This is why we need a living wage

[beagle9]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker. No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money. Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little. Just more corporate welfare. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.

That's not what the results will be.. It will cause the corporations and businesses to do away with their structural pay grade systems altogether when it comes to the labor forces, and it would allow them to create a socialistic/communistic style system of pay, where as the companies will say "there, now I am paying them a living wage", and this as according to your standard and law implemented, but they won't get a penny more until it is raised somewhere in the future again (5 years maybe?). Then it may stagnate under different regimes or leaderships, therefore giving the corporate along with the medium to higher ended small businesses that are working what say 10 or more employee's, a utopic socialist/communist style system in which they would die for.

It will create a flat labor rate, and it would stay that way for millions of Americans who are subjected to such a thing as time goes on if the definition of what the minimum wage is, changes to being called a living wage instead going foward.

 

[beagle9]

I agree that the minimum should be moved up a bit in order to keep pace a bit better, otherwise if the companies are not doing their part, but the way this is going down, and by what it is being called now, it is simply a big sham, and a huge redistribution of the wealth type of scheme.

 

[alan1]

I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc. $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income. Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year. Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job. It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

Nice jump to conclusions there.
What, me worry?

 

[Againsheila]

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker. No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money. Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little. Just more corporate welfare. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.

Then become the employer and create high paying jobs!

No need to complain about the problem if you create the solution.

So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars? Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....

 

[Againsheila]

I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source. I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line. That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.

When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.

If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.

Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.

 

[Againsheila]

When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.

You keep repeating that.

It's not even in the same zip code as true, but you keep repeating it.

Do you belong to a public employee union, by chance?

I posted the facts and the site way back when, it's not my problem you weren't paying attention. Google it.

 

[alan1]

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.

I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have,

That is a ridiculous statement.

to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ?

I said could, not "have to". there is a difference.

I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ?

Spoken like a person that wants somebody else to "fix' things for them, "take care of them", rather than be a responsible adult.

I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.

Against a ridiculous minimum wage hike is good.

 

[alan1]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ? I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?

I've been employed for almost 40 years and every company I have ever worked for does exactly that. As skills and value to the company increase, so do wages. I'd leave any company that didn't practice that, and take my skills elsewhere.

 

[alan1]

An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
Let's have a fair discussion.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.

I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source. I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line. That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.

I know this point is strictly anecdotal, but both my brother and his wife are paid minimum wage. They both work in casino's dealing poker. With tips, their combined household income is well north of $100k. Some minimum wage workers are doing quite well when you add in the tips.

 

[alan1]

So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.

I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage. Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum. That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP. The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr. We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry. That's what will happen. How hungry is hungry? You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.

I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage. Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum. That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP. The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr. We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry. That's what will happen. How hungry is hungry? You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.

If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.

 

[alan1]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker. No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money. Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little. Just more corporate welfare. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.

Simple solution.
Quit subsidizing.
Quit subsidizing everything.
It's not the purpose of government to subsidize individuals or companies. Or to provide charity.

 

[alan1]

Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.

I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source. I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line. That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.

When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.

And it was a dumb idea.
I feel no need to to continue the status quo of dumb ideas.

 

[alan1]

I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage. Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum. That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP. The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr. We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry. That's what will happen. How hungry is hungry? You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.

If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.

How is quoting your posts and position a strawman?
I didn't build shit, I merely quoted your post and then stated the fact that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which it is. And that SNAP still exist, which it does.
Nothing straw about that.
You didn't disagree with the facts I posted, so what is your real point?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.

If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.

How is quoting your posts and position a strawman?
I didn't build shit, I merely quoted your post and then stated the fact that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which it is. And that SNAP still exist, which it does.
Nothing straw about that.
You didn't disagree with the facts I posted, so what is your real point?

A straw man...is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
Structure:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Example:
Zombie_Pundit says: "2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We [Zombie_Pundit and the contemporaneous respondent] have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP. [ specifically avoiding the subjects of part-time work, disabilities, unemployment, dependents, etc... to keep the conversation in a simple and civil tone ]"

alan1 quotes and highlights: "Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr." and then quips "yet SNAP still exists" concluding "Yer not doing well at arguing yer point" as if Zombie_Pundit proposed raising the minimum wage as some magic cure for all poverty.

Classic Strawman

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[beagle9]

Then become the employer and create high paying jobs!

No need to complain about the problem if you create the solution.

So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars? Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....

That is the single silliest argument socialists can make.
Stop whining about "they." Get off your duff, start a biz and, if it makes you happy, pay YOUR employees 10 times the going rate.

The problems are not businesses (i.e. small businesses), but it's more about corporations/monopolies in which has hearded so many into the barns and cattle gates together, and this is found in some form or another now. The relief valves have been closed off for many, therefore leaving them no where to run and no where to go anymore yet all depending.

Corporations/Manufacturing these days, have the ideolgies of communism and socialism in the work place as their main goals anymore when it comes to pay. It works for them, just as it does for those who think this way in many other parts of the world today. Americans are not slaves or anything like slaves, so people beware of moder day slavery, because it has a whole different suit on these days, but the methods and motives to some degree are just the same as they always was.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars? Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....

That is the single silliest argument socialists can make.
Stop whining about "they." Get off your duff, start a biz and, if it makes you happy, pay YOUR employees 10 times the going rate.

The problems are not businesses (i.e. small businesses), but it's more about corporations/monopolies in which has hearded so many into the barns and cattle gates together, and this is found in some form or another now. The relief valves have been closed off for many, therefore leaving them no where to run and no where to go anymore yet all depending.

Corporations/Manufacturing these days, have the ideolgies of communism and socialism in the work place as their main goals anymore when it comes to pay. It works for them, just as it does for those who think this way in many other parts of the world today. Americans are not slaves or anything like slaves, so people beware of moder day slavery, because it has a whole different suit on these days, but the methods and motives to some degree are just the same as they always was.

Yeah monopolies should be broken up. Let's start with china's monopoly on production.

 

[Asclepias]

The greatest journey in life is realizing your true value and potential and going out there and making it happen. How would you feel if someone had to carry you all the way through your journey?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.

If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.

Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.

You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
So yeah you can live on min wage.

 

[RKMBrown]

If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.

Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.

You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
So yeah you can live on min wage.

And put 2-4 people in that apartment sharing the rent.