Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Interpol]

The reality no one on this thread wants to talk about is that we have too many people and not enough good paying jobs.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'll say it again.. 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

This notion that the lowest rungs deserve luxuries is ridiculous

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Double down on stupid as you repeat the Conservative myth....

Poor people eat Filet Mignon and caviar while I eat Hamburger Helper

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

Never realized what a sick fuck you are

 

[editec]

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?

Is that route a 40 hour a week job? If so then YES

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

Is that rbagger working a 40 hour a week job? If so then YES

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?

Enough to support a HOUSEHOLD OF ONE.

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?

When some ASIAN technologist or some algorithm replaces your brother, you mean?

He'll have greater problems than a low paying job, mate.

He won't be hired as a stocker at WALMART because he'll be overqualified and WM knows that highly qualified people SUCK at jobs that are far beneath their skill sets.

But if he somehow takes that job then he ought to bget paid enoigh support himself in a household of ONE.

Right now MW does not even support a ONE PERSON household.

 

[rightwinger]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

 

[dblack]

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

Neither.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'll say it again.. 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

This notion that the lowest rungs deserve luxuries is ridiculous

supporting your family is not a luxury

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

 

[bendog]

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?

I had to actually work so I didn't respond to your direct question yesterday. (-:

I think yes, and it seems to me we pretty much do. I assume from your hypothetical that the worker's family gets housing assistance from the feds and perhaps the state, the family gets nutrition assistance and the kids get Medicaid though Schips, and if they live in a family where Obamacare expanded Medicaid, so do mom and dad.

Obamacare aside, I don't have a problem with it. My problem is the adults who used to call me to inquire how to get their kids in spec ed, so as to entitle them to the "crazy check" also known as SSI.

 

[Misty]

You need two things to make money in this country. A skill and speaking English.

 

[Amelia]

<most snipped because quotes were messed up>

Right now MW does not even support a ONE PERSON household.

Where I live it does.

 

[Misty]

People are paid what they are worth. It's their responsibility to make a living wage by educating themselves. If they don't like what an employer pays them get a better job.

Fast food is hardly a career.

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?

Is that route a 40 hour a week job? If so then YES



Is that rbagger working a 40 hour a week job? If so then YES



Enough to support a HOUSEHOLD OF ONE.

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?

When some ASIAN technologist or some algorithm replaces your brother, you mean?

He'll have greater problems than a low paying job, mate.

He won't be hired as a stocker at WALMART because he'll be overqualified and WM knows that highly qualified people SUCK at jobs that are far beneath their skill sets.

But if he somehow takes that job then he ought to bget paid enoigh support himself in a household of ONE.

Right now MW does not even support a ONE PERSON household.

 

[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?

I had to actually work so I didn't respond to your direct question yesterday. (-:

I think yes, and it seems to me we pretty much do. I assume from your hypothetical that the worker's family gets housing assistance from the feds and perhaps the state, the family gets nutrition assistance and the kids get Medicaid though Schips, and if they live in a family where Obamacare expanded Medicaid, so do mom and dad.

Obamacare aside, I don't have a problem with it. My problem is the adults who used to call me to inquire how to get their kids in spec ed, so as to entitle them to the "crazy check" also known as SSI.

Public assistance was not included in my hypothetical.

I was specifically thinking about what the employer is expected to contribute. Some people appear to think that for any job at any level the employer should pay the employee enough to support a family. They don't even always seem to think 40-hour-per-week employment at that job is required before the person should be able to support their family.

So my question was an invitation to hear from more people about which level of job employers should be expected to pay family-supporting wages for.



I do know from personal experience at least two areas in the country where minimum wage jobs can support at least the worker, if not a family. The area where I live now and the area I moved from.

 

[dblack]

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

 

[DiamondDave]

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

The libs cannot stand the idea of personal responsibility... only the government can make things better...

delusional fools

 

[DiamondDave]

<most snipped because quotes were messed up>

Right now MW does not even support a ONE PERSON household.

Where I live it does.

Again... ones like wrongwinger refuse to accept that people get roommates, or share bills, or live at home longer, or live in a crappy trailer, or whatever else... you should not, and should never have thought, that minimum wage supports you in a private place with all the shit you want and need...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

How about you only have 2 choices in reality. If we are playing your hypothetical game then we can ignore reality.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

The libs cannot stand the idea of personal responsibility... only the government can make things better...

delusional fools

What system of govt do you live in and is it here or in your mind? If its not real then we can all support fake stuff and claim it would be the best thing ever

 

[SAYIT]

I'll say it again.. 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

This notion that the lowest rungs deserve luxuries is ridiculous

supporting your family is not a luxury

Nope, it's a RESPONSIBILITY and those with that sense get a 2nd or 3rd job to make ends meet.