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

[Foxfyre]

I'm saying decreasing wages while the cost of living is increasing, is a serious problem that will have to be addressed. It's just not something that can be ignored forever. With Amnesty on the way, darker days for American Workers are also on the way. The Helots are growing angrier & angrier. A day of reckoning is coming.

The way to address the problem is to put people back to work. A better way to do that than increasing minimum wage is to eliminate federal minimum wage laws. Let the states decide what's best in their state. IMO if someone is only worth 25 cents an hour that's what you should offer them. Let the government focus on their job of breaking up monopolies and let the free market work.

I guess some of it comes down to how view your fellow Human Beings. If you can pay someone 25 cents an hour and feel good about it, so be it i guess. But keep in mind, that Worker will likely require Government Assistance to survive. And you the Taxpayer will have to pay for that. It all comes back around.

It was government mandates, regulation, and initiatives that got us into this mess in the first place. It makes no sense that adding MORE governments mandates, regulation, and initiatives will somehow make it better. Far more better are the people demanding that the government start backing off. Instead of making people comfortable in poverty, provide the barest minimum necessary for survival and then allow the free market to work. Instead of trying to force business to 'do the right thing', start promoting and encouraging business to prosper and grow and expand and make entreprenouralism the norm again so that all who need a job can get one.

Once you achieve full employment, the matter of a 'living wage' will take care of itself because because the much more scarce available labor is in a much better position to sell that labor for an attractive price.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand the idea of personal responsibility, Foxfyre, and encouraging the lazy to get off their butts.

But we also saw what the free market did to workers from the 1870s to 1930s. So there will be no return to that.

 

[Mac1958]

.

And here's another question, not that I expect anyone to give me a (heaven forbid) straight answer:

So voters - er, employees who are making $7.50 an hour go to $15.00. Okay.

What about all the people above them, the more experienced and skilled workers, and managers, who were making $9.00 and $10.00 and $12.00 and $14.00 and $15.00, we'll have to move them up accordingly too, would that be correct? Since we doubled wages at the bottom, and because there were other wages that were above theirs but also below the mythical "living wage", we have no freakin' choice.

And then we'll have to worry about those who are currently paid just above THOSE wages, but let's keep it real simple for now.

See, this is the kind of question that will immediately pop to mind for anyone who has any understanding of rudimentary business economics whatsoever, I mean painfully obvious stuff, so let's hit it. I trust you have thought this through, and that you'll be able to clear this up for me post haste. No doubt you have created a formula for this, perhaps you could just post that.

Please confirm and provide any potential negative ramifications if you can think of any, thanks. Knock this one out of the park for us.

.

<bump>

Any direct, clear, straightforward answers yet?

You can even assume that it's something less than $15 if that makes it easier for you. The questions remain the same.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm saying decreasing wages while the cost of living is increasing, is a serious problem that will have to be addressed. It's just not something that can be ignored forever. With Amnesty on the way, darker days for American Workers are also on the way. The Helots are growing angrier & angrier. A day of reckoning is coming.

The way to address the problem is to put people back to work. A better way to do that than increasing minimum wage is to eliminate federal minimum wage laws. Let the states decide what's best in their state. IMO if someone is only worth 25 cents an hour that's what you should offer them. Let the government focus on their job of breaking up monopolies and let the free market work.

I guess some of it comes down to how you view your fellow Human Beings. If you can pay someone 25 cents an hour and feel good about it, so be it i guess. But keep in mind, that Worker will likely require Government Assistance to survive. And you the Taxpayer will have to pay for that. It all comes back around.

And if the kid I'm paying 25cents is 15, living at home, going to school, and he's gaining valuable experience that will result in him earning millions, you would deny him that opportunity, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

I understand the idea of personal responsibility, Foxfyre, and encouraging the lazy to get off their butts.

But we also saw what the free market did to workers from the 1870s to 1930s. So there will be no return to that.

