Minimum wage is already “livable”

[Concerned American]

The minimum wage in 1973 was 1.60/hr

The minimum wage in 1973 was $2.25 in CA. The fed may have been $1.60 but that is irrelevant in this example.

 

[Care4all]

C’mon. People on this forum have said that ad infinitum. I’m not going to do a search.

So you tell me: what should the “livable” lifestyle of the kid who works the drive-though at McDonalds consist of?

So what was your USER NAME before you became Lisa558? You've only been on this US message board forum for three weeks....so how could you even know people on this forum said that, ad infinitum?

 

[braalian]

The minimum wage in 1973 was $2.25 in CA. The fed may have been $1.60 but that is irrelevant in this example.

Fair enough. But it still shows wages haven’t kept up with inflation since 1973.

 

[Concerned American]

Fair enough. But it still shows wages haven’t kept up with inflation since 1973.

I agree that the federal min has not, but skilled labor jobs have and that is what I based my example on. The biggest draw on employers and employees has been in health and dental care. I was fortunate to have fully funded insurance for both. Insurance premiums increased to the point that employees were forced to pay a portion of the premium and when the employer refused to pay more and held premium costs down, the insurance companies changed the coverage to also require co pays. The single biggest cost to employers and employees today is healthcare and the government just keeps playing dumb. These crooked politicians are taking lobbyist money and running interference for a lousy, ineffective, overpriced healthcare system--or do you think an RN is worth more than 100 bucks an hour plus benefits for a three day, 36 hour work week that they complain about being overwhelmed. Truth of the matter is, RNs used to be required to do more than paperwork--now CNA's do all the real work.

 

[braalian]

I agree that the federal min has not, but skilled labor jobs have and that is what I based my example on. The biggest draw on employers and employees has been in health and dental care. I was fortunate to have fully funded insurance for both. Insurance premiums increased to the point that employees were forced to pay a portion of the premium and when the employer refused to pay more and held premium costs down, the insurance companies changed the coverage to also require co pays. The single biggest cost to employers and employees today is healthcare and the government just keeps playing dumb. These crooked politicians are taking lobbyist money and running interference for a lousy, ineffective, overpriced healthcare system--or do you think an RN is worth more than 100 bucks an hour plus benefits for a three day, 36 hour work week that they complain about being overwhelmed. Truth of the matter is, RNs used to be required to do more than paperwork--now CNA's do all the real work.

are you implying that nurses are overpaid? It’s not the nurses’ wages driving up healthcare costs. Is the insurance companies and the guys at the top. Nurses are peons.

Where do RNs make 100/hr? Is the cost of living *that* different in California? Here they make 40-50. Even back in Michigan they didn’t make much more than that, especially starting out.

I’m a LPN and I make 35/hr as a charge nurse in a nursing home. But I have 12 years experience in the field. I feel I’m paid fairly, not over or under paid.

 

[braalian]

I agree that the federal min has not, but skilled labor jobs have and that is what I based my example on. The biggest draw on employers and employees has been in health and dental care. I was fortunate to have fully funded insurance for both. Insurance premiums increased to the point that employees were forced to pay a portion of the premium and when the employer refused to pay more and held premium costs down, the insurance companies changed the coverage to also require co pays. The single biggest cost to employers and employees today is healthcare and the government just keeps playing dumb. These crooked politicians are taking lobbyist money and running interference for a lousy, ineffective, overpriced healthcare system--or do you think an RN is worth more than 100 bucks an hour plus benefits for a three day, 36 hour work week that they complain about being overwhelmed. Truth of the matter is, RNs used to be required to do more than paperwork--now CNA's do all the real work.

And btw, I don’t think you have a clear picture of what licensed nurses do. Even as a LPN I take on a tremendous amount of liability, I am the one responsible for my assigned group of patients, often with zero RNs or doctors in the building. Nurses are compensated more for the amount of legal responsibility we assume, not for how many butts we wipe or pills we pass.

 

[Concerned American]

are you implying that nurses are overpaid? It’s not the nurses’ wages driving up healthcare costs. Is the insurance companies and the guys at the top. Nurses are peons.

Where do RNs make 100/hr? Is the cost of living *that* different in California? Here they make 40-50. Even back in Michigan they didn’t make much more than that, especially starting out.

