Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[RKMBrown]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

The right? Sure. The mandate no. What you pay yourself and/or what your employer pays you is between you and your employer. Not between you and your government.

 

[RKMBrown]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

>> should the taxpayer make up the difference?

No.

What does substandard grocery bagging wages even mean? And what do you have against people making a living, aka profit?

 

[rightwinger]

And that is just plain wrong. They should work 60 (or 70) hours and be responsible for supporting themselves.

You guys are just clueless

You respond to a problem that affects over 30 million people with a solution that works for a single person

There are not 30 million extra jobs out there so that every person working and needing government assistance can work 60 or 70 hour weeks. Most of these people struggle to find a job that gives them 40 hour weeks
And no, there are not an additional 30 million lawn cutting jobs or babysitting jobs so the working poor can supplement their income

The taxpayer fills the void or the employer fills the void. Who would you rather have do it?

Tell you what ... when all open positions are filled we will revisit your POV but even you must know that as those jobs are filled, the economy will expand to accommodate the spending of the new employees and - BAM! - more employees will be needed.
Frankly, one such as you has no business referring to anyone else as "clueless."

Right now there are three people seeking a job for every opening. That is down from seven during the height of the recession. That is the economic reality of today's market. There are no 30 million jobs for people looking to work second jobs

The current job market also favors the employer. It provides a labor pool willing to take low wages and low benefits

Who makes up the difference? The taxpayer

 

[SAYIT]

So now that you've been shown there arent enough jobs and despite reality not supporting you you've fallen all the way down to "theres gotta be a way" as a solution.

Now THATS how you backpeddle

For anyone who has tried it, there is always a way. As for proving there aren't enough jobs, well that has yet to be done so I'll tell you what I just told RW ... when all open positions are filled we will revisit your nanny POV.

Of course there is always a way. You just dont have the think power to understand that if you find it hard to even describe what "way" there is imagine trying to pursue it

No you wont...once this then that never works and is the option of a bullshitter

Already explained it but you just don't like the idea of everyone being RESPONSIBLE for their lives ... it gets in the way of your little socialist nanny state. Grow up, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

That situation only exist in a one man shop. Otherwise there is no person who makes all the money for the company.

The employees do.

And each employee contributes to a different degree, hence different pay for different positions.

Whoa! What a novel concept!

 

[TemplarKormac]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

No. Being a grocery bagger and a stocker once, I know that those two jobs aren't meant to support a family. They are meant to get one person on their feet financially. They are meant to be a stepping stone to a career, not a career.

Personally, I believe it to be a matter of prioritization. I think one shouldn't have a family until he is in an ideal financial situation, where he will be in a position to support his family. I think that demanding a living wage is taking the work out of moving up, getting promoted, or having a more gainful career in the future.

The concept of minimum effort/maximum reward is flawed. What ever happened to people wanting to better themselves?

Kids don't wait until our finances are ideal but poorly educated babies makin' babies is a recipe for disaster for everyone.

Working is like walking, you can't go the distance by taking only one step.

 

[dblack]

You seem to have a ton of bullshit questions but cant answer any. Thats how fake logic works you cant even explain it

Huh?? I can't decide if you're just playing asinine games, or if you really are this stupid ... Your question was answered, by several of us. Responsibility for a person's 'support' lies with the person, no one else. You rejected that answer out of hand, so I'm asking, why? Why is that a 'bullshit question' to you? Sorry, but you're the one dodging reality here.

Just because you say its on that person doesnt mean it really will be. It will be on your shoulders because those people will give not one shit about you being upset and will reach out for assistance.

So again, you have only two choices because you cant make someone ignore assistance just because you want them too. They dont care what you want lol

Just because there are assistance programs available doesn't mean that government is responsible for their support. Responsibility is an indication of accountability. If the assistance programs fail to meet that need, government isn't culpable - it hasn't failed to meet some obligation. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to take care of themselves, regardless of any help they may get from safety net programs.

That's really what we're resisting here - your implication that government is responsible for meeting people's support needs. It's not. We create government to protect our rights, not to take care of us.

 

[SAYIT]

Let me explain it another way.

Guy at job doesnt get paid enough to cover expenses. His employer can kick him more money or he will look for assistance provided by you and I. Guy doesnt care that you think he should take it on the chin. So he applies for assistance provided by you and I.

Guy receives assistance and never gave one shit about your ideas of "toughening it out".