Really? What did the free market do to workers from the 1870s through the 1930s?

 

[Foxfyre]

.

And here's another question, not that I expect anyone to give me a (heaven forbid) straight answer:

So voters - er, employees who are making $7.50 an hour go to $15.00. Okay.

What about all the people above them, the more experienced and skilled workers, and managers, who were making $9.00 and $10.00 and $12.00 and $14.00 and $15.00, we'll have to move them up accordingly too, would that be correct? Since we doubled wages at the bottom, and because there were other wages that were above theirs but also below the mythical "living wage", we have no freakin' choice.

And then we'll have to worry about those who are currently paid just above THOSE wages, but let's keep it real simple for now.

See, this is the kind of question that will immediately pop to mind for anyone who has any understanding of rudimentary business economics whatsoever, I mean painfully obvious stuff, so let's hit it. I trust you have thought this through, and that you'll be able to clear this up for me post haste. No doubt you have created a formula for this, perhaps you could just post that.

Please confirm and provide any potential negative ramifications if you can think of any, thanks. Knock this one out of the park for us.

.

<bump>

Any direct, clear, straightforward answers yet?

You can even assume that it's something less than $15 if that makes it easier for you. The questions remain the same.

.

I have found such questions that require true critical thought are generally ignored at USMB. But hope still springs eternal, yes?

There was an interesting article in Forbes awhile back that focused on that very question. What would a Big Mac cost if the starting wage at McDonalds was $15 with comparative increases for those making more than $15/hour. One student at Kansas U? K-State? Can't remember had calculated the cost of a Big Mac would be a $1 and change higher, but his calculations were soundly disputed by others.

The Forbes writer postulated that the cost probably would not go up much, if at all, as McDonalds would simply automate more and lay off a bunch of people they now hire. For sure it would affect McDonald's overall business plan and strategy.

The bottom line is that a minimum wage higher than the value of the worker's labor to the employer is going to hurt workers who won't get hired far more than it will affect anybody else. And a fair and decent wage is what earns a decent profit for the employer after the costs of paying the worker.

 

[Indeependent]

I understand the idea of personal responsibility, Foxfyre, and encouraging the lazy to get off their butts.

But we also saw what the free market did to workers from the 1870s to 1930s. So there will be no return to that.

Really? What did the free market do to workers from the 1870s through the 1930s?

Are you referring to the people who came here from Europe and built the railroads and roads and were paid far less then what they were promised and then beaten, maimed and killed by the State and Federal troops when they protested?

Are you referring to the Industrial Revolution where people were huddled into hot, dirty factories for 12 hours a day?

No, it didn't happen to everyone, but it happened often enough.

 

[paulitician]

"And in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."

 

[Indeependent]

.

And here's another question, not that I expect anyone to give me a (heaven forbid) straight answer:

So voters - er, employees who are making $7.50 an hour go to $15.00. Okay.

What about all the people above them, the more experienced and skilled workers, and managers, who were making $9.00 and $10.00 and $12.00 and $14.00 and $15.00, we'll have to move them up accordingly too, would that be correct? Since we doubled wages at the bottom, and because there were other wages that were above theirs but also below the mythical "living wage", we have no freakin' choice.

And then we'll have to worry about those who are currently paid just above THOSE wages, but let's keep it real simple for now.

See, this is the kind of question that will immediately pop to mind for anyone who has any understanding of rudimentary business economics whatsoever, I mean painfully obvious stuff, so let's hit it. I trust you have thought this through, and that you'll be able to clear this up for me post haste. No doubt you have created a formula for this, perhaps you could just post that.

Please confirm and provide any potential negative ramifications if you can think of any, thanks. Knock this one out of the park for us.

.

<bump>

Any direct, clear, straightforward answers yet?

You can even assume that it's something less than $15 if that makes it easier for you. The questions remain the same.

.

I have found such questions that require true critical thought are generally ignored at USMB. But hope still springs eternal, yes?

