Minimum wage is already “livable”

[rightwinger]

In a sense it would be the government paying people to get sterilized.

Still Fascist

What is the asking price for your womb?

 

[Anomalism]

Still Fascist

What is the asking price for your womb?

If we tried it what do you think the consequences would be? Just hypothetically.

 

[Independent thinker]

You're wrong.

I'm right. It is all about wealth re-distribution. As long as there are super rich, the left will claim that the rich are rich at the expense of the 99%, no matter how much those 99% earn.

 

[Concerned American]

Cashiers are covered under minimum wage laws--waitresses were and are not. My mother was a waitress and could never buy a house or send us to college on what she made. Cashiers couldn't either.

I think there is a caveat to that, Ray. I worked in the restaurant business many years ago in AZ. I was paid less than minimum wage at a local eatery, but was paid minimum across the street at a chain restaurant. I questioned it and was told that the local place could get away with it because they did not deal with interstate commerce where the chain did. That small point gave the local place an out under AZ law.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm right. It is all about wealth re-distribution. As long as there are super rich, the left will claim that the rich are rich at the expense of the 99%, no matter how much those 99% earn.

The problem is not that rich are Rich but that the Poor are poor through unequal protection of the laws.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem is not that rich are Rich but that the Poor are poor through unequal protection of the laws.

The Golden Rule
He who has the Gold, makes the rules

 

[Lesh]

I read the title and one of my first posts on the subject was that people can't afford those things alone. They can live at home with their parents, get a roommate AS THE OP STATED but not have their own apartment yet alone kids or a house. It was like that over 40 years ago and it's like that today, because 40 years ago people who worked low wages stayed at home or got a roommate.

Nothing changed.

Yea...it would be nice if the only people being paid minimum wage COULD just live with their parents...but that ain't the reality

try single mothers (for one) who have no viable family

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yea...it would be nice if the only people being paid minimum wage COULD just live with their parents...but that ain't the reality

try single mothers (for one) who have no viable family

And we've always had that as well. People found a way to get by.

Now it's children, tomorrow it will be mortgage payments, then car payments, we've already advanced to government paying peoples rent for crying out loud. When is the stopping point of taxpayers supporting the irresponsible actions of others? Our founders never wanted this because every time you rely on the federal government to solve your problems, you lose a little liberty at the same time and they knew that hundreds of years ago.

The only children we should be thinking about are the ones that are eventually going to have to deal with this massive debt, because yes, it's going to have to be addressed long after I'm off this planet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think there is a caveat to that, Ray. I worked in the restaurant business many years ago in AZ. I was paid less than minimum wage at a local eatery, but was paid minimum across the street at a chain restaurant. I questioned it and was told that the local place could get away with it because they did not deal with interstate commerce where the chain did. That small point gave the local place an out under AZ law.

I don't think that has anything to do with it. My mother worked for national chains and small places and the same rules applied. Years ago I used to deliver pizza on the weekends and one night a week after work. He paid well under minimum because of the tips I was expected to make, and there were no franchise pizza places back then.

My last job didn't pay any overtime. It didn't matter whether you worked 35 hours or 55 hours. Drivers were exempt from the time and a half laws everybody else was covered by. Different rules for different groups of people.

 

[Lesh]

And we've always had that as well. People found a way to get by.

Now it's children, tomorrow it will be mortgage payments, then car payments, we've already advanced to government paying peoples rent for crying out loud. When is the stopping point of taxpayers supporting the irresponsible actions of others? Our founders never wanted this because every time you rely on the federal government to solve your problems, you lose a little liberty at the same time and they knew that hundreds of years ago.

The only children we should be thinking about are the ones that are eventually going to have to deal with this massive debt, because yes, it's going to have to be addressed long after I'm off this planet.

Yea...helping the poor is a 'slippery slope" huh?

Bullshit

 

[Concerned American]

Different rules for different groups of people.
I guess there is a difference in OH law.

 

[Crepitus]

Okay, he lied because as long as I've been alive, nobody could survive on their own making minimum wage. I couldn't do it back in the 70's, and people can't do it today. Nothing has changed. It's a leftist lie that at one time you could live on minimum wage.

Were you born in 1938?

 

[Lisa558]

The problem is not that rich are Rich but that the Poor are poor through unequal protection of the laws.

The poor are poor because they haven’t taken advantage of the free job training we offer in this country - and education is the way out of poverty. Could be because they just aren’t motivated, or maybe they don‘t have the ability, or maybe they saddled themselves with two kids by the age of 20. Whatever the reason, it is NOT because we haven’t taken sufficient amounts of money from the wealthy to give to the poor and turn them into the middle class.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yea...helping the poor is a 'slippery slope" huh?

Bullshit

The problem with helping people is many stop helping themselves in the process. Too much work, too much responsibility. Who needs it? I'll just mindlessly do what I want and whatever happens, call the government to solve my problems.

If you want to help the poor, work at a soup kitchen a few evenings a week. Contribute to religious organizations that help the homeless. Maybe buy a few blankets in the winter time and give them to the homeless yourself.

I don't know where you people on the left get this notion that the only way to help people is exclusively through your federal government.

 

[Crepitus]

When others take their place they need the capital to do so. Higher wages would discourage such investments. What you people on the left don't realize is that when your employer raises your wage by $1.00 an hour, it costs them more than that dollar.

History says you're wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Were you born in 1938?

Not too far off, 1960. And back then nobody could live off of minimum wage by themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

History says you're wrong.

Wrong about what? I have $12,000 to invest in a business, but my startup cost thanks to higher wages is $14,000. I can't open up that business.

 

[Crepitus]

It isn't their job. What planet do you live on? Their job is for their business to succeed.

How are they gonna do that of their employees starve to death? Do you seriously think that an employer has no duty to their employees at all?


The American dream is dead.

 

[Crepitus]

I agree that any full time job, permanent job, should pay enough to support a person a child at least. But this isn't 1932. Society changed. We have many blended households with parents who don't work full time because they trade off taking care of kids, and their incomes need to stay under an amount to quality for healthcare, food assistance and even housing assistance.
It's where I break with the more liberal progressives. Imo we should focus more of the stability of soc sec and medicare, and make sure people can access that with the employment histories of today, rather than 1980 or 1932. Expand "free" breakfast and lunch at school ... esp with kids not having a mom to pack that peanut butter sammy. Expand Obamacare. In short, support working familes while realizing the 40 hour week is not really the reality for many

I'm on board with all of that and don't see any reason not to do both.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How are they gonna do that of their employees starve to death? Do you seriously think that an employer has no duty to their employees at all?


The American dream is dead.

The duty of an employer is to pay the employee the money they BOTH agreed on.

The American dream is dead.......for people that don't wish to pursue it.