Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[DiamondDave]

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.

Made $3.35 an hour in my first minimum wage job.. about the same equivalently as what it is today

Minimum wage should not be to support a family of 4 independently with no other job.. especially to have a place of your own, luxuries like cable, internet, cell phone, going out to eat, etc etc etc.. I remember moving out on my own the first time in 1988 working 2 ABOVE minimum jobs to SHARE an apartment, utilities, and food bills with 2 other roommates.. as it should be with the lowest level jobs... you want a family, private place to live, and luxuries.. do something to EARN more

 

[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?

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.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

There are, that's what H1-B visa's do. They fill jobs that Americans are failing to fulfill.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

The weak can die out. Darwinism. Why do you want to perpetuate the weakest of the species? Do you want our species to die out? I don't. I'd much prefer that the intelligent and strong survive, not the dumb and weak.

 

[Amelia]

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

It does where I live.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Do you really have to ask yourself why the rates went up?

Have you ever wondered why the obamacare law requires two things. Coverages in insurance for things that people don't want and will never use. That is money that comes in free and clear and defers costs to those who would otherwise not be insured.

A 30 year old man will not have need of birth control coverage, or birthing coverage, but is paying for that coverage. Since the insurance company won't have to ever spend the money for this man giving birth to a baby, they can pocket that money and use it to defray the costs of the crack addict who will need more ongoing care. It also acts like a hedge against the very real possibility that young people won't sign up for coverage at all, let alone coverage they wouldn't need.

As for a living wage. Everyone on this forum at one time or another worked for poverty wages.

The majority of us moved on to those jobs that did support our lifestyles. The key is, the responsible people fit their lifestyle to their income, not trying to fit a limited income to an expansive lifestyle.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

It does where I live.

It does if you are smart... not thinking you get luxuries etc.. not thinking you get your private pad.. not thinking you get an entertainment budget.. not thinking you get all new stuff... not thinking you get a car.. etc... that is not what most of the minimum wage jump supporters want

 

[dblack]

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.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

There are, that's what H1-B visa's do. They fill jobs that Americans are failing to fulfill.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

The weak can die out. Darwinism. Why do you want to perpetuate the weakest of the species? Do you want our species to die out? I don't. I'd much prefer that the intelligent and strong survive, not the dumb and weak.

Now I don't get that view at all. And sometimes I think otherwise well-meaning conservatives let liberals push them into corners where they say stupid crap like that without really thinking it through. As far as I see it, the hallmark of compassionate (and frankly, smart) society is how it cares for all of its members. We never know where the spark of genius will come from and it behooves us to look for the best in everyone, not just the 'fittest'.

It's a mistake to let the debate over state welfare degenerate into a argument over whether we should help the poor or not, or whether they 'deserve' to be taken care of. That has nothing to do with the question of whether the government is the proper tool for job.

 

[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.

I love it when the get real answers and ignore it for their agendas

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I can't believe it

I really can't

You respond with the same old....The poor don't suffer enough

Why don't you just get it over with and admit that conservatives demand a low cost labor pool?

 

[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?

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.

Oh I get it

Let them die

You must be conservative

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Oh I get it

Let them die

You must be conservative

No.. that would be trolling.. like so many of your brethren in here do

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I can't believe it

I really can't

You respond with the same old....The poor don't suffer enough

Why don't you just get it over with and admit that conservatives demand a low cost labor pool?

I can't believe it

I really can't

You respond with the same old....the trillions we've thrown in the shitter just isn't enough.

I see people in line at the grocery store using food stamps than have the latest Iphone and driving much nicer cars than I can afford. And I'm not talking about just minorities, so hell yeah we are making it too damned comfortable, they have no reason to change.

So tell the rest of the class, what's the solution? I don't know why I ask you have yet to answer a direct question.

 

[Impenitent]

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.

Quite possibly, he is one of those overpaid workers who drive their employers into bankruptcy.

So he loses his job and must take a low paying Wal-Mart job to make ends meet.

But that doesn't really work, and he strikes along with his newly-found comrades-in-arms at Wal-Mart.


