Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Brain357]

What a dumb ass. Is this supposed to be serious?

I think communism will give you the results you want.

You've sent more than one kid home from the playground crying, haven't you? Are you actually eight, or do you just have the mind of an eight year old?

I'm quite old actually. Sorry, but you seem to be a closet communist. You seem rather childish to me, how old are you?

 

[Brain357]

What about not subsidizing workers so that they won't take jobs that won't pay the bills ?

If nobody shows up, then Wal-Mart can either raise wages or they can do without.

Government NOT give people welfare? I don't get it, how would that work exactly?

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level. This would not only bring some jobs back to this country but increase wages for those that are here now. More employment and better wages will increase spending which will be good for all businesses.

 

[Listening]

Government NOT give people welfare? I don't get it, how would that work exactly?

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level.

Which is laughable given that we are still in deficit spending. Those tax breaks just get handed on to our children in the form an even larger bill.

Nope. It's time to let the market go to work.

 

[dblack]

Government NOT give people welfare? I don't get it, how would that work exactly?

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level. This would not only bring some jobs back to this country but increase wages for those that are here now. More employment and better wages will increase spending which will be good for all businesses.

For fuck's sake no. Government has no right to coerce behavior via the tax code.

 

[Brain357]

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level.

Which is laughable given that we are still in deficit spending. Those tax breaks just get handed on to our children in the form an even larger bill.

Nope. It's time to let the market go to work.

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

 

[Brain357]

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level. This would not only bring some jobs back to this country but increase wages for those that are here now. More employment and better wages will increase spending which will be good for all businesses.

For fuck's sake no. Government has no right to coerce behavior via the tax code.

It's done all the time. This would give companies a chance at 0 taxes. You are against that?

We see what happens without incentive. Waltons make billions while paying employees so little they collect welfare. The government grows...

 

[dblack]

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level. This would not only bring some jobs back to this country but increase wages for those that are here now. More employment and better wages will increase spending which will be good for all businesses.

For fuck's sake no. Government has no right to coerce behavior via the tax code.

It's done all the time. This would give companies a chance at 0 taxes. You are against that?

Absolutely. Taxes should be applied equally, not used as a carrot and stick to coerce "desired" behaviour.

 

[Listening]

Politically I don't think you'll see anyone cut welfare. And in our current environment I don't think there are other jobs to choose from.

I think it would be much more effective to give companies tax incentives to hire here, pay good wages, and give good benefits. Let the company pay 0 taxes if they are doing all those things at a high level.

Which is laughable given that we are still in deficit spending. Those tax breaks just get handed on to our children in the form an even larger bill.

Nope. It's time to let the market go to work.

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Brain357]

For fuck's sake no. Government has no right to coerce behavior via the tax code.

It's done all the time. This would give companies a chance at 0 taxes. You are against that?

Absolutely. Taxes should be applied equally, not used as a carrot and stick to coerce "desired" behaviour.

You must not be a Republican then. They are constantly using taxes for that purpose.

How would you fix this mess then? I grow very tired of this stagnant economy.

 

[Brain357]

Which is laughable given that we are still in deficit spending. Those tax breaks just get handed on to our children in the form an even larger bill.

Nope. It's time to let the market go to work.

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes and it's not for incentives to create jobs or pay higher wages. I would wipe out the current corporate taxes and replace them. If GE wants to still pay 0 they better be paying good wages.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

 

[dblack]

It's done all the time. This would give companies a chance at 0 taxes. You are against that?

Absolutely. Taxes should be applied equally, not used as a carrot and stick to coerce "desired" behaviour.

You must not be a Republican then. They are constantly using taxes for that purpose.

Gawd, no.

How would you fix this mess then? I grow very tired of this stagnant economy.

I'd work harder and make more money. What would you do?

 

[Listening]

Those tax breaks would be replaced by income tax from more people employed and people making more. Also the welfare bill would go down because there are more people employed.

Without more jobs for people to go to wages aren't going to increase. And like I said politically nobody would dare to cut welfare.

Have you thought about what you are saying. Tax breaks for the Walton's ? Really ?

How do you come up with welfare going down ? When people see the government subsidizing them...they'll say "not me", right ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q]Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube[/ame]

Tax breaks for corporations yes. In return for creating jobs and good wages. Companies like GE already pay 0 taxes.

Welfare would go down because more and better paying jobs would be available. Right now people are working at Walmart and still collecting welfare. That would be eliminated if these people were paid more. In theory walmart would make up for the increase wages in tax break. Everybody wins.

No, the Waltons win as does GE.

This is nothing more than cost shifting.

 

[SAYIT]

Right now your tax dollars are going to make the Waltons richer.

No, they are not, but please explain whose wealth you would have our gov't confiscate to satisfy the min wagers.

Look, I understand opposing the minimum wage, but this is just ridiculous. Do you understand how the minimum wage works? It is a price control such that no one can buy an hour of labor for less than some specified amount.

I do not oppose a min wage based on market realities (which is what I believe we have). Your need to put your words in my mouth continues because it's the only way you can continue to whine. There is nothing keeping an employer from paying more, again based on the same market realities, nor is anything keeping a worker from demanding more or moving on. I just don't support some feel-good number you consider to be a "living wage" (whatever that is).
So the question remains ... whose wealth you would have our gov't confiscate to satisfy you and the min wagers?

 

[Brain357]

Absolutely. Taxes should be applied equally, not used as a carrot and stick to coerce "desired" behaviour.

You must not be a Republican then. They are constantly using taxes for that purpose.

Gawd, no.

How would you fix this mess then? I grow very tired of this stagnant economy.

I'd work harder and make more money. What would you do?

That doesn't sound like a plan at all. I've been working hard for many years yet it stays stagnant.

 

[SAYIT]

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

That is determined by the gov't. They set the bar - often for political expediency rather than rational reasons - at the point which we must pay the entitled. Those legislators are often elected by peeps who then directly benefit from their election ... in effect having their votes purchased from the gov't till. America is now an Ineptocracy where the least capable to lead are elected by the members of society least likely to sustain themselves and who are, in return, rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers, thus killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

 

[dblack]

You must not be a Republican then. They are constantly using taxes for that purpose.

Gawd, no.

How would you fix this mess then? I grow very tired of this stagnant economy.

I'd work harder and make more money. What would you do?

That doesn't sound like a plan at all. I've been working hard for many years yet it stays stagnant.

It's my plan.

It's not the job of government, in a free society, to control the economy.

 

[SAYIT]

You must not be a Republican then. They are constantly using taxes for that purpose.

Gawd, no.

How would you fix this mess then? I grow very tired of this stagnant economy.

I'd work harder and make more money. What would you do?

That doesn't sound like a plan at all. I've been working hard for many years yet it stays stagnant.

It's good to work hard but better to work smart. Try it.

 

[1776]

Liberals always want to fix things for people who fuck up.

Have 4 kids with no HS degree....well your job should pay you $40K no matter what.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Which begs the obvious question. Why was the wording left so vague as to depend on a term as subjective as the "bare cost of living?" Clearly that is in the eye of the beholder and unlike the min wage, varies from place to place.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

What is so hard to understand? According to the socialist rationale, those of us over-taxed to supplement the wages (or lack of wages) of the poor must have no say in who gets our help nor how much they receive.