AroundTheBlock wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should the minimum wage for an area be a living wage for that area?

No. You cannot apply that theory because each area is different. Sorry, but I do not believe the government should try and make everyone's life more comfortable. If you work in Fairfax but live in PG should you get paid more money?

Each area is different & there would be discrepancies, although determining a wage for nearby geographical areas is probably "fairer" than trying to establish a minimum living wage across the entire country.

One way to resolve that would be to pick the cheapest area to live, establish what a living wage there would be, and make that the standard. It would encourage people to move to lower cost areas, although the standard argument against that is the people who would most need to move because of wage pressures are exactly those people who can least afford to move (both in terms of financial cost as well as in terms of losing community support/knowledge).

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)?

Anonymous wrote:
Many 16 year olds aren't working to get pocket cash or to keep busy - but to actually help financially provide and support their families.

It's incredibly naive to think that 16 year old are just bumming off their parents and don't need the money. That mentality comes from an enormous place of privilege, and lack of awareness about different kinds of family structures (financial and otherwise) in the US.

Ok, you're a superior person. Gold star!

Now, back to the question. Does it matter if the person getting the job (regardless of age, gender, sex, religion, marital or other familial status) is working for pin money or rent money?

Anonymous wrote:If businesses close up because they can't afford to pay their employees, they are either (1) crappy businesses to begin with, or (2) run by greedy people who want to profit on the backs of their employees.

Does this include small business start-ups, in your opinion?

Anonymous wrote:If businesses close up because they can't afford to pay their employees, they are either (1) crappy businesses to begin with, or (2) run by greedy people who want to profit on the backs of their employees.

+1

If businesses close up because they can't afford to pay their employees, they are either (1) crappy businesses to begin with, or (2) run by greedy people who want to profit on the backs of their employees.

If I find out any business is paying $15 or more an hour to collect grocery carts in a parking lot, I'm going to get that job.

It'll be like getting a gym workout for free yet getting paid. WOO HOO !

Anonymous wrote:I think if your business can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business, because you are doing it on the back of the rest of us and causing more taxes to pay to house, cloth, and feed YOUR employees and their families.

What happens to those individuals working if all the businesses close up as you want? Who will then pay for those out-of-work employees?

Anonymous wrote:I think if your business can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business, because you are doing it on the back of the rest of us and causing more taxes to pay to house, cloth, and feed YOUR employees and their families.

You know nothing about business. That is why you are an employee.

Yes, someone working a fulltime job should be able to support themselves on the wages of that job.

If your business can't afford to pay a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business. I think it's awful that full-time Walmart employees qualify for food stamps--that means that my tax dollars are subsidising Walmart. Many employers manage to make money and pay their employees enough to live on.

how would the government control the prices of everything else if the minimum is increased to living? Wouldn't living then become the minimum and low again?

I think if your business can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business, because you are doing it on the back of the rest of us and causing more taxes to pay to house, cloth, and feed YOUR employees and their families.

I would not vote in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

I think you could more effectively improve people's lives by deregulating the housing market - it is ridiculous that the majority of apartment that cost less than 2k+/month in safe neighborhoods in DC are "affordable housing" which means that only people making minimum wage and supporting several dependents are eligible to live there. What about the entry-level secretary with a child? Where is she supposed to live? If you freed up the housing market, maybe she could afford a home for her & her kid.

Anonymous wrote:Should the minimum wage for an area be a living wage for that area?

Does it matter if it's a 16 year old living at home who's applying to sweep floors at Jiffy Lube, or a 25 year old living on his own applying for that same job?

If you think the minimum wage should be a living wage, should it be a living wage for one person, a person supporting a family with another person making a similar wage, a person supporting a family on his own?

Should the wage depend on the circumstances of the job (e.g. training required) or the circumstances of the person (e.g. 16 yr old vs single mother of 2)?

No. You cannot apply that theory because each area is different. Sorry, but I do not believe the government should try and make everyone's life more comfortable. If you work in Fairfax but live in PG should you get paid more money? Also, paying a person because they have kids or don't have kids is segregation. It's not my fault, problem or issue that an employee of mine has kids and another one does not. Work is work. Do the job and stop feeling like people should be entitled to the easy life.

EDIT: Also, if business owners had to pay people based on a "living wage" then they would hire people who don't have a high wage requirement. Thus, it would be worse for the "mother with two kids".

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

Many 16 year olds aren't working to get pocket cash or to keep busy - but to actually help financially provide and support their families.

It's incredibly naive to think that 16 year old are just bumming off their parents and don't need the money. That mentality comes from an enormous place of privilege, and lack of awareness about different kinds of family structures (financial and otherwise) in the US.

Should the minimum wage for an area be a living wage for that area?

Does it matter if it's a 16 year old living at home who's applying to sweep floors at Jiffy Lube, or a 25 year old living on his own applying for that same job?

If you think the minimum wage should be a living wage, should it be a living wage for one person, a person supporting a family with another person making a similar wage, a person supporting a family on his own?

Should the wage depend on the circumstances of the job (e.g. training required) or the circumstances of the person (e.g. 16 yr old vs single mother of 2)?