So What Do You Think Is A Fair And Decent Wage?...

[OODA_Loop]

It's not profit. Making a living wage is not profiting. It's surviving.

How much is a living wage and what does it cover ?

 

[Mac1958]

It's not profit. Making a living wage is not profiting. It's surviving.

How much is a living wage and what does it cover ?

A number and an explanation would be very helpful.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

You two apparently are quite intelligent. Not all are. I know you get that. I'm not sure others on the board do.

Not everybody is management material. Or office material. Not all graduated high school. People make mistakes, bad life choices, or just never escape the life level they were born to.

I do not believe it follows, "And therefore, you must suffer further, because corporate greed is the price you (and the government) will pay."

I will ALWAYS believe that if somebody is working 40 hours, they deserve to be able to afford the basics.

NOT have to be on welfare, because - and this is completely ridiculous - they qualify.

I would invite you to read over some of the arguments and discussion in the greed, giving, or government thread. (It's in general discussion not because I put it there.) What is corporate greed other than profits? And what makes the employee's profit motive any more noble than the person taking the risk, sometimes a risk of all they have, to start and run a business that allows other to profit? Except for the jobs that I willingly volunteer for, I don't work for anybody without an expectation that I will profit from it. I don't work for an employer for HIS or HER benefit. I work for my own benefit. Is that greed? Or is that how the world works?

My sister, a 30-year veteran of the New Mexico school system, and a state acclaimed highschool music teacher with a master's degree, and my brother-in-law, also a 30-year veteran of the NM schools and superintendent of schools, retired at a relatively young age. And they both, on a lark, applied to be greeters at Walmart. Walmart hired them both but not as greeters--they were assigned to the sports and music departments respectively based on their skill sets. (My BIL was a football coach before he got into administration.) They were both started above minimum wage but not at a 'living wage'. That they would have to work their way up to as all other people do. But they didn't need a 'living wage' nor did they want to work full time. They wanted some mad and fun money above and beyond their retirement income. And Walmart provided that for them quite nicely.

They both fairly soon tired of that and moved on to other things, but that is just one example where a big 'greedy' corporation and two 'greedy' employees who worked only for money struck a mutually beneficial deal and served each other well.

As for the person starting out on a 40-hour week expecting to earn a living wage when he or she is not qualified to produce profits for his employer that would cover that living wage, well, he needs to do what he can to make himself more valuable. I myself, have started at the very bottom many times over, just to get my foot in the door, and I knew I had to prove that I was more valuable than that starting wage in order to get a better one.

Nobody in business can afford to pay his/her employees more than those employees earn for the business owner and hope to stay in business.

It's not profit. Making a living wage is not profiting. It's surviving.

Of course it is profit. If I sell you my labor, experience, expertise, skill set in return for wages, and receive more in wages than it costs me to earn them, I have made a profit in the transaction. Why in the world would you choose to go to work for somebody if you did not expect to profit? Are you doing it to benefit the person you are working for? Somebody you might not even know? Of course not. You are doing it for your own benefit and your benefit only. You might enjoy helping out your coworkers or pleasing your boss, but you wouldn't be there if you didn't expect to profit from it.

Likewise the business owner who takes all the risks to conduct a business does so not for the benefit of other people, but to earn a profit that benefits himself. He may enjoy being a great boss, appreciated, beloved, because he treats his people so well, but he nevertheless is not going to take the risk to run that business without at least a reasonable expectation that he will profit from it. And he would not provide those jobs for anybody if he didn't intend to profit from it.

And both the employer and the employee may be driven by the same motive to just survive. Believe me, that was the case for my husband and myself when we were running our business. It sure as heck wasn't for the fun of it. It was to pay the bills and put groceries on the table.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not profit. Making a living wage is not profiting. It's surviving.

Interesting how some folk insist their income go untaxed and sit by cheering as other people have their wages stolen from them. The gall of some people is just amazing.

