Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[bendog]

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?

Bump.

If someone would like to answer this, I would still be pleased to hear their input.

I'll check back later to see if there are people who are willing to discuss specific parameters.

There are two aspects to your question.

1. Does the Wal-Mart worker with six kids work as best he can, and does he support the six kids to the best of his ability OR is he a malinger? Both answers are possibilities. If he is not a malinger, then there is no moral or civil reason NOT to want his and his family's outcome to be a liveable wage. I leave the definition of that to others.

2. Assuming he is not a malinger, then the question becomes to what extent can society help. We have flat or declining wages for the middle class, so I'd say asking them for a little help is not only impossible but politically a non-starter. But can his and his family's situation be improved with little impact upon other workers? Given the increasing wealth dispartity, I think the answer's an obvious yes.

My interjection of Obamacare is simply that, while it is a flawed law imposed by left leaning elitists, what is the objection to raising money from healthcare providers by taxing them, and then turning around and sending the money right back to them with customers paying with the tax money? Further, what is wrong with using money my insurer is already paying for subsizing uninsured? I can't see any net negative effects. The real issue in healthcare is costs rising faster than inflation. Whether obamacare really helps that or not is an entirely different issue.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes. Livable wage as long as you have a job and are trying to make ends meet.

Livable to maybe live in mom's basement and pitch in on food?? Yeah... Livable as in a private place, car, xbox, fathering kids, etc?? Nope.. Work up or work more to have or do those things

 

[DiamondDave]

No it's simply a dodge. Insurers make more money with more customers, as do providers. So, there is "more revenue." Costs initially rose slower, but now they appear to be increasing. The question is why and how do you stop it. If the answer is the newly insured cost more per avg patient, then again the question is why.

But again I question the premise of the OP. Yes, there are malingers. But, there are many working poor working two or more jobs. Why do we want these people to not have healthcare or an affordable wage if we can do it without cutting our won throats.

So you tax the healthcare industry, they raise rates to cover it, how is that not cutting our own throats? My insurance in the end went up 30% this year, and I'm happy about that given that initially it was supposed to triple.

How do you not grasp that costs don't go away just because you stick someone else with them? They come right back.

the question is WHY did your rates go up 30%. The overall HC industry got some 8 million or so new customers. Was the increased revenue it received from those customers not sufficient for them to pay the tax without raising prices? We don't know ... yet. Was the cost of the subsidies not fully covered by the taxes on the industry, and thereby driving up defictis? We don't know.

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well .... even if the cost to ourselves is minimal.

It may be the cost is actually much more than minimal. If that's the case, then I'd say we need to look to how to make the cost less .... or at least apply the cost to .... say the shareholders of McDonalds or Wal-Mart. But if the opposition is simply "I got mine Jack," that's a different story.

Maybe it should not be covering every last aspect so that you do not even know what is being paid? Maybe with it being secret, you don't negotiate for services or show around??

Jeez.. The aspect of a blanket insurance where you don't know shit about what is going on from all sides IS the issue

 

[bendog]

So you tax the healthcare industry, they raise rates to cover it, how is that not cutting our own throats? My insurance in the end went up 30% this year, and I'm happy about that given that initially it was supposed to triple.

How do you not grasp that costs don't go away just because you stick someone else with them? They come right back.

the question is WHY did your rates go up 30%. The overall HC industry got some 8 million or so new customers. Was the increased revenue it received from those customers not sufficient for them to pay the tax without raising prices? We don't know ... yet. Was the cost of the subsidies not fully covered by the taxes on the industry, and thereby driving up defictis? We don't know.

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well .... even if the cost to ourselves is minimal.

It may be the cost is actually much more than minimal. If that's the case, then I'd say we need to look to how to make the cost less .... or at least apply the cost to .... say the shareholders of McDonalds or Wal-Mart. But if the opposition is simply "I got mine Jack," that's a different story.

Maybe it should not be covering every last aspect so that you do not even know what is being paid? Maybe with it being secret, you don't negotiate for services or show around??

Jeez.. The aspect of a blanket insurance where you don't know shit about what is going on from all sides IS the issue

That's a central criticism of Obamacare that I agree with, but I think arguing the actual merits or demerits of the law's effectiveness hijacked the thread. I only brought it up because Krugman's thesis in conscience of a liberal is that poltically we can force a payraise for the working poor without costing us other workers a dime. I don't see a reason why not to try an make society have better outcomes is inherently wrong.

 

[hazlnut]

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?

With your limited examples, no.

"living wage" referes to jobs we think of as low turnaround positions or careers with promotion opportunities etc. Thus, many full-time Wal-mart employees should be paid a living wage.

Keep in mind, the airline industry has changed so much that pilots are sometimes forced to work a second job or go on food stamps.

For anyone who is on food stamps, we need to ask, should their employers be paying them more.


Back in the 50's - 60's people could work in a restaurant and support a family-- wealth was distributed evenly and fairly.

