Minimum Wage = Living Wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you are the pp, you did not answer my question. Why do you feel entitled to tell private business owners how to allocate the money that they have worked for? Why do you feel that private businesses are "community property"?

I would add to that, where does personal responsibility come in? The min wage is there- you know what it is when you go to orientation. So where is the responsibilty on the individual to get what they need? Plenty of people work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. Perhaps more time should be spent on finding an additional job, working towards getting promoted, or starting your own business as opposed to sitting around complaining about what you feel entitled to.

Nobody is paying you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone. Sorry.

Not the PP, but why do I feel entitled to tell private business owners how to allocate the money that they have worked for? Because we live in a society. Society pays for the transportation, communications, education, defense, and legal systems your business needs to succeed. And society says that, in return, you have to pay taxes, pay at least minimum wage, provide a safe and healthy workplace, not discriminate, and so on.

As for what people are entitled to -- I think that if people work a full-time job, they are entitled (yes, entitled) to have enough money to pay for

1. food
2. shelter
3. health care
4. transportation to their job

And perhaps instead of saying, "Nobody is paying you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone," it would be more accurate to say, "I won't pay you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone, unless the law requires me to do so."

Societal obligations are not met by compelling businesses to pay at a level that enables those obligations to be satisfied. If society feels there is such an obligation then government should provide the assistance whether it is subsidized food, shelter, healthcare or transportation. Whether society wishes to take on such an obligation is up to the voters and will doubtless result in higher taxes. But that is still up to the voters to decide.

Businesses should not be expected to meet societal obligations in these areas especially as it pertains to the level of compensation. Let market forces determine the amount that a business should pay. For example, I think it is ridiculous that I pay the exorbitant amounts that plumbers demand for relatively simple work involving very little time but that is the going rate for a plumber and so I pay it. I don't understand what is so difficult about the concept of letting the market decide what a specific job is worth rather than prescribing an artificial rate based on the obligation that an employer has to meet societal needs.

Yes, there is a role for government and regulations in certain facets of how a business operates: environmental standards, safety issues, child labor, equality of compensation between genders, non-discrimination with regard to race, creed and ethnic origin, sexual harassment, etc.

You pay the "ridiculous" rate plumbers demand, because you want a plumber who is trained and licensed to fix your pipes. You value quality work.

Clearly, if you actually do own a business, you do NOT value hiring people who can give your customers the same quality experience. Instead, you pay as little as you possibly can to as few as you can get away hiring and with as much disdain for your employees as you can muster.

I'm guessing your business is not wildly successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a minimum wage should absolutely be a living wage.

For an individual or a family (and if family, what size family and how many working members)?

Let me make it explicitly clear, since that comment was too much for you to take in. I do not believe that wages should be based on discriminatory demographic categories. Two individuals doing the same exactly job should be paid exactly the same. Simple as that.

Aww, you just lost your gold star. You missed a question! Snarky and self-satisfied doesn't work when you're showing yourself to share the same deficiencies you view in the other person. But look! Another opportunity to be that superior person and re-gain that gold star!

Should the living wage be for an individual or a family? If family, what size, how many working members?

I believe the PP who you are arguing with answered your question. Twice. Re-read what s/he wrote.

The PP said that all should get a living wage, and that wage shouldn't matter regardless of working for pin money or rent money. But the PP has not yet said whether a living wage should be defined as supporting an individual, a family with one working member, or a family with two working members. Those are significantly different amounts.

NP. I think you need to re-read what PP wrote. They clearly answered this. "Individual" was probably the key word there.

+1 Duh, asshat. It's called reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting thread and good points made on both sides. I do think that people tend to argue the extremes on issues like this. Nevertheless, I DO think it is beyond terrible that the US company with the most overall revenue and billionaire owners (and shareholders) has FULL time employees who still need public assistance to get by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As for what people are entitled to -- I think that if people work a full-time job, they are entitled (yes, entitled) to have enough money to pay for

1. food
2. shelter
3. health care
4. transportation to their job

Would bare minimums be enough for you to be satisfied?
Say the wage paid for beans and rice, but there was very little wiggle room and it took some budgeting to afford any specialized dietary needs or preferences.
It paid for shelter, but for something like shared housing. You might get your own room, but you'd be sharing bathroom, kitchen.
It paid for basic health care, but nothing extra. You can get treatment for pneumonia, but if you want to eradicate that toenail fungus you're saving your pennies for quite a while.
It paid for basic transportation. You can basically drive a beater, own a bike, or take public transportation. The beater means you need to keep sneakers in the back because it's going to break down, and affording gas is tight so you pretty much only use for work and home. The bike is a pain in bad weather and traffic, but you make enough to essentially keep it in good shape. You can afford public transportation without a problem, even for non-work-related uses, but it's going to take you 1.5 hours in each direction to make it to work.