 

[RKMBrown]

I would invite you to read over some of the arguments and discussion in the greed, giving, or government thread. (It's in general discussion not because I put it there.) What is corporate greed other than profits? And what makes the employee's profit motive any more noble than the person taking the risk, sometimes a risk of all they have, to start and run a business that allows other to profit? Except for the jobs that I willingly volunteer for, I don't work for anybody without an expectation that I will profit from it. I don't work for an employer for HIS or HER benefit. I work for my own benefit. Is that greed? Or is that how the world works?

My sister, a 30-year veteran of the New Mexico school system, and a state acclaimed highschool music teacher with a master's degree, and my brother-in-law, also a 30-year veteran of the NM schools and superintendent of schools, retired at a relatively young age. And they both, on a lark, applied to be greeters at Walmart. Walmart hired them both but not as greeters--they were assigned to the sports and music departments respectively based on their skill sets. (My BIL was a football coach before he got into administration.) They were both started above minimum wage but not at a 'living wage'. That they would have to work their way up to as all other people do. But they didn't need a 'living wage' nor did they want to work full time. They wanted some mad and fun money above and beyond their retirement income. And Walmart provided that for them quite nicely.

They both fairly soon tired of that and moved on to other things, but that is just one example where a big 'greedy' corporation and two 'greedy' employees who worked only for money struck a mutually beneficial deal and served each other well.

As for the person starting out on a 40-hour week expecting to earn a living wage when he or she is not qualified to produce profits for his employer that would cover that living wage, well, he needs to do what he can to make himself more valuable. I myself, have started at the very bottom many times over, just to get my foot in the door, and I knew I had to prove that I was more valuable than that starting wage in order to get a better one.

Nobody in business can afford to pay his/her employees more than those employees earn for the business owner and hope to stay in business.

It's not profit. Making a living wage is not profiting. It's surviving.

Of course it is profit. If I sell you my labor, experience, expertise, skill set in return for wages, and receive more in wages than it costs me to earn them, I have made a profit in the transaction. Why in the world would you choose to go to work for somebody if you did not expect to profit? Are you doing it to benefit the person you are working for? Somebody you might not even know? Of course not. You are doing it for your own benefit and your benefit only. You might enjoy helping out your coworkers or pleasing your boss, but you wouldn't be there if you didn't expect to profit from it.

Likewise the business owner who takes all the risks to conduct a business does so not for the benefit of other people, but to earn a profit that benefits himself. He may enjoy being a great boss, appreciated, beloved, because he treats his people so well, but he nevertheless is not going to take the risk to run that business without at least a reasonable expectation that he will profit from it. And he would not provide those jobs for anybody if he didn't intend to profit from it.

And both the employer and the employee may be driven by the same motive to just survive. Believe me, that was the case for my husband and myself when we were running our business. It sure as heck wasn't for the fun of it. It was to pay the bills and put groceries on the table.

I work for the fun of it. It's a coincidence they are willing to pay me.

 

[BlackSand]

You two apparently are quite intelligent. Not all are. I know you get that. I'm not sure others on the board do.

Not everybody is management material. Or office material. Not all graduated high school. People make mistakes, bad life choices, or just never escape the life level they were born to.

I do not believe it follows, "And therefore, you must suffer further, because corporate greed is the price you (and the government) will pay."

I will ALWAYS believe that if somebody is working 40 hours, they deserve to be able to afford the basics.

NOT have to be on welfare, because - and this is completely ridiculous - they qualify.

That is a very noble and compassionate idea.

So when are you planning on opening a business and making it happen instead of it just being an idea?
There are a lot of people out there suffering ... And you aren't doing your part to see they have a job that pays them what they need.
You think that wanting to help people makes a difference as far as helping people ... But that isn't the way you help people.

You are smart ... Obviously have an idea that you think is worthy of pursuit ... Well get to it.
That is what some of the rest of us do ... And I can assure that it is far more productive that waiting for someone else or the government to do it.

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Believe it or not, many in this country actually need those workers. What if all Fast Food Workers went on strike tomorrow?

If all the fast food workers in America went on strike at 9:00 A.M. tomorrow, they would all be replaced with equally skilled workers by 10:00 A.M.