The strike is nation-wide, and staggering in its repercussions. Mom and pop businesses spring up across the country, filling in the gaps of services monopolized by WalMart. Amelia's brother develops a start up business app for smart phones, and it seems like everyone buys it. President Obama, says if he had an American brother, he would look like Amelia's brother.

Chinese goods being dramatically less available , American factories are again gearing up for mass production of goods. Amelia's brother specializes in self-help apps that also reduces the trade deficit, and despite pledging half of his incme to UNICEF, becomes the worlds wealthiest man.

 

[Amelia]

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.

Quite possibly, he is one of those overpaid workers who drive their employers into bankruptcy.

So he loses his job and must take a low paying Wal-Mart job to make ends meet.

But that doesn't really work, and he strikes along with his newly-found comrades-in-arms at Wal-Mart.

But the strike is futile, President Reagan declares the strike illegal, and those not returning to their jobs will be fired. Scabs cross the picket lines, taking his job away, plus he gets roughed up by the cops in the mix-up, breaking both arms, both thumbs, and most fingers, making it unlikely that he will ever return to computer programming.

So he goes home in complete dispair, and being a Republican and completely unaware of the social safety-net, takes out his 9 mil, and with his one good remaining index finger, shoots his wife, children, and then himself.

Sorry, assumer, my brother is a liberal ... you just fantasized away two reliable and six likely Democrat votes. Not to mention the other implications of you talking about the death of my family.

 

[Impenitent]

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.

Quite possibly, he is one of those overpaid workers who drive their employers into bankruptcy.

So he loses his job and must take a low paying Wal-Mart job to make ends meet.

But that doesn't really work, and he strikes along with his newly-found comrades-in-arms at Wal-Mart.

But the strike is futile, President Reagan declares the strike illegal, and those not returning to their jobs will be fired. Scabs cross the picket lines, taking his job away, plus he gets roughed up by the cops in the mix-up, breaking both arms, both thumbs, and most fingers, making it unlikely that he will ever return to computer programming.

So he goes home in complete dispair, and being a Republican and completely unaware of the social safety-net, takes out his 9 mil, and with his one good remaining index finger, shoots his wife, children, and then himself.

Sorry, assumer, my brother is a liberal ... you just fantasized away two reliable and six likely Democrat votes. Not to mention the other implications of you talking about the death of my family.

A liberal? I'll edit!

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

How much should the person who makes all the money for a company make?

 

[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?

How much should the person who makes all the money for a company make?

That situation only exist in a one man shop. Otherwise there is no person who makes all the money for the company.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

While the other thread implies that Republicans are against higher wages because business will suffer, you seem to be against them because poor people are undeserving of higher wages.

Are both true at the same time?

Or is the former given as the excuse, while the real reason is the latter?

The other thread implies no such thing. The con arguments are that Americans are all free to make our life choices and if a min wage job is your choice, learn to live with it or make better choices. As long as they comply with our laws the company's policies, including pay scale, is theirs to make ... not yours or mine.

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

How much should the person who makes all the money for a company make?

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.

 

[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?

End state welfare.. corporate and individual..

You don't make enough??.. work more jobs.. or do what you have to do...

Good answer....

But it assumes there are two or three additional low paying jobs available for the millions of people who do not make enough to support themselves or their families

Necessity is da mama of invention. It's amazing how many lo-education but ambitious peeps manage to start a biz because their job doesn't cover and they're willing cut grass on the side. Then one fine day they quit the job and are self-employed. Voila!

 

[SAYIT]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Obamacare is a LW elitist nightmare devised by two relative affluent politicians who never worked in the private sector, but rather benefited via patronage to secure better govt jobs: Pelosi and Obama.

But the only argument I can see against the general approach to universal care is pretty much the same one against a minimum wage, and the argument is more attractive intellectually than what the actual effects of min wage appear to be, i.e. we still can have full employment even with a min wage.

For one thing, premiums would have to rise to pay the tax and the increase would just push more peeps out of the HC market. How is it everyone else's responsibility to cover someone's cash shortfall? Isn't that socialism? Why is this cause & effect thing so difficult for some to grasp?