Should a minimum wage be a "living wage"?

[Little-Acorn]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Federal minimum wage should be eliminated. The state ones should be left up to the states.

You will be able to live cheaper if there isnt anything artificially increasing the cost of labor.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Federal minimum wage should be eliminated. The state ones should be left up to the states.

You will be able to live cheaper if there isnt anything artificially increasing the cost of labor.

Does anyone on the left understand economics enough to debate such?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?

what if there are two 'living wage' earners in the family...?
does that mean they both get their 'living wages' cut in half...?

 

[Mac1958]

.

A "living wage" for whom?

A teenager living with Mom & Dad?

The primary breadwinner of a family of five?

A young married person who can't control their spending?

A person living in an expensive city, a person living in an inexpensive city?

Or are our Great & Glorious Leaders in Central Planning™ going to tell us what a "living wage" should be for a dozen different circumstances? I'm sure we can trust them to make things fair, right?

This is the hole we begin digging when we start playing this game. Yeah, I'm sure we can trust our "leaders" to tell us what a "living wage" is.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

.

A "living wage" for whom?

A teenager living with Mom & Dad?

The primary breadwinner of a family of five?

A young married person who can't control their spending?

A person living in an expensive city, a person living in an inexpensive city?

Or are our Great & Glorious Leaders in Central Planning™ going to tell us what a "living wage" should be for a dozen different circumstances? I'm sure we can trust them to make things fair, right?

This is the hole we begin digging when we start playing this game. Yeah, I'm sure we can trust our "leaders" to tell us what a "living wage" is.

.

that's the problem with some centralized politician determining what we can live off of.

 

[Clementine]

Minimum wage should never be the same as a living wage. Teenagers entering the job market do not need to make enough money on a low skill job to pay for a house and support a family.

If someone stays at a job for years, they deserve raises for a job well done or promotions. Ideally, minimum wage jobs are temporary. I can't imagine someone relying on a minimum wage job while they keep having children. I do know that welfare helps to make families enjoy the same life as others who have better jobs. If each of us could have help with rent, utilities, free medical, food stamps and cash each month from other tax payers, we'd be sitting pretty.

If government yet again increases the minimum wage, does that mean welfare benefits will be decreased for those making more money or will it remain the same? The rest of us don't get any tax breaks for inflation.

If minimum wage increases, how many jobs will go away? If a company is already struggling, they can't afford to pay higher wages in this economy. Obamacare is killing enough jobs as it is.

If you want more than minimum wage, ask yourself what YOU can do to qualify for better pay.

 

[deltex1]

No. You would be teaching people to tolerate being mediocre...,.make it a reasonable wage...with training to qualify or the next level...and a path to the next level...and tell them it's up to them.

 

[Rozman]

If someone is just starting out in the workforce minimum wage is what they should get.
If someone is trying to support a family they might want to get a job where their experience
determines they get compensated accordingly.Maybe they try to get a job where they receive
a better salary.

 

[boedicca]

.

A "living wage" for whom?

A teenager living with Mom & Dad?

The primary breadwinner of a family of five?

A young married person who can't control their spending?

A person living in an expensive city, a person living in an inexpensive city?

Or are our Great & Glorious Leaders in Central Planning™ going to tell us what a "living wage" should be for a dozen different circumstances? I'm sure we can trust them to make things fair, right?

This is the hole we begin digging when we start playing this game. Yeah, I'm sure we can trust our "leaders" to tell us what a "living wage" is.

.

And now apply all of that to one-size fits all ObamaCare...which distorts wages even further.

 

[jwoodie]

Q. What if a particular job only produces $5 of value per hour, but minimum/living wage is $10 per hour?

A. Eliminated the job. Comprende?

 

[boedicca]

If someone is just starting out in the workforce minimum wage is what they should get.
If someone is trying to support a family they might want to get a job where their experience
determines they get compensated accordingly.Maybe they try to get a job where they receive
a better salary.

Or, if they are so unskilled they can only find a minimum wage job, perhaps they should defer having kids until they improve their employment prospects.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If I'm trying to start a landscaping business, and I need to hire somebody to haul large amounts of dirt and rock from place to place while I do the planning, planting, decorating etc....

...do I suddenly become responsible for they guy's family too? Or is HE responsible for them?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does any leftist that supports this understand basic economics?

 

[Mac1958]

Q. What if a particular job only produces $5 of value per hour, but minimum/living wage is $10 per hour?

A. Eliminated the job. Comprende?

Yep, fundamental business economics ignored by so many.

Next, Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ will make it illegal to eliminate that position.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what's the meaning of 'living' anyway.....?

somehow i think what the central planners think of 'living' for you is a totally different meaning of what 'living' is to them.....

 

[boedicca]

Q. What if a particular job only produces $5 of value per hour, but minimum/living wage is $10 per hour?

A. Eliminated the job. Comprende?

Yep, fundamental business economics ignored by so many.

Next, Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ will make it illegal to eliminate that position.

.

They're already working on a draft for Directive 10-289.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A ask supporters of this how does this make economical sense?

 

[francoHFW]

1968's min wage is the equivalent of $11 today. $7 is ridiculous. Thanks Pubs and silly dupes....Every other modern country is over $10, and they have good public transport, 1 month+ paid vacations, health care, day care etc. You're perfect fools of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
You like Australia? Their min wage is $15, less for teenagers...

 

[Avatar4321]

1968's min wage is the equivalent of $11 today. $7 is ridiculous. Thanks Pubs and silly dupes....Every other modern country is over $10, and they have good public transport, 1 month+ paid vacations, health care, day care etc. You're perfect fools of the greedy idiot rich GOP.
You like Australia? Their min wage is $15, less for teenagers...

And what do you know, he completely ignored everything everyone on this thread has said so far, threw out some empty rhetoric, and thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

Im so glad we have these people who can tell us what we need to live off of or how much we should be paid.