Help me understand the impact of a $15 minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

There are many well paying jobs that require 0 skills, but they’re usually harder work, so people just complain instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let them eat cake, right?

That went real well.

This is a classic blunder of the “burn it all down” and “eat the rich” stance.

You think you’re fighting for a noble cause and so you treat “the rich” as a ruling class like Marie Antoinette of France when in reality they are workers in a free land in a government that is OF the people, by the people, and for the people...not some monarchy or dictatorial nation.
The “system” that you think you are fighting actually created opportunity for anyone who want to set high goals and work to achieve them. And yes I do mean anyone. This is why the race wars that the left is attempting to ignite to champion this Marxist movement in the US will eventually fail—even if it destroys our country in the process. There are so many immigrants who came from nothing and built a good life *starting* at minimum wage jobs and refusing to stop bettering their skills, education and lives along the way because America provides that opportunity to those who want it and commit to working for it.
If you keep pretending the US is pre-revolutionary France instead of a country with freedom of opportunity by the people and for the people, then you will eventually chase all the wealthy and educated people who have worked from nothing to create and sustain that opportunity out of the country and will be left with ruin. See Russian revolution. See French post-Revolution era.
It will be a very long, depressing road and in the end you’ll be speaking Chinese and working for far less than the current minimum wage you disdain with no way out.

I think you need to talk to people who are down in poverty and see if they agree with you. Because if you believe this and they do not, then don't be suprized if they fight against you.

Yes but we do know from research how to help future generations to avoid living in poverty even if we change nothing about the wages or the system.
We just aren’t teaching students the things they neeed to know to improve their future conditions. And that is, to live above the poverty line in the US, you must do only these three things:
1. Graduate high school
2. Do not start a family until you are married (or have a two-parent commitment to raising family in one household—for those who object to the “marriage” label)
3. Get a job. ANY job. Even a minimum wage job under those 2 previous conditions will keep today’s high school students out of poverty as adults.

boy are you naive. somebody has to clean toilets. If everybody does these things, then the bottom of the people who do these things will have to clean toilets. And do you really think people who work 40 hours per week cleaning toilets should never have a family? If you told me that, and I was a toilet cleaner, I'd rebel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

Oh, I get that. So let's talk inflation and statistics. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, purchasing power, or productivity. Moreover, the ratio between the lowest and highest paid employees has grown to its highest level since WW2. Inflation has been everywhere except low wage income. Full time minimum wage employees earn poverty line income. Index the min wage to inflation.

[Anonymous]

Minimum wage needs to be a living wage. Period. Teenagers don’t work full time. If you work full time you need to be able to pay your way for the necessities. Too many people can’t. It’s immoral to support paying people poverty wages. And I’m tired of paying the societal prices that come with excess poverty. People in this country should not have to worry about food, housing or healthcare if they work 4 hours a week. We can raise taxes on corporations to pay for it, or just make corporations pay their employees a living wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

Oh, I get that. So let's talk inflation and statistics. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, purchasing power, or productivity. Moreover, the ratio between the lowest and highest paid employees has grown to its highest level since WW2. Inflation has been everywhere except low wage income. Full time minimum wage employees earn poverty line income. Index the min wage to inflation.

In addition the proposed increase would be implemented over 4 years and not all at once.

Most of our inflation is caused by wage growth at the high bound and not the low bound. That's because wage growth at the low bound does not increase discretionary income unlesa it outpaces inflation, purchasing power, and productivity. Moreover, the market for lower cost goods is way leaa less competitive. Increasing demand on the lower bound will reduce cost over time as it becomes a more desirable sector to compete in. Then there's the cost, besides direct government assistance and subsidies poverty also costs us more.for healthcare and education. Sure, our taxes may not go down because our budget already runs at a deficit but the saved money will allow us to build the roads and fix the bridges that we need and use more. Ensuring that full time employees earn enough to be above the poverty line frees up money throughout the budget that can be more usefully spent and better increase growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

There are many well paying jobs that require 0 skills, but they’re usually harder work, so people just complain instead.