There was an interesting article in Forbes awhile back that focused on that very question. What would a Big Mac cost if the starting wage at McDonalds was $15 with comparative increases for those making more than $15/hour. One student at Kansas U? K-State? Can't remember had calculated the cost of a Big Mac would be a $1 and change higher, but his calculations were soundly disputed by others.

The Forbes writer postulated that the cost probably would not go up much, if at all, as McDonalds would simply automate more and lay off a bunch of people they now hire. For sure it would affect McDonald's overall business plan and strategy.

The bottom line is that a minimum wage higher than the value of the worker's labor to the employer is going to hurt workers who won't get hired far more than it will affect anybody else. And a fair and decent wage is what earns a decent profit for the employer after the costs of paying the worker.

It all depends on individual scenarios.
In some areas, fire one too many people and those having to wait in line too long, and who have to get back to work, will go to the fast food place a few doors down.
A business with too few/many workers is inefficient in the first place.
There are always cost cutting measures that don't reflect in timely service, such as passing those losses off to a vendor.

 

[Mac1958]

.

And here's another question, not that I expect anyone to give me a (heaven forbid) straight answer:

So voters - er, employees who are making $7.50 an hour go to $15.00. Okay.

What about all the people above them, the more experienced and skilled workers, and managers, who were making $9.00 and $10.00 and $12.00 and $14.00 and $15.00, we'll have to move them up accordingly too, would that be correct? Since we doubled wages at the bottom, and because there were other wages that were above theirs but also below the mythical "living wage", we have no freakin' choice.

And then we'll have to worry about those who are currently paid just above THOSE wages, but let's keep it real simple for now.

See, this is the kind of question that will immediately pop to mind for anyone who has any understanding of rudimentary business economics whatsoever, I mean painfully obvious stuff, so let's hit it. I trust you have thought this through, and that you'll be able to clear this up for me post haste. No doubt you have created a formula for this, perhaps you could just post that.

Please confirm and provide any potential negative ramifications if you can think of any, thanks. Knock this one out of the park for us.

.

<bump>

Any direct, clear, straightforward answers yet?

You can even assume that it's something less than $15 if that makes it easier for you. The questions remain the same.

.

I have found such questions that require true critical thought are generally ignored at USMB. But hope still springs eternal, yes?

There was an interesting article in Forbes awhile back that focused on that very question. What would a Big Mac cost if the starting wage at McDonalds was $15 with comparative increases for those making more than $15/hour. One student at Kansas U? K-State? Can't remember had calculated the cost of a Big Mac would be a $1 and change higher, but his calculations were soundly disputed by others.

The Forbes writer postulated that the cost probably would not go up much, if at all, as McDonalds would simply automate more and lay off a bunch of people they now hire. For sure it would affect McDonald's overall business plan and strategy.

The bottom line is that a minimum wage higher than the value of the worker's labor to the employer is going to hurt workers who won't get hired far more than it will affect anybody else. And a fair and decent wage is what earns a decent profit for the employer after the costs of paying the worker.

I never really expect straight answers to questions like these, and I would have been shocked had I received one in this case. These folks know that "living wage" proposals are naive and shallow at best, nothing more than political posturing at worst. Just the natural extension of the victimhood pimping that has (a) been so effective for them for so long, and (b) been so destructive to generations of people for whom they claim to "care".

They clearly have neither a grasp of fundamental business economics nor the desire to achieve that grasp. They just want emote and forcibly extract their pound of flesh, regardless of the macro consequences.

Dodge, divert, distort, avoid, ignore. That's what I expect, and that's what I get.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"And in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE..


Your Communist revolution really is going to happen this time...

Really!

Or maybe you can just shit on some more police cars..

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never really expect straight answers to questions like these, and I would have been shocked had I received one in this case. These folks know that "living wage" proposals are naive and shallow at best, nothing more than political posturing at worst. Just the natural extension of the victimhood pimping that has (a) been so effective for them for so long, and (b) been so destructive to generations of people for whom they claim to "care".

