was a place that was sought after for work and made a nice profit off of customers who wanted top level service... Now does a roach coach necessarily worry about that or do they worry about volume and severe cost savings?

But everything still comes down to the individual who is working for a living. You start off in a minimum wage job at 16 because you are inexperienced, unskilled, etc... and as your needs, wants, and responsibilities grow, so should your approach toward work and your career... Now SHOULD an employer be required to worry that you are a 30 year old person with 3 kids and not a teenager when you still only offer the bare minimum of skills or value?? Not really, IMHO

There will always be employers who, left to their own devices, will pay the absolute minimum they possibly can, will scrimp on safety equipment or procedures or will use substandard parts or ingredients. I'm glad I live in a place where companies have no choice but to adhere to some minimum standards. And to me, minimum wage is one more area that needs to be regulated.

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

 

[JoeNormal]

Slavery on who's part? NO ONE forces ANYONE to take a job.

YOUR idea of slavery is SUBJECTIVE.

You don't seem to be too much of a student of history. Why don't you read a little about the working conditions in the earlier part of the 20th century and get back to me.

*I* enjoy history. REVEL in it.

We aren't IN the 20th Century or even the earlier part of it, are we?

WHY do you dwell in the past that is irrelevant?

Good Statist. Heel. Stay! Good boy!

IDIOT.

So you revel in history but you consider the past irrelevant. Uh huh. How do you keep your head from imploding?

 

[DiamondDave]

There will always be employers who, left to their own devices, will pay the absolute minimum they possibly can, will scrimp on safety equipment or procedures or will use substandard parts or ingredients. I'm glad I live in a place where companies have no choice but to adhere to some minimum standards. And to me, minimum wage is one more area that needs to be regulated.

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

We have NOT been deregulated... on the contrary, we have more regulations than EVER before.... you are WAYYYY off base here

We do have a choice NOT to bail them out.. no matter the size.. and in fact, we have no governmental authority TO bail them out... and no, those in charge of businesses with bad practices and decisions should not be 'shot in the head'... if they violated law, committed actual crime (fraud, theft, etc), etc, they should be prosecuted... but not punished for failing

A society where freedom is usurped for the goal of equalizing outcome is not some place I would want to be.... And in our country and society, you are supposed to have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail.. you do not get one without the other unless you hinder freedom

 

[The Rabbi]

There will always be employers who, left to their own devices, will pay the absolute minimum they possibly can, will scrimp on safety equipment or procedures or will use substandard parts or ingredients. I'm glad I live in a place where companies have no choice but to adhere to some minimum standards. And to me, minimum wage is one more area that needs to be regulated.

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

If failure necessitates a government bailout then they haven't been deregulated. Ending the idea that Uncle is going to step in to mitigate massive stupidity would go farther to restore confidence in banking than anything else.
What society do you think is not stuck in dog eat dog mode?

 

[The T]

You don't seem to be too much of a student of history. Why don't you read a little about the working conditions in the earlier part of the 20th century and get back to me.

*I* enjoy history. REVEL in it.

We aren't IN the 20th Century or even the earlier part of it, are we?

WHY do you dwell in the past that is irrelevant?

Good Statist. Heel. Stay! Good boy!

IDIOT.

So you revel in history but you consider the past irrelevant. Uh huh. How do you keep your head from imploding?

NO not irrelevant. NOT what I stated was it?

Call it a learning...a lesson...to what we have learned from HISTORY and direction to take...or NOT.

Careful of the basket you weave...YOU won't be able to carry an egg on your present course.

Consider that a WARNING.

 

[Avatar4321]

1) They cut back on their spending
2) They get a second job
3) Their spouse gets a job
4) They develop skills that they can use to get a higher paying job.

Lots of ways.

 

[The T]

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

If failure necessitates a government bailout then they haven't been deregulated. Ending the idea that Uncle is going to step in to mitigate massive stupidity would go farther to restore confidence in banking than anything else.
What society do you think is not stuck in dog eat dog mode?

Joey Abnormal prefers that Unkie Sam pick winners and losers.

 

[Samson]

There will always be employers who, left to their own devices, will pay the absolute minimum they possibly can, will scrimp on safety equipment or procedures or will use substandard parts or ingredients. I'm glad I live in a place where companies have no choice but to adhere to some minimum standards. And to me, minimum wage is one more area that needs to be regulated.

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

Dodge:

I think you cannot answer the fucking question, and I'm leaning toward believing that you mightn't be bright enough to survive without a nanny

 

[Texanmike]

Companies will do whatever they can to lower costs and increase profits. Automation is popular yet somehow, you still need those pesky human beings to do a lot of what needs to be done. I think if it takes a human being to do a certain job, that job should pay enough to allow him to survive.