 

[kaz]

the question is WHY did your rates go up 30%. The overall HC industry got some 8 million or so new customers. Was the increased revenue it received from those customers not sufficient for them to pay the tax without raising prices? We don't know ... yet. Was the cost of the subsidies not fully covered by the taxes on the industry, and thereby driving up defictis? We don't know.

The pt is, it seems to me the OP and your posts evidence a belief that we should do nothing to help those who try hard but don't do as well .... even if the cost to ourselves is minimal.

It may be the cost is actually much more than minimal. If that's the case, then I'd say we need to look to how to make the cost less .... or at least apply the cost to .... say the shareholders of McDonalds or Wal-Mart. But if the opposition is simply "I got mine Jack," that's a different story.

Maybe it should not be covering every last aspect so that you do not even know what is being paid? Maybe with it being secret, you don't negotiate for services or show around??

Jeez.. The aspect of a blanket insurance where you don't know shit about what is going on from all sides IS the issue

That's a central criticism of Obamacare that I agree with, but I think arguing the actual merits or demerits of the law's effectiveness hijacked the thread. I only brought it up because Krugman's thesis in conscience of a liberal is that poltically we can force a payraise for the working poor without costing us other workers a dime. I don't see a reason why not to try an make society have better outcomes is inherently wrong.

I don't know what "inherently wrong" means, but I do know that we've spent trillions on the war on poverty and haven't dented poverty rates. Unemployment taxes increase employment because employers then avoid hiring people and lay them off faster. The minimum wage increases unemployment because no one pays workers what they are not worth. The war on poverty has also created multi-generational government dependency.

The list of failures of the social welfare state is endless and the list of successes non-existent. Is there not some point where rather than saying let's ignore all that and start yet ANOTHER welfare/redistribution program we start to analyze our failures and figure out why the existing programs are failing, THEN consider a new one?

I realize you're a liberal and you're going to think liberal things, I just went off before because I am so sick of the part you started on where if one doesn't believe in government redistribution then one doesn't believe in charity. That really is lame.

 

[Fishlore]

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?

Amelia's questions are understandable. The "right to be paid enough to support a family" is a slogan not a plan. The idea is clear enough although there are many different was to define the specifics. Advocates of the $15/hr minimum wage came up with that dollar figure based on calcualtions and assumptions which are available on a number of websites.

As a point of historiy: when the federal minimum wage law was first passed, it was the stated guide that the minimum wage should be 2/3 of the factory wage. That $15 figure is pretty close.

 

[g5000]

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?

Why would someone quit a "computer job", whatever that means, and go to work at a much harder job at WalMart? Your point is based on a false premise.

 

[bendog]

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?

Amelia's questions are understandable. The "right to be paid enough to support a family" is a slogan not a plan. The idea is clear enough although there are many different was to define the specifics. Advocates of the $15/hr minimum wage came up with that dollar figure based on calcualtions and assumptions which are available on a number of websites.

As a point of historiy: when the federal minimum wage law was first passed, it was the stated guide that the minimum wage should be 2/3 of the factory wage. That $15 figure is pretty close.

Agreed. I just wonder who would support a minimum wage, or requirement that some benefits be paid with wages, in the first place.

 

[Amelia]

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?

Bump.

If someone would like to answer this, I would still be pleased to hear their input.

I'll check back later to see if there are people who are willing to discuss specific parameters.

There are two aspects to your question.

1. Does the Wal-Mart worker with six kids work as best he can, and does he support the six kids to the best of his ability OR is he a malinger? Both answers are possibilities. If he is not a malinger, then there is no moral or civil reason NOT to want his and his family's outcome to be a liveable wage. I leave the definition of that to others.

2. Assuming he is not a malinger, then the question becomes to what extent can society help. We have flat or declining wages for the middle class, so I'd say asking them for a little help is not only impossible but politically a non-starter. But can his and his family's situation be improved with little impact upon other workers? Given the increasing wealth dispartity, I think the answer's an obvious yes.



<Obamacare question snipped, in part because it refers to technical matters I don't know about>

So if a stocker at Wal-Mart is a good worker, he should be able to expect to support a family of 8 on his stocker wages?

Should every Wal-Mart stocker receive a high enough wage to support a family of 8?

 

[g5000]

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

A person with a paper route should be paid enough to support themselves, provided they are working full time.

If they cannot afford a family on their income, they should not start a family.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bump.

If someone would like to answer this, I would still be pleased to hear their input.

I'll check back later to see if there are people who are willing to discuss specific parameters.

There are two aspects to your question.

1. Does the Wal-Mart worker with six kids work as best he can, and does he support the six kids to the best of his ability OR is he a malinger? Both answers are possibilities. If he is not a malinger, then there is no moral or civil reason NOT to want his and his family's outcome to be a liveable wage. I leave the definition of that to others.

2. Assuming he is not a malinger, then the question becomes to what extent can society help. We have flat or declining wages for the middle class, so I'd say asking them for a little help is not only impossible but politically a non-starter. But can his and his family's situation be improved with little impact upon other workers? Given the increasing wealth dispartity, I think the answer's an obvious yes.