So in reality, back on earth, when it comes to substandard wages you have a choice between employer or the rest of us.

Or, Plan C ... he will do the right thing and find a better paying job or take a 2nd job like millions of others have done.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me explain it another way.

Guy at job doesnt get paid enough to cover expenses. His employer can kick him more money or he will look for assistance provided by you and I. Guy doesnt care that you think he should take it on the chin. So he applies for assistance provided by you and I.

Guy receives assistance and never gave one shit about your ideas of "toughening it out".

So in reality, back on earth, when it comes to substandard wages you have a choice between employer or the rest of us.

Ayup libtard slavery/theft of income to force us to piss away our hard earned money for shovel ready crap and worthless jobs really sucks.

 

[RKMBrown]

You guys are just clueless

You respond to a problem that affects over 30 million people with a solution that works for a single person

There are not 30 million extra jobs out there so that every person working and needing government assistance can work 60 or 70 hour weeks. Most of these people struggle to find a job that gives them 40 hour weeks
And no, there are not an additional 30 million lawn cutting jobs or babysitting jobs so the working poor can supplement their income

The taxpayer fills the void or the employer fills the void. Who would you rather have do it?

Tell you what ... when all open positions are filled we will revisit your POV but even you must know that as those jobs are filled, the economy will expand to accommodate the spending of the new employees and - BAM! - more employees will be needed.
Frankly, one such as you has no business referring to anyone else as "clueless."

Right now there are three people seeking a job for every opening. That is down from seven during the height of the recession. That is the economic reality of today's market. There are no 30 million jobs for people looking to work second jobs

The current job market also favors the employer. It provides a labor pool willing to take low wages and low benefits

Who makes up the difference? The taxpayer

Bull carp there is no limit to the number of jobs that can be created and filled. The only thing keeping people from finding work is motivation. The primary reason they are not motivated to do so is retarded hand-outs the democrats employ to keep large segments of the population voting for them indefinitely to indefinitely stay on welfare roles. Well that and high taxes, why work when the libtardians are just gonna take your wages?

 

[OKTexas]

Let me explain it another way.

Guy at job doesnt get paid enough to cover expenses. His employer can kick him more money or he will look for assistance provided by you and I. Guy doesnt care that you think he should take it on the chin. So he applies for assistance provided by you and I.

Guy receives assistance and never gave one shit about your ideas of "toughening it out".

So in reality, back on earth, when it comes to substandard wages you have a choice between employer or the rest of us.

No matter what the minimum wage is, you folks will always call it substandard, you just keep moving the goal post. Can you swear if the minimum wage is raised to 10 dollars they won't change the eligibility for assistance. Of course you can't because you know they will.

 

[RKMBrown]

I heard Ben Carson speaking on the radio about microlending and microeconomics.
So he and Obama might actually agree on this type of reform.

Why not have all parties invest in that, and organize it to cover all people at all
levels of education and business training. Why not treat govt assistance
as student and business loans, under educational plans to pay it back on a rotating basis?

Anyone can work in teams and start building a business until
all the team members are self-supporting.

Instead of handouts, why not promote microlending so that
people invest in local businesses, and pay back loans to expand development
in a business network.

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.

Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

We already have loans, we don't need government to do it for us.

 

[DGS49]

The social democracies of Europe decided long ago that they wanted their national governments to ensure that every citizen was taken care of from "cradle to grave." They then set up tax programs to fund it. That's why they pay $9 for a gallon of gas, and pay half their incomes in income tax.. Because everything is "free." Education through university, health care, elder care, unemployment compensation, etc.

We, on the other hand NEVER MADE THAT DECISION. Indeed, we would have to amend our Constitution for the Federal Government to provide all those goodies, and we would have to totally revamp our tax structure to pay for it. The citizens we often refer to as "Liberals" or "Progressives," don't actually believe that the Constitution constrains the U.S. Government from doing anything that they think is a good idea - like supplementing the wages of people who don't earn a "living wage."

But regardless of out individual political persuasions, right now, we have a population that unanimously agrees that The Government ought to take care of us, and we also agree that SOMEBODY ELSE ought to be paying for it.

Doesn't seem very realistic to me.

 

[kaz]

Let me explain it another way.

Guy at job doesnt get paid enough to cover expenses. His employer can kick him more money or he will look for assistance provided by you and I.