They clearly have neither a grasp of fundamental business economics nor the desire to achieve that grasp. They just want emote and forcibly extract their pound of flesh, regardless of the macro consequences.

Dodge, divert, distort, avoid, ignore. That's what I expect, and that's what I get.

.

With all due respect Mac, I gave you a straight answer.

A living wage is that which is agreed upon by both the employee (seller) and the employer (buyer.)

There can be no other answer.

 

[RKMBrown]

I understand the idea of personal responsibility, Foxfyre, and encouraging the lazy to get off their butts.

But we also saw what the free market did to workers from the 1870s to 1930s. So there will be no return to that.

Really? What did the free market do to workers from the 1870s through the 1930s?

Are you referring to the people who came here from Europe and built the railroads and roads and were paid far less then what they were promised and then beaten, maimed and killed by the State and Federal troops when they protested?

Are you referring to the Industrial Revolution where people were huddled into hot, dirty factories for 12 hours a day?

No, it didn't happen to everyone, but it happened often enough.

I see, so if I don't pay a high school kid 15 bucks an hour for a couple hours a day to ask customers if they want fries I'm "stuffing the kid into hot dirty factories for 12 hours a day, beating him, maiming him, then killing him."

 

[RKMBrown]

"And in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."

You know that the grapes of wrath is fiction right?

 

[Indeependent]

Really? What did the free market do to workers from the 1870s through the 1930s?

Are you referring to the people who came here from Europe and built the railroads and roads and were paid far less then what they were promised and then beaten, maimed and killed by the State and Federal troops when they protested?

Are you referring to the Industrial Revolution where people were huddled into hot, dirty factories for 12 hours a day?

No, it didn't happen to everyone, but it happened often enough.

I see, so if I don't pay a high school kid 15 bucks an hour for a couple hours a day to ask customers if they want fries I'm "stuffing the kid into hot dirty factories for 12 hours a day, beating him, maiming him, then killing him."

I don't even imagine for a second that you're the kind of guy who would lie to someone to get them to move a few thousand miles away from home just to under compensate them and to call in the authorities to rough house them if they don't play along.

In 2000 or so Chase Manhattan left Metrotech in Downtown Brooklyn for Texas and Florida.
Several thousand employees sold their homes and came along for the ride.
A few months later Chase fired them all and replaced them with less expensive locals and visas.
So I imagine that there are companies that do those type of things.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you referring to the people who came here from Europe and built the railroads and roads and were paid far less then what they were promised and then beaten, maimed and killed by the State and Federal troops when they protested?

Are you referring to the Industrial Revolution where people were huddled into hot, dirty factories for 12 hours a day?

No, it didn't happen to everyone, but it happened often enough.

I see, so if I don't pay a high school kid 15 bucks an hour for a couple hours a day to ask customers if they want fries I'm "stuffing the kid into hot dirty factories for 12 hours a day, beating him, maiming him, then killing him."

I don't even imagine for a second that you're the kind of guy who would lie to someone to get them to move a few thousand miles away from home just to under compensate them and to call in the authorities to rough house them if they don't play along.

In 2000 or so Chase Manhattan left Metrotech in Downtown Brooklyn for Texas and Florida.
Several thousand employees sold their homes and came along for the ride.
A few months later Chase fired them all and replaced them with less expensive locals and visas.
So I imagine that there are companies that do those type of things.

You are correct, I would not lie to someone to get them to move thousands of miles to use as cannon fodder to lower wages of my employ. And these are all completely different issues.

 

[Mac1958]

I never really expect straight answers to questions like these, and I would have been shocked had I received one in this case. These folks know that "living wage" proposals are naive and shallow at best, nothing more than political posturing at worst. Just the natural extension of the victimhood pimping that has (a) been so effective for them for so long, and (b) been so destructive to generations of people for whom they claim to "care".