I think if you put all those things together, you would wind up with a pretty limited life. Would a living wage that covered those be sufficient in your view?

I don't know if it would be sufficient, but it would be better than what there is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, so you are a communist. Don't even give me that socialist line because socialism is communism in a wig. People used to be ashamed to admit that. Well...there are societies where you can go and live and have the govt take care of you. They will make sure you have everything you need. Even the thoughts in your head will be provided for free. But there is a downside to that, but it is probably not important to you since you feel entitled to make sure that someone else provides for you what you could provide for yourself.

But until things change here, and they will due to lazy people like you, there is this thing called personal responsibility. So if you don't have enough money, it is your job to fix it. If "full time" has to be 60 hours a week for you, then so be it. It is not your job to sit on your ass and tell someone who has worked harder than you how to spend their earnings. You should be asahmed to admit that you support such sloth.

If you think that communism = "if you have a full-time job, it should pay you enough to be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, and health care", then perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, so you are a communist. Don't even give me that socialist line because socialism is communism in a wig. People used to be ashamed to admit that. Well...there are societies where you can go and live and have the govt take care of you. They will make sure you have everything you need. Even the thoughts in your head will be provided for free. But there is a downside to that, but it is probably not important to you since you feel entitled to make sure that someone else provides for you what you could provide for yourself.

But until things change here, and they will due to lazy people like you, there is this thing called personal responsibility. So if you don't have enough money, it is your job to fix it. If "full time" has to be 60 hours a week for you, then so be it. It is not your job to sit on your ass and tell someone who has worked harder than you how to spend their earnings. You should be asahmed to admit that you support such sloth.

If you think that communism = "if you have a full-time job, it should pay you enough to be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, and health care", then perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject.

If that was all you said, then I wouldn't have posted that. So perhaps you should read up on the subject, or do you expect someone else to? Then they can write you an outline, record it on an mp3, and deliver it to your door. They will schedule a time after you finish working 40 hours a week while complaining about how you should make as much as the people who spent years working 80+ plus hours a week so that you could have a job.

Tell them to bring you some dinner too since you are so needy. But they will probably draw the line at actually putting the fork in your mouth for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

So would you argue there should be no minimum wage at all? If you can find someone to answer phones for $1/hr, that person should be allowed to make that choice, and you should be allowed to employ them for that wage?

There is a minimum wage, so what is your point? Did I say it should be repealed? No I did not.

If I need to hire someone for $2 an hour...guess what, I can. It is called the global workforce. That is what you wanted right? To be a "global citizen".

Why do you think that you are entitled to tell other people how to run their businesses? What equity have you put in? What have you sacrificed? (Most) Businesses are private organizations, not government subsidiaries. Safety regulations are fine. Min wage is necessary.

But as for the rest, if you have so many great ideas on what companies should do, then prove it. Start your own company and do it. It is not your place to tell a private business owner how to allocate funds, especially when you know nothing as far as what goes on behind the scenes.

So you approve of their being a minimum wage, but you don't want it to be a living wage? Am I understanding you?
Do you think minimum wage should be tied to cost of living at all, or should it just be increased randomly, as politicians see fit?
If a min. wage is necessary, why? Do you not trust market forces to create fair or reasonable wages? How do you determine what the minimum wage should be, if you don't tie it to something?

If you are the pp, you did not answer my question. Why do you feel entitled to tell private business owners how to allocate the money that they have worked for? Why do you feel that private businesses are "community property"?

I would add to that, where does personal responsibility come in? The min wage is there- you know what it is when you go to orientation. So where is the responsibilty on the individual to get what they need? Plenty of people work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. Perhaps more time should be spent on finding an additional job, working towards getting promoted, or starting your own business as opposed to sitting around complaining about what you feel entitled to.

Nobody is paying you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone. Sorry.

I'm not that PP, so I can't answer for that, sorry.