Which is what you've trained him to do. What he should do is work harder, invest in his own training and/or find a better job. You sadly don't even consider those possibilities, you jump right to that he'll go for welfare. Do people not have any responsibility for their own lives?

As an employer, I can tell you the #1 issue with low end workers is they don't care. Now I know you're going to come back with they don't care because they are paid so low, but you're wrong, they are paid so low because they don't care. Paying them more gives us zero care, it just gives them a fatter paycheck. Workers who care have no problem making more than minimum wage.

 

[Brain357]

Tell you what ... when all open positions are filled we will revisit your POV but even you must know that as those jobs are filled, the economy will expand to accommodate the spending of the new employees and - BAM! - more employees will be needed.
Frankly, one such as you has no business referring to anyone else as "clueless."

Right now there are three people seeking a job for every opening. That is down from seven during the height of the recession. That is the economic reality of today's market. There are no 30 million jobs for people looking to work second jobs

The current job market also favors the employer. It provides a labor pool willing to take low wages and low benefits

Who makes up the difference? The taxpayer

Bull carp there is no limit to the number of jobs that can be created and filled. The only thing keeping people from finding work is motivation. The primary reason they are not motivated to do so is retarded hand-outs the democrats employ to keep large segments of the population voting for them indefinitely to indefinitely stay on welfare roles. Well that and high taxes, why work when the libtardians are just gonna take your wages?

Have you seen the unemployment rate? Jobs aren't plentiful.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me explain it another way.

Guy at job doesnt get paid enough to cover expenses. His employer can kick him more money or he will look for assistance provided by you and I. Guy doesnt care that you think he should take it on the chin. So he applies for assistance provided by you and I.

Guy receives assistance and never gave one shit about your ideas of "toughening it out".

So in reality, back on earth, when it comes to substandard wages you have a choice between employer or the rest of us.

No matter what the minimum wage is, you folks will always call it substandard, you just keep moving the goal post. Can you swear if the minimum wage is raised to 10 dollars they won't change the eligibility for assistance. Of course you can't because you know they will.

No matter how much you give to the lazy good for nothings they will remain at the bottom of the curve. The only think you by with hand-outs is more lazy good for nothings.

 

[SillyWabbit]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

End state welfare.. corporate and individual..

You don't make enough??.. work more jobs.. or do what you have to do...

drug dealing, theft, pimping/prostitution, kidnapping (it's real big is some parts of the world), armed robbery, in home invasion...there are plenty of jobs available to those willing to take on a little risk

 

[RKMBrown]

Right now there are three people seeking a job for every opening. That is down from seven during the height of the recession. That is the economic reality of today's market. There are no 30 million jobs for people looking to work second jobs

The current job market also favors the employer. It provides a labor pool willing to take low wages and low benefits

Who makes up the difference? The taxpayer

Bull carp there is no limit to the number of jobs that can be created and filled. The only thing keeping people from finding work is motivation. The primary reason they are not motivated to do so is retarded hand-outs the democrats employ to keep large segments of the population voting for them indefinitely to indefinitely stay on welfare roles. Well that and high taxes, why work when the libtardians are just gonna take your wages?

Have you seen the unemployment rate? Jobs aren't plentiful.

The unemployment rate has nothing to do with the number of available jobs.

People who are unemployed do so voluntarily. One would have to be a complete moron to not be able to get or create a job.

 

[kaz]

Who makes up the difference? The taxpayer

So why do you care then? It's not like it affects you.

So you support the people who load down employers with taxes, regulations and mandates, then you're like WTF, where are the jobs! LOL. And now you want to burden us more regulations and cost to fix the problem. Are you familiar with Einstein's definition of insanity?

 

[rightwinger]

No. Being a grocery bagger and a stocker once, I know that those two jobs aren't meant to support a family. They are meant to get one person on their feet financially. They are meant to be a stepping stone to a career, not a career.

Personally, I believe it to be a matter of prioritization. I think one shouldn't have a family until he is in an ideal financial situation, where he will be in a position to support his family. I think that demanding a living wage is taking the work out of moving up, getting promoted, or having a more gainful career in the future.

The concept of minimum effort/maximum reward is flawed. What ever happened to people wanting to better themselves?

Kids don't wait until our finances are ideal but poorly educated babies makin' babies is a recipe for disaster for everyone.

Working is like walking, you can't go the distance by taking only one step.

How do you know?

You have never worked