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."

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

Spot on! The proponents of forcing businesses to pay a "living wage" know perfectly well that the voters will never agree to higher taxes to meet so called "societal obligations" which is why they are going after businesses to do so. It is an end run around the voters.

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."

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

Yes it should be a fucking living wage- signed Esq making 160k now; with 13 years off minimum wage experience. Pay people so they can fucking eat.

You willing to cut that salary down substantially in order to 'share the wealth' so that others can eat? What is your education and hard work to get where you are worth to you?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It used to be a living wage. How come it used to be a living wage, and economic disaster did not ensue, but now if we had a living wage, economic disaster would ensue?

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. What we used to consider a basic standard of living is much lower than what we now consider a basic standard of living.

I'm pretty sure that "having enough to eat" is a constant through the ages.

So is that what we consider a living wage? You are earning a living wage if you can purchase enough to eat? In which case, the current minimum wage is sufficient, because someone working full time at min. wage can buy enough to nutritionally satisfy one person.

I don't think many people would agree that the necessary determination of what a living wage should be is "what it costs to provide for the basic nutritional needs of one person." Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone else agree with this suggestion?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a smart business person could *not* do that, wouldn't we be socially saying we support the person out to grab all the wealth personally, rather than run a more ethical company? If society as a whole is not willing to support more ethical business practices, is it fair to require them of individuals?

I'm confused. Wouldn't a minimum wage that is a living wage be society as a whole being willing to support more ethical business practices?

I don't think so. I think right now, we're saying "THAT GUY has to pay THOSE PEOPLE better." Which is different from "We are willing to make sacrifices to make sure everyone has a basic level of income."

If a business person *cannot* make a business work paying a living wage, we're saying we either don't care about the business or we don't care about the living wage. Aren't we? Right now, [Walmart|McDonald's|Low Wage Job Mart] works because, as a society, we don't care a whole lot about a living wage. Though we REALLY like the idea of saying "THAT GUY over there needs to do MORE to help THOSE PEOPLE!" As if, somehow, our outrage is doing something to help someone.

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)?

Yes it should be a fucking living wage- signed Esq making 160k now; with 13 years off minimum wage experience. Pay people so they can fucking eat.