I'm still curious what reasons you have for being for a minimum wage, but against a living wage. Most folks I know think a living wage requirement isn't reasonable have related reasons for rejecting a minimum wage. They typically argue that market forces will bear out. That if it costs $15/hr to hire someone to answer a telephone, then so be it, but if it costs $1/hr to hire someone to make a sandwich, then that's just fine as well.

Your personal responsibilities comment seems to line up with that. But I'm missing something, since you're for a minimum wage. Can you explain more about that?

I am not against a min wage because I know human nature, and I have a heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you are the pp, you did not answer my question. Why do you feel entitled to tell private business owners how to allocate the money that they have worked for? Why do you feel that private businesses are "community property"?

I would add to that, where does personal responsibility come in? The min wage is there- you know what it is when you go to orientation. So where is the responsibilty on the individual to get what they need? Plenty of people work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. Perhaps more time should be spent on finding an additional job, working towards getting promoted, or starting your own business as opposed to sitting around complaining about what you feel entitled to.

Nobody is paying you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone. Sorry.

Not the PP, but why do I feel entitled to tell private business owners how to allocate the money that they have worked for? Because we live in a society. Society pays for the transportation, communications, education, defense, and legal systems your business needs to succeed. And society says that, in return, you have to pay taxes, pay at least minimum wage, provide a safe and healthy workplace, not discriminate, and so on.

As for what people are entitled to -- I think that if people work a full-time job, they are entitled (yes, entitled) to have enough money to pay for

1. food
2. shelter
3. health care
4. transportation to their job

And perhaps instead of saying, "Nobody is paying you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone," it would be more accurate to say, "I won't pay you $15 an hour to wrap a sandwich or answer a telephone, unless the law requires me to do so."

Societal obligations are not met by compelling businesses to pay at a level that enables those obligations to be satisfied. If society feels there is such an obligation then government should provide the assistance whether it is subsidized food, shelter, healthcare or transportation. Whether society wishes to take on such an obligation is up to the voters and will doubtless result in higher taxes. But that is still up to the voters to decide.

Businesses should not be expected to meet societal obligations in these areas especially as it pertains to the level of compensation. Let market forces determine the amount that a business should pay. For example, I think it is ridiculous that I pay the exorbitant amounts that plumbers demand for relatively simple work involving very little time but that is the going rate for a plumber and so I pay it. I don't understand what is so difficult about the concept of letting the market decide what a specific job is worth rather than prescribing an artificial rate based on the obligation that an employer has to meet societal needs.

Yes, there is a role for government and regulations in certain facets of how a business operates: environmental standards, safety issues, child labor, equality of compensation between genders, non-discrimination with regard to race, creed and ethnic origin, sexual harassment, etc.

You pay the "ridiculous" rate plumbers demand, because you want a plumber who is trained and licensed to fix your pipes. You value quality work.

Clearly, if you actually do own a business, you do NOT value hiring people who can give your customers the same quality experience. Instead, you pay as little as you possibly can to as few as you can get away hiring and with as much disdain for your employees as you can muster.

I'm guessing your business is not wildly successful.

I pay the plumber what I consider to be a ridiculous rate because that is the going rate - whether I like it or not. Someone who is unskilled and has a high school education - if that - flipping burgers, gets the going rate which the market dictates similar to the plumber. It really is not complicated. The market decides what people should be paid whether a plumber or a burger flipper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread and good points made on both sides. I do think that people tend to argue the extremes on issues like this. Nevertheless, I DO think it is beyond terrible that the US company with the most overall revenue and billionaire owners (and shareholders) has FULL time employees who still need public assistance to get by.

I arrived in the US as an immigrant and made very little money when I started. I had to support a wife and child. I never relied on public assistance but what I did do was to work a second job to make ends meet. We also had to be very careful how we spent money. In the first year I was in the country, the only treat we had was a Sunday lunch at McDonald. I am grateful for all I have but it was by virtue of sheer hard work.

Today we are quite well-off by most standards but it was through hard work and gaining job skills. I really don't understand this discussion in which people feel they are entitled to a "living" wage when they don't have the skills to earn a "living" wage. People should go out and work the extra hours and get the necessary education to make a decent living. Neither the government nor any employer owes anyone a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread and good points made on both sides. I do think that people tend to argue the extremes on issues like this. Nevertheless, I DO think it is beyond terrible that the US company with the most overall revenue and billionaire owners (and shareholders) has FULL time employees who still need public assistance to get by.

