Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Zombie_Pundit]

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?

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Here in the United States employers do have an obligation to pay a minimum wage that may be higher than the market wage if the market wage could be determined in those low wage cases.
The law is the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. You might want to google that.

In terms of justification, well, I shall appeal to the authority of SCOTUS.

"...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 are, of course, free to disagree with SCOTUS and attempt to raise the issue with the court again.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

Still wrong. Either the employee earns enough money from one employer or he gets another employer.

If you don't earn enough to support a family, you have 2 choices
#1: Don't start a family.
#2: Earn more money.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

There is nothing requiring the taxpayers to support anyone, so your argument is bogus from the get-go.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Here in the United States employers do have an obligation to pay a minimum wage that may be higher than the market wage if the market wage could be determined in those low wage cases.
The law is the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. You might want to google that.

In terms of justification, well, I shall appeal to the authority of SCOTUS.

"...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 are, of course, free to disagree with SCOTUS and attempt to raise the issue with the court again.

You resorted to a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority. The justices on the court are nothing but a gang political hacks chosen specifically to make the decisions the politicians want them to make. Their decisions have nothing to do with the objective facts. The bottom line is that nothing in the Constitution mandates a minimum wage. The idea that it does is utterly laughable.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clearly, arguendo, if it was worth while to have a minimum wage then it should be indexed to either inflation, or some other measure selected based on whatever was used to support creation of minimum wage in the first place. One could and should say the same about AMT. It makes no sense for AMT not to be indexed. So yes, it makes no sense for minimum wage not to be indexed.

That said, I'd prefer our government spend it's time breaking up monopolies that monopolize labor rates, vs. setting a supposed minimum bar for the worth of supposed minimum value labor in this country. It seems to me minimum wages are an excuse for government to forgo their job of breaking up labor rate monopolies.

I agree, and thank you for granting that for the sake of argument at least.

When you say "monopolies that monopolize labor rates" to which entities are you referring? I apologize if you have explained this already. This thread is massive.

Couple examples at two extremes:
1) Corporate executives that set their own salaries based on the salaries of other corporate executives, and do so using a board of directors selected from said other corporate executives. This all to the exclusion of input from the owners of said companies (the stock holders).

2) Labor rates for everything from farm pickers to software engineers are manipulated by the largest corporate employers, said employers exchange pay rates, discuss pay strategies and collude to achieve lower average pay rates and set scales across their various industries.

Granted these are oligopolies. But the same applies in situations where a company like walmart comes into a town runs all the small businesses out of business and thus monopolizes the wage rate for that town by being the only store in town still in business.

Really it's hard to find a single profession where there are no monopolies & oligopolies fighting behind the scenes to reduce labor rates.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well you clearly love big government and spending. That's a good start.

No the politicians that have changed the rules so as to make getting on the dole easier than ever before and people like you who think they did the right thing by doing so are the ones who like big government

Then lets talk numbers. What is the cut off point for food stamps?

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look at the unemployment rate. Not many other options out there.

Unemployment Rates for States

Half of the states have unemployment under 6%

5% is generally given as where we want to be. Only 16 states make that mark. That leaves 34 above it.

Really you want to quibble over 1% ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A living wage is preferable to the wage of the dead since the dead don't do work and thus don't earn anything.

I oppose the dead wage.

You should too.

I've seen a lot of people working places who i thought were dead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

 

[Brain357]

No the politicians that have changed the rules so as to make getting on the dole easier than ever before and people like you who think they did the right thing by doing so are the ones who like big government

Then lets talk numbers. What is the cut off point for food stamps?

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

So $958 for an individual per month? You are going to tell me that is not poor? That might be rent alone depending where you live. Rent will certainly be a huge percent of it. That doesn't leave much for health, clothing, food...

 

[jillian]

Then lets talk numbers. What is the cut off point for food stamps?

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

So $958 for an individual per month? You are going to tell me that is not poor? That might be rent alone depending where you live. Rent will certainly be a huge percent of it. That doesn't leave much for health, clothing, food...

depending on where you live, that can be less than half of rent.

 

[Brain357]

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

 

[Brain357]

Unemployment Rates for States

Half of the states have unemployment under 6%

5% is generally given as where we want to be. Only 16 states make that mark. That leaves 34 above it.

Really you want to quibble over 1% ?

Yes. 1% of a very large number is still a very large number.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then lets talk numbers. What is the cut off point for food stamps?

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

So $958 for an individual per month? You are going to tell me that is not poor? That might be rent alone depending where you live. Rent will certainly be a huge percent of it. That doesn't leave much for health, clothing, food...

Share an apartment with a few people. I know that the concept of a roommate(s) is relatively new but really it's a good way to reduce expenses.

Or one can rent a single room instead of an apartment.

The ACA provides subsidized insurance does it not? One can buy clothes from secondary outlets and thrift shops. The first suit I ever bought was from a thrift shop.

And I'm not quibbling about the definition of "poor" I'm saying that a person can make enough to support themselves and it is their responsibility not their employer's .

 

[Skull Pilot]

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

No the person either supports himself or the government does. The idea that any 40 hour a week job should be enough to support a family is a new concept pushed by people who want more control over the private sector.

 

[rightwinger]

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

No the person either supports himself or the government does. The idea that any 40 hour a week job should be enough to support a family is a new concept pushed by people who want more control over the private sector.

The private sector benefits from those tax dollars. Without those tax dollars, they would not get workers in high cost of living areas.

 

[zeke]

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

No the person either supports himself or the government does. The idea that any 40 hour a week job should be enough to support a family is a new concept pushed by people who want more control over the private sector.

Really? How many other jobs do your employees have? And don't you feel kinda bad sometimes (I know, not likely but maybe) that your full time employees make so little that they have to have a second or third job to support their families? Don't you think a person working 40 hours a week should be able to go home, rest, enjoy a meal and some family time all before coming back to your place of employment to make you a lot of money?

Instead, you want that employee to rush home, wolf some food, say hi to the kids and head out the door for another 6 or 7 hours of work. Then they can come to your place of work and do a shitty job for you because they've been working for the past 15 hours or so.

What a great idea you have? Not.

 

[Brain357]

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

No the person either supports himself or the government does. The idea that any 40 hour a week job should be enough to support a family is a new concept pushed by people who want more control over the private sector.

No the government supports them. Stats for walmart:
They receive $2.66 billion in government help each year (including $1 billion in healthcare assistance). That works out to about $5,815 per worker. And about $420,000 per store. But the federal and state aid varies widely; in Wisconsin, a study found that it was at least $904,542 a year per store.
How Walmart's Low Wages Cost All Americans, Not Just Its Workers

So tax payers get big bill and the waltons make billions.

Now you can argue if they should be able to collect, but the fact is they can and do now. I don't see any politician changing that.

 

[rightwinger]

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

Still wrong. Either the employee earns enough money from one employer or he gets another employer.

If you don't earn enough to support a family, you have 2 choices
#1: Don't start a family.
#2: Earn more money.

What is so hard to understand?

We have over 30 million workers needing government aid. Many started families before the economic downturn. They still deserve the right to have families. It is what humans do.
There is not enough overtime, part time work or begging that will support 30 million people

Either the taxpayer pays or the employer does.....I say the employer

 

[zeke]

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

No the person either supports himself or the government does. The idea that any 40 hour a week job should be enough to support a family is a new concept pushed by people who want more control over the private sector.

Then there is this little bullshit nugget.
Plenty of employees working full time that need government assistance to make it. That way the burden of having employees making enough money to survive becomes the problem of the government instead of the employer.

So that would make your bullshit wrong again.

Do you require your employees to seek government assistance so you can pay them less?