What jobs are those that pay well despite requiring zero skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

Oh, I get that. So let's talk inflation and statistics. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, purchasing power, or productivity. Moreover, the ratio between the lowest and highest paid employees has grown to its highest level since WW2. Inflation has been everywhere except low wage income. Full time minimum wage employees earn poverty line income. Index the min wage to inflation.

In addition the proposed increase would be implemented over 4 years and not all at once.

Most of our inflation is caused by wage growth at the high bound and not the low bound. That's because wage growth at the low bound does not increase discretionary income unlesa it outpaces inflation, purchasing power, and productivity. Moreover, the market for lower cost goods is way leaa less competitive. Increasing demand on the lower bound will reduce cost over time as it becomes a more desirable sector to compete in. Then there's the cost, besides direct government assistance and subsidies poverty also costs us more.for healthcare and education. Sure, our taxes may not go down because our budget already runs at a deficit but the saved money will allow us to build the roads and fix the bridges that we need and use more. Ensuring that full time employees earn enough to be above the poverty line frees up money throughout the budget that can be more usefully spent and better increase growth.

Tipped workers do not want a minimum wage hike........

As the Maine House voted on a bill to reduce the minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers, Jason Buckwalter and a dozen fellow servers huddled in a back room listening to the vote call at the Bangor steakhouse where they work.
They all hoped to hear one thing: that state legislators had voted to lower their wages. Some cried with relief, Buckwalter said, when the final vote ended at 110 to 37 — overwhelmingly in their favor.
The vote, which took place on June 13, marked the conclusion of a months-long political saga that has upended conventional wisdom about the minimum wage. Workers have traditionally supported such increases, which advocates say are critical to lifting millions out of poverty.
But in Maine, servers actively campaigned to overturn the results of a November referendum raising servers’ hourly wages from $3.75 in 2016 to $12 by 2024, saying it would cause customers to tip less and actually reduce their take-home income.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/27/maine-tried-to-raise-its-minimum-wage-restaurant-workers-didnt-want-it/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

There are many well paying jobs that require 0 skills, but they’re usually harder work, so people just complain instead.

What jobs are those that pay well despite requiring zero skills?

Garbage. Mail. Janitor. Lawn maintenance. Car washer. Bus driver. Taxi cab/Uber driver. Cashier. Maid. Doorman. Bellhop. Delivery person. Warehouse fulfilment. Stock/clerk. I could go on. Yes, there are some basic skills required, but nothing the overwhelming majority of adults could not pick up in a very short period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

Oh, I get that. So let's talk inflation and statistics. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, purchasing power, or productivity. Moreover, the ratio between the lowest and highest paid employees has grown to its highest level since WW2. Inflation has been everywhere except low wage income. Full time minimum wage employees earn poverty line income. Index the min wage to inflation.

In addition the proposed increase would be implemented over 4 years and not all at once.

Most of our inflation is caused by wage growth at the high bound and not the low bound. That's because wage growth at the low bound does not increase discretionary income unlesa it outpaces inflation, purchasing power, and productivity. Moreover, the market for lower cost goods is way leaa less competitive. Increasing demand on the lower bound will reduce cost over time as it becomes a more desirable sector to compete in. Then there's the cost, besides direct government assistance and subsidies poverty also costs us more.for healthcare and education. Sure, our taxes may not go down because our budget already runs at a deficit but the saved money will allow us to build the roads and fix the bridges that we need and use more. Ensuring that full time employees earn enough to be above the poverty line frees up money throughout the budget that can be more usefully spent and better increase growth.

Tipped workers do not want a minimum wage hike........