I arrived in the US as an immigrant and made very little money when I started. I had to support a wife and child. I never relied on public assistance but what I did do was to work a second job to make ends meet. We also had to be very careful how we spent money. In the first year I was in the country, the only treat we had was a Sunday lunch at McDonald. I am grateful for all I have but it was by virtue of sheer hard work.

Today we are quite well-off by most standards but it was through hard work and gaining job skills. I really don't understand this discussion in which people feel they are entitled to a "living" wage when they don't have the skills to earn a "living" wage. People should go out and work the extra hours and get the necessary education to make a decent living. Neither the government nor any employer owes anyone a living.

No offense, but you a treading on thin ice with your arguement. You are buying into "some" people's belief that everybody that is poor is not working hard or is lazy.

In my view, society (and the government) had made the decision that people in this country (especially children) should not starve. It is a policy decision that I fully support. As you know, the taxpayers foot the bill for this. Once again, I do not have a problem with it - if we can bail out banks - we can help people eat. My point is that while I am ok with public assistance on some level, I think we should pay people sufficently so that they do not need it (or as much). It seems to me that a lot of the burden of supporting the working poor has fallen on the government and the taxpayers instead of the people that employ them (and exploit their labor). Pay a fair wage, reduce the public assistance rolls, lower my taxes which leaves me with more money to spend at your business.

[Anonymous]

Plus which, if everyone in the country has to get a degree or become a plumber just to live, who exactly do you think will be left to flip the burgers and welcome you to Walmart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Societal obligations are not met by compelling businesses to pay at a level that enables those obligations to be satisfied.

Of course they are. We do this all the time. Including about pay.

Now, is that the best way to do things? Not necessarily. For example, I think that tying health insurance to employment is ridiculous. But the fact is, we do do it that way.

Not the PP but clearly we don't do it all the time which is why there is this discussion about whether the minimum wage should equate to a living wage.

It is absurd to say that there is no problem with a minimum wage, whose purpose is to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees (look up the Fair Labor Standards Act), but there is a problem with a living wage -- which would create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. The minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. If Congress were raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, as Congress had done in the past, or if the minimum wage were simply indexed to inflation, the minimum wage would be a living wage.

Or, as the PP said, "Pay people so they can fucking eat."

I disagree that the miminum wage is or was intended to be a living wage, in no small part because if you START employees performing low (or no) skill work at $15/hour, where do you go from there? How much do you have to pay the mediocre sandwich wrapper/receptionist/whatever who has managed to keep a job by the skin of his teeth for 15 years? And, as others have said, what would you require employers to do about low skill workers with big expenses (lots of kids, etc) or who want a "good" living? What is the incentive to improve and get into other, better jobs if we set every requirement for how employers manage their businesses? And I can't even imagine how many posters advocating for a living wage would feel about paid maternity leave, paid sick leave, paid nursing breaks, etc. Where does it end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree that the miminum wage is or was intended to be a living wage, in no small part because if you START employees performing low (or no) skill work at $15/hour, where do you go from there? How much do you have to pay the mediocre sandwich wrapper/receptionist/whatever who has managed to keep a job by the skin of his teeth for 15 years? And, as others have said, what would you require employers to do about low skill workers with big expenses (lots of kids, etc) or who want a "good" living? What is the incentive to improve and get into other, better jobs if we set every requirement for how employers manage their businesses? And I can't even imagine how many posters advocating for a living wage would feel about paid maternity leave, paid sick leave, paid nursing breaks, etc. Where does it end?

This is not actually an opinion question. This is a question of fact. The purpose of the minimum wage, according to the text of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, is to "eliminate" "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/202

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting thread and good points made on both sides. I do think that people tend to argue the extremes on issues like this. Nevertheless, I DO think it is beyond terrible that the US company with the most overall revenue and billionaire owners (and shareholders) has FULL time employees who still need public assistance to get by.

If the company owner isn't a billionaire, is it ok for full time employees to need public assistance?
What about the government, is it ok for it to have full-time military and civilian employees who need public assistance?

[Anonymous]

Are you sayingthat the minimum wage is supposed to be so low that workers live on food stamps, sleep in homeless shelters, qualify for medical aid and therefore the tax payer must bear the cost