And there is where the subjectivity comes in... what you think is enough to survive? What is survive to you?

Now... I do believe a company that wants to succeed will compensate employees accordingly, if they want workers to stay, advance, etc... But that is still a choice of the company... In my youth I worked in a restaurant where busboys made almost twice minimum wage and still got a share of tips from the wait staff, and that was a place that was sought after for work and made a nice profit off of customers who wanted top level service... Now does a roach coach necessarily worry about that or do they worry about volume and severe cost savings?

But everything still comes down to the individual who is working for a living. You start off in a minimum wage job at 16 because you are inexperienced, unskilled, etc... and as your needs, wants, and responsibilities grow, so should your approach toward work and your career... Now SHOULD an employer be required to worry that you are a 30 year old person with 3 kids and not a teenager when you still only offer the bare minimum of skills or value?? Not really, IMHO

There will always be employers who, left to their own devices, will pay the absolute minimum they possibly can, will scrimp on safety equipment or procedures or will use substandard parts or ingredients. I'm glad I live in a place where companies have no choice but to adhere to some minimum standards. And to me, minimum wage is one of the areas that needs to be regulated.

I think that a company should pay every employee one penny more than they would quit for.

Mike

 

[JoeNormal]

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

We have NOT been deregulated... on the contrary, we have more regulations than EVER before.... you are WAYYYY off base here

We do have a choice NOT to bail them out.. no matter the size.. and in fact, we have no governmental authority TO bail them out... and no, those in charge of businesses with bad practices and decisions should not be 'shot in the head'... if they violated law, committed actual crime (fraud, theft, etc), etc, they should be prosecuted... but not punished for failing

A society where freedom is usurped for the goal of equalizing outcome is not some place I would want to be.... And in our country and society, you are supposed to have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail.. you do not get one without the other unless you hinder freedom

What you dislike about having a social contract or safety net is that you seem to see it as equalizing outcomes - like there would be no difference between applying effort and not. It's no such thing. Most people who need temporary assistance can't wait to get off of it. And in the case of minimum wage, I've never met anybody who wanted to be there for very long either.

 

[Staidhup]

So one takes a minimum wage job, adjusts their standard of living, pulls themselves up by their boot straps, works their ass off, becomes an indispensable employee, strives to learn and improve their knowledge of the business, prove they have what it's got, doors will open, opportunities will be forthcoming. The greatest generation personified this simple concept of which I speak. They fully understood the meaning of living within their means, saving for the future, but of even greater importance the benefit of hard work and dedication. The problem with this generation is they want it all now and don't want to work for it, heaven for bid adjust their standard of living to reflect the current state of the economy. So pathetic!

 

[JoeNormal]

That happens in a free society.. and that employer would have to weigh whether that is right for them.. whether attrition is an issue... whether a low level of customer service or productivity is worth it

How many minimum standards should there be? Does government always know and do best??? Or are you best capable of improving your own situation? Are you (as a person or company) more capable of making your own decisions and reaping the consequences of your own actions?

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

Dodge:

I think you cannot answer the fucking question, and I'm leaning toward believing that you mightn't be bright enough to survive without a nanny

I've been a successful engineer for 20+ years. As I said before, minimum wage hasn't been on my radar for about 30 years. But unlike you freedom-loving 'real Americans', I can see beyond myself.

Why don't you tell me why you're not 6 months away from becoming a Walmart greeter.

 

[JoeNormal]

So one takes a minimum wage job, adjusts their standard of living, pulls themselves up by their boot straps, works their ass off, becomes an indispensable employee, strives to learn and improve their knowledge of the business, prove they have what it's got, doors will open, opportunities will be forthcoming. The greatest generation personified this simple concept of which I speak. They fully understood the meaning of living within their means, saving for the future, but of even greater importance the benefit of hard work and dedication. The problem with this generation is they want it all now and don't want to work for it, heaven for bid adjust their standard of living to reflect the current state of the economy. So pathetic!

The greatest generation also had labor unions to pull for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are always exceptions, but you cannot base national policy on the exceptions without screwing over everybody else. And the person whose labor/experience/expertise/skill level etc. is worth more than minimum wage, but he or she stays at minimum wage, is definitely an exception. Or, he/she doen't want to put in the effort to earn more.

The minimum wage was originally intended not to provide a living wage of any kind, but to ensure that employers would not be able to utilize 'slave labor' on the pretense that they were giving opportunity to apprentices or trainees to learn the job. If the employers had to paid new hires something, they would most likely be offering a real job. And if they had to pay at least minimum wage, there would be incentive to teach and encourage the new hire to be more productive to offset the costs that are so often involved in training a new hire.

A minimum wage job should always be considered a fairly short term entry level wage while the employee develops a work ethic, experience, obtains marketable skills, and acquires good references that qualifies him/her for much better pay. Or, as has been the case for me when I have had to start over numerous times, it is the starting wage until I show the employer what I already can do.