I’m a LPN and I make 35/hr as a charge nurse in a nursing home. But I have 12 years experience in the field. I feel I’m paid fairly, not over or under paid.

I retired from my job in 2013 and I knew three RNs in CA that were making $90/hr at that time. I could not tolerate CA anymore and sold out everything I had and moved to a more conservative area in another state with no income tax and a lower cost of living.

 

[braalian]

I retired from my job in 2013 and I knew three RNs in CA that were making $90/hr at that time. I could not tolerate CA anymore and sold out everything I had and moved to a more conservative area in another state with no income tax and a lower cost of living.

Yeah to us midwesterners, the cost of living and wages in California sounds like a parallel universe. 90/hr doesn’t happen out here for nurses. We’re not paying 2.5k a month for a studio apartment either

 

[Concerned American]

And btw, I don’t think you have a clear picture of what licensed nurses do. Even as a LPN I take on a tremendous amount of liability, I am the one responsible for my assigned group of patients, often with zero RNs or doctors in the building. Nurses are compensated more for the amount of legal responsibility we assume, not for how many butts we wipe or pills we pass.

LVN/LPNs in CA do not get paid like RNs and are not held to the same standards. They can qualify for these certifications in a two year community college program (I have known smart, ambitious nursing students who have acquired their RNs in two year programs as well.) Don't get me wrong--I am not blaming all of our healthcare problems on nurses. There is plenty of blame to go around. Overpriced procedures and hospital costs, greedy doctors, drug and insurance companies--put them all together and people work to keep healthcare.

 

[Concerned American]

We’re not paying 2.5k a month for a studio apartment either

You can't get a garage in San Francisco for 2500 a month. People in non union jobs working in SF often live a hundred miles away so that they can buy a 1300 sq. ft house for 350K.

 

[Leviticus]

A living wage means a wage which covers the cost of living. MIT created a calculator which takes the average cost of basic necessities, such as groceries, utilities, childcare, gas/vehicle upkeep, etc., in different states, and calculates how much would be needed per hour on a full time basis to meet those costs. According to MIT, there isnt a single state where a single adult can meet the cost of living at the federal minimum wage. And when you get into families with children, the cost of living is even higher.

The funny part is liberals high fiving about a $15 minimum wage, and pretending it will eradicate poverty, even though it still wouldnt meet the cost of living in many families, especially in stes like New York and California.

Instead of a federal wage, each state should have its own minimum wage based on the cost of living in that state. States with lower prices would require lower wages, and states with higher prices would require higher wages. It still wouldnt cover everyone, since it would be based on average prices, but it would still bring far more families to a living wage than a federal wage would.

 

[Anomalism]

No. Someone else will come along with a business model number hats better.

The market will survive with a minimum wage, but it would be nice if well-intentioned liberals could open their ears and minds long enough to understand that not everything can be made better artificially. You really do limit upward mobility for the people at the very bottom when you create a minimum wage, and especially if you're going to raise it. You aren't actually making anybody more valuable to the market. You're not actually improving the job situation for poor people in the United States. With all due respect I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work.

 

[Blues Man]

Because technology has removed the need for actual skill in many occupations

 

[Blues Man]

The employee is creating the wealth
If you are losing money on someone, you fire them

If those employees are no value to you…why do you have them?

The employee can't create wealth without the tools and materials the employer provides.

And sometimes firing a person who is dead weight improves production

 

[Blues Man]

They are high value, but easily replaceable

That is why they are easy to exploit

No one who is easily replaced is high value.

High value employees cannot be replaced easily

 

[Blues Man]

Given your avatar and demeanor, the only response you will appreciate is…

And your avatar is a moronic sewer worker

 

[braalian]

No one who is easily replaced is high value.

High value employees cannot be replaced easily

 

[Blues Man]

As a person who is looking for work, your product is the value your labor will bring the company that hires you. If all you are capable of doing is sweeping the floor then your labor isn't worth much.

Your product is your skill. So if you're not constantly adding to your skill set then it is you that is setting your own worth to a potential or current employer.

 

[Anomalism]

LOL @ "What they are worth". Don't you think they're worth enough to eat and a place to live?

That deflects from his point. You're limiting the market for both the employer and employee. That's not ideal at all, and it won't achieve the result you want.

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 564741

And if you can easily be replaced by someone with no work experience you're not important either