An inconvenient truth,

What would the implications be? I think you would be very surprised to realize how much these Workers are necessary to our People and the Economy.

Fast food has an impact, but completely unskilled labor does not. Every job has 10 people apply for it.

Union goons can never explain why there are long lines of people begging to "be exploited?"

Sorry to break it to ya, but that's not the truth. The implications would be serious and far-reaching. Most would be very surprised to realize how important these Workers are to their daily lives. And that goes for many many other 'Undesirables' or 'Low-Skilled Workers.' They're actually vital to the Citizens and the Economy. Americans just need to stop with the arrogant inhumane mentality when it comes to 'Low-Skilled' Workers. Every American Worker provides skills & services to Millions of Americans who want and need them. Americans just need to change their approach. All American Workers deserve respect.

They have my respect. They'd have even more respect when they begin improving their own lot in life instead of expecting the government to extort a "living wage" from their employers.

 

[BDBoop]

/unsub

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm just dealing with the reality. Children are usually involved. But you gave a number you feel someone can survive on in today's America. I appreciate that. Doesn't matter whether or not i agree with that number. It's your assessment. Thanks.

It hasn't been all that long ago that people who could not or would not support their kids had those kids taken away until the parents could and would support them. Such a concept is unthinkable now to those who think all people should be subsidized no matter how irresponsibile or lazy they are, most especially if they have children. Thus, we have generations of kids growing up seeing the parent be paid not to work and growing up thinking that if getting an education or holding a crappy job is too hard, then the government will provide. And believing they are owed by society.

So how about we return to societal expectations that people will get married before they have kids, people will have a paying job capable of supporting a family before they have kids, and people return to the idea that minimum wage is what they get paid when they are unskilled and not that much value to their employer, but they use it to acquire skills, work ethic, experience, and references so that they don't have to work for minimum wage? Wouldn't that be a far more compassionate and humane way to approach the problem?

DISCLAIMER: Those who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times are NOT included in the above scenarios.

That sets up a big conundrum.

Should a person with a PhD get the same wage or more than someone with a GED?

Should a person with no education get the same wage or more as one that completed high school?

Who would decide such complex problems?

That would depend on the job and what an employer would pay someone to do it. If a PhD holder wishes to flip burgers for minimum wage, why stop him/her?

 

[gallantwarrior]

FYI I recently calculated that number for my second son to illustrate to him what type of job he should shoot for if he wants to live in texas and have a family. My number came out to around 60k being a decent wage for a single income family with a stay at home mom. My number came out to around 70k (or 35k avg) for a two wage family with a goes to work mom. The point of discussion was what types of jobs are viable jobs to live out that American Dream.

That dream was a basic apartment, health care, utilities, food, two cars, etc. Nothing extravagant.

Looks like the MIT site pretty much agrees with my numbers.

My daughter and her husband were raising two children on half that, in Texas.

Yeah but we are trying to discuss this without taking into account welfare checks, right? Plus the discussion leaned to American Dream, not just "surviving."

No, my daughter and her family receive no welfare, he is a soldier. They live by a budget and not beyond their means. Only one, yep, ONE small, modest car that was priced within their budget. They manage to find decent places, in decent neighborhoods, to rent. (She researches using the internet before they move to a new area.) The daughter stays at home and doesn't waste her time and energy trying to earn a paycheck that would only be used to pay someone else to raise their children. They are most definitely not simply surviving, but they are practical about what they can (or cannot) spend money on. People with lower incomes DO NOT need government supplements. What they do need is to learn to live within their means, budget and save if they want more.
Funny thing, my daughter does not feel 'poor' at all. She has a wonderful family, a husband who loves and supports her and their children. And her children are very well behaved, clean and intelligent. Imagine that?

 

[gallantwarrior]

God help all those arrogant inhumane Americans out there, if the 'Undesirables'/'Low-Skilled Workers' ever do get organized. Talk about rude awakening time? If the tables ever do get turned, it's gonna be very interesting. The Undesirables just need to get organized. There's strength in numbers. And they do have the numbers. Now they just need to figure out how to get organized.