 

[JoeNormal]

There are always exceptions, but you cannot base national policy on the exceptions without screwing over everybody else. And the person whose labor/experience/expertise/skill level etc. is worth more than minimum wage, but he or she stays at minimum wage, is definitely an exception. Or, he/she doen't want to put in the effort to earn more.

The minimum wage was originally intended not to provide a living wage of any kind, but to ensure that employers would not be able to utilize 'slave labor' on the pretense that they were giving opportunity to apprentices or trainees to learn the job. If the employers had to paid new hires something, they would most likely be offering a real job. And if they had to pay at least minimum wage, there would be incentive to teach and encourage the new hire to be more productive to offset the costs that are so often involved in training a new hire.

A minimum wage job should always be considered a fairly short term entry level wage while the employee develops a work ethic, experience, obtains marketable skills, and acquires good references that qualifies him/her for much better pay. Or, as has been the case for me when I have had to start over numerous times, it is the starting wage until I show the employer what I already can do.

I've worked internships for nothing but gas money. That's how they do it in professions that can take you places. Usually, minimum wage jobs (had plenty of those too) offer employment that you would generally not think of sticking with unless you had no other choice. With our economy being in such great shape, lots of people have no other choice.

 

[Againsheila]

The "minimum wage" is too low, I wonder wtf they base it on. The bosses who insist on limiting minimum wage have no "maximum wage," they know that keeping the minimum wage as low as possible makes them richer.

Yep. and there are idiots who support them, making it that much harder on the working people in this country.

My job went to India and I was making only slightly more than minimum. I offered to follow my job, I could live a heck of a lot better in India on $4.00 an hour than I could here on $8.50 an hour. I was told those jobs were for their citizens, our government couldn't care less about our citizens. They even let illegals in to keep our unemployment high and our wages low, just so we don't get any ideas of over stepping ourselves.

And then we have the idiots praising the illegals who have wrecked our economy and sent most of their money home. Many of whom have already returned home now they they wrecked our economy where they can live like kings on the money the stole from us.

Meanwhile, the reps are happy because they've kept labor cheap, the dems are happy because they got illegal votes and the people lose everything. No country can long survive when the majority of it's wealth lies in the hands of a few.

You offered to follow your job to India? thats some real dedication, I would never follow my job to India no matter how much I liked it.

Like had nothing to do with it, I needed to make a living.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think this question has implications in the world of finance today. It's been de-regulated to the point where the banks and Wall Street can do some criminally stupid things. The problem is, if they fail, they would take the world economy with them. So we have little choice but to bail them out. Where we have failed is that the guys who were responsible should have been dragged from their homes and offices and shot in the head.

A society that is constantly stuck in a dog-eat-dog mode where few prosper greatly and many fail is not a very stable one. Is that really what we want to aspire to?

Dodge:

I think you cannot answer the fucking question, and I'm leaning toward believing that you mightn't be bright enough to survive without a nanny

I've been a successful engineer for 20+ years. As I said before, minimum wage hasn't been on my radar for about 30 years. But unlike you freedom-loving 'real Americans', I can see beyond myself.

Why don't you tell me why you're not 6 months away from becoming a Walmart greeter.

Because I KNOW I'd be the BEST greeter WalMart ever had.. And within a few MONTHS or a year, I'd have a cushy office job doing training programs for WalMart employees.... If I didn't -- THEN --- somethings wrong...

But I'd rather stay as a scientist/engineer thank-you..

 

[Againsheila]

I asked why you think that. You've deflected. Typical.

You don't know why I would think that? Because working for less than it takes to survive is slavery.

Slavery on who's part? NO ONE forces ANYONE to take a job.

YOUR idea of slavery is SUBJECTIVE.

When the alternative is starvation, or sleeping on the streets...what exactly do you call it?

 

[Againsheila]

30 millon Mexicans swim a river and hike through a dessert to find a job.

Maybe your friend should go to where jobs are rather than waiting "around there."

For christssakes, its not that complicated.

Where are the jobs?

Google: "Where are the jobs?"

I'm beginning to see that a general lack of imagination is a major ingredient for anyone remaining unemployed for more than a year.

So you don't know where any jobs are either, but you think my friend should move there?

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't know why I would think that? Because working for less than it takes to survive is slavery.

Slavery on who's part? NO ONE forces ANYONE to take a job.

YOUR idea of slavery is SUBJECTIVE.

When the alternative is starvation, or sleeping on the streets...what exactly do you call it?

First, the alternative is not starvation or sleeping on the street. The alternative is welfare, that saps people of human dignity and independence.
Second, it is not slavery. By definition it is not slavery. No one forces anyone to take a particular job.