<Obamacare question snipped, in part because it refers to technical matters I don't know about>

So if a stocker at Wal-Mart is a good worker, he should be able to expect to support a family of 8 on his stocker wages?

Should every Wal-Mart stocker receive a high enough wage to support a family of 8?

Can you start at 1 or 2 first. Using the Duggars (from 18 kids and counting) as an example doesnt help

 

[dblack]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

 

[Fishlore]

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?

Amelia's questions are understandable. The "right to be paid enough to support a family" is a slogan not a plan. The idea is clear enough although there are many different was to define the specifics. Advocates of the $15/hr minimum wage came up with that dollar figure based on calcualtions and assumptions which are available on a number of websites.

As a point of historiy: when the federal minimum wage law was first passed, it was the stated guide that the minimum wage should be 2/3 of the factory wage. That $15 figure is pretty close.

Agreed. I just wonder who would support a minimum wage, or requirement that some benefits be paid with wages, in the first place.

Raising the minimum wage is the direct antithesis of cutting taxes on the 1% both economically and politically. The former is the mechanism for trickle-up economics, the latter is the mechanism for trickle-down economics. You pays your money (in campaign contributions) and you takes your choice.

 

[kaz]

So if a stocker at Wal-Mart is a good worker, he should be able to expect to support a family of 8 on his stocker wages?

Should every Wal-Mart stocker receive a high enough wage to support a family of 8?

Why should a teenager in their first job earn enough to support a family either?

As an employer, I have a question. If someone didn't work at school, didn't get an education and didn't learn a trade that pays more. Why is it that the fact that they are not worth a wage to support their family on me? Isn't it on them?

 

[g5000]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

For the most part, I believe the market should decide. A salary should be commensurate with the amount of skill or knowledge required to perform the job.

However, history has shown that the lower the skills required for a job, the more prone the workers are to being exploited by the business owner. Therefore, some worker protections need to be in place. Unions can fill most of that gap, but government must also play a part.


It is also incumbent upon each individual to possess the necessary drive to excel and acquire the skills and knowledge to achieve success.

In other words, the responsibilities must be shared.

 

[dblack]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

For the most part, I believe the market should decide. A salary should be commensurate with the amount of skill or knowledge required to perform the job.

However, history has shown that the lower the skills required for a job, the more prone the workers are to being exploited by the business owner. Therefore, some worker protections need to be in place. Unions can fill most of that gap, but government must also play a part.


It is also incumbent upon each individual to possess the necessary drive to excel and acquire the skills and knowledge to achieve success.

In other words, the responsibilities must be shared.

So, people can't be trusted to make the decision for themselves? That's really what we're talking about, right? We're telling them, "It doesn't matter whether you're willing to work for less, if you can't find a job earning at least our idea of the acceptable minimum, tough luck. You can't work."

 

[kaz]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

For the most part, I believe the market should decide. A salary should be commensurate with the amount of skill or knowledge required to perform the job.

However, history has shown that the lower the skills required for a job, the more prone the workers are to being exploited by the business owner. Therefore, some worker protections need to be in place. Unions can fill most of that gap, but government must also play a part.


It is also incumbent upon each individual to possess the necessary drive to excel and acquire the skills and knowledge to achieve success.

In other words, the responsibilities must be shared.

So you think there are workers who are not qualified to realize they could get a better job somewhere else? Based on what exactly?

 

[g5000]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

For the most part, I believe the market should decide. A salary should be commensurate with the amount of skill or knowledge required to perform the job.

However, history has shown that the lower the skills required for a job, the more prone the workers are to being exploited by the business owner. Therefore, some worker protections need to be in place. Unions can fill most of that gap, but government must also play a part.


It is also incumbent upon each individual to possess the necessary drive to excel and acquire the skills and knowledge to achieve success.

In other words, the responsibilities must be shared.

So, people can't be trusted to make the decision for themselves? That's really what we're talking about, right? We're telling them, "It doesn't matter whether you're willing to work for less, if you can't find a job earning at least our idea of the acceptable minimum, tough luck. You can't work."

I have mixed feelings about a minimum wage. You seem to be unfamiliar with human nature.

There will always be people who are desperate enough that they will work for starvation wages, and business owners have exploited that fact. If they guy next to you trying to get a job at the loading dock is willing to work for ten cents an hour, it forces you to accept the same.

 

[g5000]

I'm my view, the question isn't really how much people should be paid but, rather, who should decide. Should government make the call, our should it be up to the individuals involved?

For the most part, I believe the market should decide. A salary should be commensurate with the amount of skill or knowledge required to perform the job.

However, history has shown that the lower the skills required for a job, the more prone the workers are to being exploited by the business owner. Therefore, some worker protections need to be in place. Unions can fill most of that gap, but government must also play a part.


It is also incumbent upon each individual to possess the necessary drive to excel and acquire the skills and knowledge to achieve success.

In other words, the responsibilities must be shared.

So you think there are workers who are not qualified to realize they could get a better job somewhere else? Based on what exactly?

A better job somewhere else? That sounds like a false premise.