As the Maine House voted on a bill to reduce the minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers, Jason Buckwalter and a dozen fellow servers huddled in a back room listening to the vote call at the Bangor steakhouse where they work.
They all hoped to hear one thing: that state legislators had voted to lower their wages. Some cried with relief, Buckwalter said, when the final vote ended at 110 to 37 — overwhelmingly in their favor.
The vote, which took place on June 13, marked the conclusion of a months-long political saga that has upended conventional wisdom about the minimum wage. Workers have traditionally supported such increases, which advocates say are critical to lifting millions out of poverty.
But in Maine, servers actively campaigned to overturn the results of a November referendum raising servers’ hourly wages from $3.75 in 2016 to $12 by 2024, saying it would cause customers to tip less and actually reduce their take-home income.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/27/maine-tried-to-raise-its-minimum-wage-restaurant-workers-didnt-want-it/

There are different kinds of tipped workers. There are ones who make bank at expensive bars and restaurants, and then there are those living in poverty. About 13% of tipped workers live below the poverty line. That number increases to almost 20% for women.

I dont care that the loudest and best compensated tipped workers like the system. The people working a full time job living in poverty deserve better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

There are many well paying jobs that require 0 skills, but they’re usually harder work, so people just complain instead.

What jobs are those that pay well despite requiring zero skills?

Garbage. Mail. Janitor. Lawn maintenance. Car washer. Bus driver. Taxi cab/Uber driver. Cashier. Maid. Doorman. Bellhop. Delivery person. Warehouse fulfilment. Stock/clerk. I could go on. Yes, there are some basic skills required, but nothing the overwhelming majority of adults could not pick up in a very short period of time.

Okay, say everyone went to these so-called good paying skillless jobs. Whose going to do the minimum wage work? And do those people not deserve to be able to sustain themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All y'all's arguments are sweet and dandy but as a taxpayer I'm tired of having to pay for the welfare and food stamps of full time employees. I'm tired of subsidizing their employers.

+1 And the shareholders of their employers.

Honestly I could get on board with this if the minimum wage increase actually came with a reduction on MY taxes that subsidize these companies! But you know full well it won’t! The taxes will just go to the support the companies instead of (and maybe in addition to) the welfare state. Or it will go to pay the skyrocketing price of products that companies have had to raise in order to be able to meet the enforced $15 minimum. Sure, those who keep their jobs will be making a “living wage” of $15/hour but then the cost of food and products will increase to cover it and housing prices will rise to adjust for that and everything will just inflate! Incredibly frustrating you don’t get that!

Oh you could get on board with pulling people out of poverty if it benefits you? Examine yourself, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ask someone to work for you for full time hours, but don't pay them enough to reasonably sustain themselves, you've essentially got yourself an indentured servant. Are we really okay with that as a country? Having an underclass of indentured servants that we allow the merchant class to abuse and treat however they want?

If you offer someone a job and tell them upfront the wage you are willing to pay, and the person says YES to your offer, then you’ve got yourself an employee who has entered into an at-will agreement to work for you at the wage you both agreed upon.

And in most cases, the wage is very clearly indicated in the job posting. The “indentured servant” need not apply to that job of the wage is not suitable to them.

Buddy, you ever been hungry?

I have and I’ve worked the minimum wage jobs when I was. I worked construction jobs that were hard when I was. I did without stuff when I was.

I didn’t bitch that it wasn’t fair and expect someone else to do something about it, it was on me to do it.

And you're fortunate enough to have had the skills and the wherewithal to do so. Not everyone does, and those people still need to eat.

There are many well paying jobs that require 0 skills, but they’re usually harder work, so people just complain instead.

What jobs are those that pay well despite requiring zero skills?

Garbage. Mail. Janitor. Lawn maintenance. Car washer. Bus driver. Taxi cab/Uber driver. Cashier. Maid. Doorman. Bellhop. Delivery person. Warehouse fulfilment. Stock/clerk. I could go on. Yes, there are some basic skills required, but nothing the overwhelming majority of adults could not pick up in a very short period of time.

Okay, say everyone went to these so-called good paying skillless jobs. Whose going to do the minimum wage work? And do those people not deserve to be able to sustain themselves?

The same people that do them now, as the above jobs are out there currently. Anyone making minimum wage Today could get a better job Tomorrow, but they won’t because the work is harder. Some people don’t want to reward them for their decisions, why is that a bad thing?

If you want to be able to sustain yourself but don’t want to put the work in, that’s not my problem.