Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[OnePercenter]

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.

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

 

[The T]

The employees do.

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

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

Is that what he stated? NO. Whatever the position PAYS per the company structure.

YOU twist and turn for the WORM that you are.

 

[jasonnfree]

Then how is someone meant to survive on a casual wage?

They shouldn't EXPECT IT...but then WHY did they take the JOB? They ENTERED into a Contract...LEGAL. They HAVE the option to QUIT for something BETTER, now don't they?

Except there is not enough full time, decent paying jobs to go around, is there?

There were more full time and well paying jobs in the 60's and 70's I'm here to say. More unions too, of course. Reagan and the conservatives hated this and worked for decades to change it. They finally have. Even blue collar republican voters think this is great. Must be something in the beer or coffee they drink.

 

[OKTexas]

The employees do.

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

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

Damn you're stupid, the clerk isn't charging anything the company is, and in most cases the revenue is automatically deposited when you swipe your debit or credit card, so the clerk is pretty much a bystander, there just to make sure the transaction goes smoothly. Hell many companies have replaced the clerks with self checkout lines where no clerk is involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have yet to move up the ignorant scale.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

If a husband and wife both work full-time, they should be able to afford to pay their rent, put food on the table, and not have to worry about health insurance. That doesn't mean living the high life. It also means they should not need government aid on top of their wages to make it.

One of the biggest problems with the minimum wage is that when we discuss it, we generally do not take into account cost of living by area. If someone believes the minimum wage should be $15 per hour, is that for those living in New York City, or those living in Mississippi, or both? Obviously it costs much more to make it in NY City than it does in Mississippi or even Ohio.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

Is that what he stated? NO. Whatever the position PAYS per the company structure.

YOU twist and turn for the WORM that you are.

'contributes to a different degree'. Charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company ISN'T a different degree?

'Whatever the position PAYS per the company structure', is an excuse, NOT a reason.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

Damn you're stupid, the clerk isn't charging anything the company is, and in most cases the revenue is automatically deposited when you swipe your debit or credit card, so the clerk is pretty much a bystander, there just to make sure the transaction goes smoothly. Hell many companies have replaced the clerks with self checkout lines where no clerk is involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have yet to move up the ignorant scale.

The clerk MAKES it happen, is not a bystander, and makes sure that the price charged is correct.

 

[OKTexas]

So the clerk that charges for product and collects ALL of the revenue for the company should make BIG BUCKS......RIGHT?

Damn you're stupid, the clerk isn't charging anything the company is, and in most cases the revenue is automatically deposited when you swipe your debit or credit card, so the clerk is pretty much a bystander, there just to make sure the transaction goes smoothly. Hell many companies have replaced the clerks with self checkout lines where no clerk is involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have yet to move up the ignorant scale.

The clerk MAKES it happen, is not a bystander, and makes sure that the price charged is correct.

Wrong again clodhopper, the scanner does that, doesn't matter if the clerk passes the product past it or the customer in the self checkout.

 

[OnePercenter]

Damn you're stupid, the clerk isn't charging anything the company is, and in most cases the revenue is automatically deposited when you swipe your debit or credit card, so the clerk is pretty much a bystander, there just to make sure the transaction goes smoothly. Hell many companies have replaced the clerks with self checkout lines where no clerk is involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have yet to move up the ignorant scale.

The clerk MAKES it happen, is not a bystander, and makes sure that the price charged is correct.

Wrong again clodhopper, the scanner does that, doesn't matter if the clerk passes the product past it or the customer in the self checkout.

Who monitors self check-out? Is the clerk trustworthy?

Here's a great article for ya...

Self-scan fail: Supermarkets lose billions as thieving customers help themselves

 

[OKTexas]

The clerk MAKES it happen, is not a bystander, and makes sure that the price charged is correct.

Wrong again clodhopper, the scanner does that, doesn't matter if the clerk passes the product past it or the customer in the self checkout.

Who monitors self check-out? Is the clerk trustworthy?

Here's a great article for ya...

Self-scan fail: Supermarkets lose billions as thieving customers help themselves

Just think of the new good paying jobs that will be created to improve the technology. Ain't life grand, a silver lining in every cloud.

 

[AntiParty]

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?