They clearly have neither a grasp of fundamental business economics nor the desire to achieve that grasp. They just want emote and forcibly extract their pound of flesh, regardless of the macro consequences.

Dodge, divert, distort, avoid, ignore. That's what I expect, and that's what I get.

.

With all due respect Mac, I gave you a straight answer.

A living wage is that which is agreed upon by both the employee (seller) and the employer (buyer.)

There can be no other answer.

Sorry, I did see that, and you and I agree. This naive, simplistic, one-size-fits-all notion of a "living wage" is absurd.

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Its good to be frugal. Goes back to the Puritan days of early America when being thrifty was a real attribute. I like being thrifty as well. Goes back to my hippie days.

What does that have to do to peoples need to have a food, shelter and in this world, transportation of some sort. And the ability to pay for those things without you and I subsidizing them.

I see we agree about food and shelter. Transportation? There are lots of ways to get around besides having a car. Until they better their lot, perhaps sharing rides, riding a bicycle, or using public transportation are more reasonable options. Having an automobile and fuel for it are not "basic" needs.
I agree, too, with not having to subsidize them. It's unfortunate that too many people do not see frugality, living within their means, as desirable.
We have not even addressed businesses "too big to fail", either. I'm pretty tired of subsidizing major political contributors who manage to launder tax dollars back into the coffers of the pols.

You can't read very well can you? Did you miss the part where I mentioned transportation of some sort? And do you have to pay for these other means of transportation? Or is the bus lines free where you live. You expect other people to pay for the gas and the car and spend their time to take a poor person to work because YOU have decided that a car and gas money are not basics. Bull shit. Or is it that poor people should only be able to work jobs that are on a bus line.

Sure dude. And the topic wasn't welfare and minimal living standards for the RICH and corporations. They are doing fine.

And it is not that they (poor) aren't frugal. Some are some aren't. I would be willing to bet that a great number of poor people are MUCH better money managers than you have any idea of.

When is the last time you tried to meet basic living requirements making 18k a year? That's 1500 a month gross for you math impaired Republicans. Gross income is before taxes.
So you get left with what, about 1000 dollars after paying all Fed, state and local taxes.

Try it some time. You will love showing the poor how it's done.

First, your own reading skills need to be honed, too. I have never claimed to be a Republican, quite the contrary.
As for living on $1500/month, I've been there and done that. I'm not aware of too many young people who start with much more than that when they enter the workforce. Since I desired to have more, I worked, improved my skills, learned new ones as needed, and continue to increase my value to my employer, and to myself. What is an unfortunate myth perpetrated by liberals is that anyone graduating high school should start off with a minimum income of...around $50,000/yr.
Since you seem to think that an automobile, and the money to fuel it and insure it, are necessary to making a living wage, are you suggesting that people who fail to make a "living wage", i.e. recipients of various types of public assistance, should also be provided a set of wheels and the means to keep them running?
As far as paying taxes, local taxes, perhaps. State and Federal taxes, yeah, not really. Someone at that income level generally not only does not pay taxes, most are eligible for a "refund" of money they never paid into taxes in the first place (EIC).

 

[gallantwarrior]

The right wouldn't mind if we brought back $1 per hour jobs and sweat shops.

I hope you're wrong on that assumption. I don't want to believe most on the Right feel that way.

Most of my Republican friends feel that way.
I'm not saying Liberals are same but I've never met many actual Liberals.

I recently encountered a self-proclaimed liberal. It was...unpleasant. Left me feeling soiled, slimey.

 

[gallantwarrior]

lol... if all the fast food workers organized... it would be the end of fast food. No loss.

Nah, just the end of fast food workers.

Automation will end the FF worker as we know them anyway, and very soon.

That's only gonna create more poverty. And you the Taxpayer will have to pay for that. More unemployed Americans isn't the solution. So, Automation might be good for large Corporations, but it will be very bad for American Workers and Taxpayers.

Maybe government should consider outlawing all automation that replaces human workers?