Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[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?

If he doesn't make enough at one job to pay his bills then he should work 2 jobs or 3 jobs etc.

We have made it easier and easier to suck on the government tit and should address that as well.

I want to know where it is written that one 40 hour a week job is all that one needs to support himself. No one I know that ever accomplished anything only ever worked 40 hours a week.

That assumes that for the tens of millions of working Americans who need some sort of government assistance there are 2 or 3 additional jobs available. In fact, the opposite is true. There are three applicants for every job that is open

If you want to work you can.

Anyone can make some extra money and they don't have to work for someone else to do it.

I'll bet right now that anyone who really wanted to could earn an extra 100 a week mowing lawns, doing heavy yard work cleaning out attics or even cleaning houses.

The question is will they?

 

[kaz]

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.

So if they can't get a better job somewhere else, then what's the problem? The market has set their value.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

That's not best argument to try to make to conservatives, because the conservative consensus appears to be that the person who gets paid low wages should also lose all that government assistance,

so he'll genuinely fit the definition of 'working poor'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So if they can't get a better job somewhere else, then what's the problem? The market has set their value.

What if the 'market' exists in an environment that so disadvantages the workers that they have little choice but to work for 5 dollars an hour, or 3 or 2 or 1?

 

[Amelia]

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

So do you feel that every stocker should make enough to support a family of 4?

 

[Seawytch]

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

So do you feel that every stocker should make enough to support a family of 4?

A stocker used to be able to. In 1963 the salary equivalent paid to "low wage" workers was $2 an hour. Care to guess what that would be today, adjusted for inflation? Care to venture a guess?

 

[The T]

If he doesn't make enough at one job to pay his bills then he should work 2 jobs or 3 jobs etc.

We have made it easier and easier to suck on the government tit and should address that as well.

I want to know where it is written that one 40 hour a week job is all that one needs to support himself. No one I know that ever accomplished anything only ever worked 40 hours a week.

That assumes that for the tens of millions of working Americans who need some sort of government assistance there are 2 or 3 additional jobs available. In fact, the opposite is true. There are three applicants for every job that is open

If you want to work you can.

Anyone can make some extra money and they don't have to work for someone else to do it.

I'll bet right now that anyone who really wanted to could earn an extra 100 a week mowing lawns, doing heavy yard work cleaning out attics or even cleaning houses.

The question is will they?

No. It's easier to petition the Government to bilk more out of the Greedy Rich...which only exacerbates the problem.

Lazy? Yes they are...and NO they won't do it. They whine instead.

And that's the key. People have to wean themselves off the government trough and start being more independent.

 

[Amelia]

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

So do you feel that every stocker should make enough to support a family of 4?

A stocker used to be able to. In 1963 the salary equivalent paid to "low wage" workers was $2 an hour. Care to guess what that would be today, adjusted for inflation? Care to venture a guess?

Did they really? One table I looked at said that minimum wage in 1963 was $1.25 for employees engaged in things related to interstate commerce and $1 for employees engaged in retail or service. ... if I read everything correctly. (link)

$2 in 1963 would compare to $15.49 now.

$1.25 in 1963 would compare to $9.68 now.

$1 in 1963 would compare to $7.75 now.

 

[Plasmaball]

Who are these cons of whom you speak?

You're one of them

I am not a con.

 

[Mr Natural]

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

So do you feel that every stocker should make enough to support a family of 4?

A stocker used to be able to. In 1963 the salary equivalent paid to "low wage" workers was $2 an hour. Care to guess what that would be today, adjusted for inflation? Care to venture a guess?

According to the US Inflation calculator, $2 in 1963 is $15.49 in 2014.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

ill answer these...because im bored..

The paper route is a hard one because of how they already have that structured. So i have to pass on that one.

A bagger should because sometimes people get laid off and these are quick jobs they can pick up. If they dont and get a lower paying job, then they run the risk of going into massive debt.

As for your brother. No, Wages should be able to cover your nuclear family. Dad, mom, two kids. Anything beyond that is absurd. Cons love the Nuke family, so why not just use that as a basis?

Furthermore, this is part of the problem we have in society. We never think bad or argue tooth and nail when a person goes from 150k to 200k raise. ( or gets bonuses, which they dont always deserve. Looks at wall street) but when we want to raise the minimum wage for 7.50 to 10.10 the world is going to end.

Thats really screwed up.

 

[rightwinger]

If he doesn't make enough at one job to pay his bills then he should work 2 jobs or 3 jobs etc.

We have made it easier and easier to suck on the government tit and should address that as well.

I want to know where it is written that one 40 hour a week job is all that one needs to support himself. No one I know that ever accomplished anything only ever worked 40 hours a week.

That assumes that for the tens of millions of working Americans who need some sort of government assistance there are 2 or 3 additional jobs available. In fact, the opposite is true. There are three applicants for every job that is open

If you want to work you can.

Anyone can make some extra money and they don't have to work for someone else to do it.

I'll bet right now that anyone who really wanted to could earn an extra 100 a week mowing lawns, doing heavy yard work cleaning out attics or even cleaning houses.

The question is will they?

As expected, you confuse the ability of one person to make extra money with the ability of tens of millions to make extra money. You think there are tens of millions of minimum wage jobs waiting for low paid workers to take? Tens of millions of lawns waiting to be cut?

 

[hazlnut]

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?

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.

Agreed. That's why a "living wage" is important--so employees can afford to educate themselves further.

Think about it...

 

[Amelia]

So do you feel that every stocker should make enough to support a family of 4?

A stocker used to be able to. In 1963 the salary equivalent paid to "low wage" workers was $2 an hour. Care to guess what that would be today, adjusted for inflation? Care to venture a guess?

According to the US Inflation calculator, $2 in 1963 is $15.49 in 2014.

But did stockers really make $2 an hour then? That was twice the minimum wage.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Considering the OP, define substandard wages. Should they support 1 or 12?

 

[Amelia]

Thanks to all who have answered the OP. I haven't replied to each answer but I appreciate them.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Considering the OP, define substandard wages. Should they support 1 or 12?

Good question

Maybe we can talk more when minimum wage will support one person. Or god forbid, allow one person to get educated, or one person afford room and board

It used to

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Considering the OP, define substandard wages. Should they support 1 or 12?

Good question

Maybe we can talk more when minimum wage will support one person. Or god forbid, allow one person to get educated, or one person afford room and board

It used to

Tell me, how many billions have the feds and states spent over the decades for no or low cost job training programs that only low income people qualify for? We have spent several trillions of dollars on the Dept of Education and the war on poverty just to get more ignorant people and many more poor. When do we figure out it doesn't work, our so called poor live better than the middle class in allot of countries. I know it sound cruel but we make people too comfortable and have removed the motivation for them to better themselves. We can have the programs, but people have to get off their ass and take advantage.

 

[alan1]

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?

No.

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

No.

So, the answer is that it is not the governments job to provide for anybody.
As an individual, feel free to support the poor all you want to with your money and time. Don't use the government as your tool to force me to do the same for your chosen charity.

 

[dblack]

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?

No.

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

No.

So, the answer is that it is not the governments job to provide for anybody.
As an individual, feel free to support the poor all you want to with your money and time. Don't use the government as your tool to force me to do the same for your chosen charity.

Sadly, that's how most of us view government these days: a tool to force other people to do what you want.