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

I think you need to look up the definition of fiduciary responsibility and how it relates to corporate executives. I'd give it all to ya, but what's the fun in that, you need to be informed on the topic.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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?

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

Addressing WalMart vs local country store: The minimum wage already has numerous exceptions, including an exception for any enterprise under $500k in revenue.

For the rest, there's a wonderful quote from FDR:

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000.00 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you — using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry. "​

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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?

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

I think you need to look up the definition of fiduciary responsibility and how it relates to corporate executives. I'd give it all to ya, but what's the fun in that, you need to be informed on the topic.

He means that executive is first and foremost responsible to the shareholders because the shareholders have invested not simply money but more importantly trust in that executive to manage their asset which is the company.

 

[OKTexas]

At some point we have to separate large corporations making millions/billions off of their employee's work and not paying them a fair wage vs. the small country store.

One thing is certain, Wal-Mart and others cannot make their profit without their workers who are part of the team who help create this profit. In fact, the ones making this profit probably never enter the buildings earning the majority of this profit, only the workers are there. The workers are replaceable, but again, these businesses can't stay afloat without the workers. So there is ALWAYS a team of workers helping create this profit that aren't getting a decent share.

I'm absolutely confused about people fighting for the few dozen people's mega billions when the few dozen millions aren't able to make ends meet. But that's because I was raised Christian and I'm not greedy.

The mega rich will still be mega rich if they pay a good wage and they won't have to raise prices.......Anyone who says differently is uninformed on the topic.

I think you need to look up the definition of fiduciary responsibility and how it relates to corporate executives. I'd give it all to ya, but what's the fun in that, you need to be informed on the topic.

He means that executive is first and foremost responsible to the shareholders because the shareholders have invested not simply money but more importantly trust in that executive to manage their asset which is the company.

Pretty close, but you forgot the responsibilities to their creditors such as banks and bond holders.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I think you need to look up the definition of fiduciary responsibility and how it relates to corporate executives. I'd give it all to ya, but what's the fun in that, you need to be informed on the topic.

He means that executive is first and foremost responsible to the shareholders because the shareholders have invested not simply money but more importantly trust in that executive to manage their asset which is the company.

Pretty close, but you forgot the responsibilities to their creditors such as banks and bond holders.

I also forgot the responsibilities to the employees in terms of managing the retirement benefits because this also represents a position of trust over another person's assets.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

Let's just keep it at: Executives owe allegiance to those over whose assets the executives preside.
Cool?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

"...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937

That quote is from a SCOTUS decision upholding the constitutionality of a minimum wage. The reasoning is quite clear.

You ask the question: "Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job?"
Perhaps you should ask: "Can he attend such training while working a full time job?" and "Can he afford the fees for the training on the meager wage he receives?"

Simply because we elevate someone to the line of poverty by way of a meager wage at forty hours a week does not mean we have provided any opportunity for them to actually better themselves.

What if the person is of average, but adequate, intelligence to work low level jobs no matter how hard they try. Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut. There are hard working people who simply do not have the business acumen or technical intuition to start businesses or learn difficult trades.

If opportunity is provided, and not opportunity described by some hand waving "I believe it exists...somewhere out there...over the rainbow" nonsense, those who work hard will improve their station albeit in small increments.

I actually agree with you in part. There are truly lazy people. Lazy people exist. It annoys me that a lazy person should be subsidized. But let us not jump to the conclusion that someone born to poverty or who has fallen to poverty is lazy by association.

 

[RKMBrown]

?

He asked "what gives the Federal government, or ANY government the right to force businesses to pay what the government dictates? Can YOU cite that in the Constitution?"

I provided the correct answer.

?

?

 

[RKMBrown]

Then how is someone meant to survive on a casual wage?

They shouldn't EXPECT IT...but then WHY did they take the JOB? They ENTERED into a Contract...LEGAL. They HAVE the option to QUIT for something BETTER, now don't they?

Except there is not enough full time, decent paying jobs to go around, is there?

There are an infinite number of full time decent paying jobs to go around.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No question our poor people do not suffer enough

Republicans are looking to rectify that situation

They really don't suffer at all.

Don't ya just hate it?

They are poor for a reason. If they don't suffer, everyone will want to be poor

You and I have different definitions of suffering.