The French Revolution all over again?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Conversely;

I don't look down on them. I started out my working life doing low skill menial labor odd jobs like that. So did Mr. Foxfyre. But both of us, job by job, improved our situation until we were enjoying work we loved and were earning a comfortable wage.

Both of my kids worked in fast food in highschool and college. And each of them now hugely outearns Mr. Foxfyre and myself when we were at the very top of our earnings. Those fast food and other low level helped us all develop a work ethic, get some honest to goodness experience, develop some skills, and acquire references that opened much more lucrative doors for us later on until we were ready to enter the professional world in the careers we prepared ourselves to excel in.

But if those first employers had been required to pay us a living wage while we learned and prepared ourselves to do better, we never would have been hired for those jobs in the first place.

You two apparently are quite intelligent. Not all are. I know you get that. I'm not sure others on the board do.

Not everybody is management material. Or office material. Not all graduated high school. People make mistakes, bad life choices, or just never escape the life level they were born to.

I do not believe it follows, "And therefore, you must suffer further, because corporate greed is the price you (and the government) will pay."

I will ALWAYS believe that if somebody is working 40 hours, they deserve to be able to afford the basics.

NOT have to be on welfare, because - and this is completely ridiculous - they qualify.

That brings us back to the question: What are "the basics"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I honestly don't know why you are not understanding that there are stupid people in the world.

Of course there are stupid people in the world. But does being stupid mean only that they are poorly educated or perhaps disabled in some way?

 

[francoHFW]

The equivalent of 1968's minimum age would be 10.50...thanks, Reaganist thieves and hater dupes for pandering to the rich and wrecking the country for 30 years...

 

[dblack]

Nothing like minimum wage to stir up the dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

See sig para 1, brainwashed hater dingbat...

 

[paulitician]

God help all those arrogant inhumane Americans out there, if the 'Undesirables'/'Low-Skilled Workers' ever do get organized. Talk about rude awakening time? If the tables ever do get turned, it's gonna be very interesting. The Undesirables just need to get organized. There's strength in numbers. And they do have the numbers. Now they just need to figure out how to get organized.

The French Revolution all over again?

Maybe. 'Let them eat Cake' does seem to be the attitude of too many Americans. A rude awakening could be coming for those people. If the 'Undesirables' ever do get organized, the tables will turn. And that's when things are gonna get very interesting. The Undesirables just need to realize they have the numbers. And numbers = power. The Helots eventually came to that realization. And that spelled the end of Spartan Slavery. Organization is the key. We'll see if America's Slaves catch on. Time will tell.

 

[Pheonixops]

Just curious. I'm really interested in hearing what you all consider a fair & decent Wage. I'd like to get some straight-forward answers without the Political debates and diatribes. I'm only interested in the numbers. Just list the numbers you think an average American should be able to survive on. I think it's a very interesting and important question. It should be fascinating in terms of numbers, seeing what Americans think an average American can or should be able to survive on. Thanks all for your participation.

Whatever one can negotiate for their particular skill is my short answer. I don't see how a single or couple can make it on less than 2k per month net, around here. That doesn't mean that I advocate paying people such or demanding that that's the minimum they should receive from their employers. The "minimum wage" concept is hard for me to really think about because I'm not there right now. When I was there, I probably liked it and would like it if it was higher. I certainly wouldn't "demand" that it was hire, I would just find another job that pays more or start my own business like myself and some of my friends did (independently).
My local talk show host Tony Macrini 790 WNIS asked this question: "If they can enact a minimum wage, does that mean they can enact a "maximum wage"?

 

[francoHFW]

Your local hero is an idiot hater moron lol...

 

[Pheonixops]

Your local hero is an idiot hater moron lol...

LOL, but on a serious note, he's the complete opposite of limbag and hannitard. He voted for Obama the first time and definitely didn't vote for romney the second time. He voted for gary Johnson. Give his show a try sometime, he's pretty funny and actually discusses topic instead of spewing propaganda. 6am to 10am est. 790 AM WNIS.

AM790 - News Talk - WNIS