Anonymous wrote:

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

But not so much of a heart as to think the min. wage should be a living wage?

The min wage should be what it is...minimum.

If you need more to live on, which is very likely, then your time should be spent coming up with a solution as oppsoed to sitting around whining about what someone is not doing for you.

I will freely give out information on how to make more money. I have spent so much time trying to help people in that way. It is a waste because most people don't want the power of information....they want a hand out. Yet, I still try just in case.

So the only excuse is a lack of information. Maybe you never thought to get a second job, maybe you didn't know you could get on elance or odesk and make some pocket change. Perhaps it never occured to you to start offering a service on the side. Maybe you didn't know that just about everyone has a talent that someone is willing to pay for.

That is what people need...knowledge and action behind it. They do not need to sit around and tell me how I should spend the money my business has earned.

If I choose to be generous with wages then that is great, I should. But that is my choice to make. You can make your own choices when you get to my level.

How will raising the minimum wage cause an increase in the salary of the professionals? Every worker is worth his keep.
If you want to outsource burger flipping to remote workers in Asia, then do so.

For now, why must the tax man subsidise the cost of the workforce for those who do not want to pay salaries that would enable a worker to live

What exactly is a "living wage"? What sort of housing, transportation, food, entertainment, child care, etc should be factored into a living wage?

If raising the minimum wage to what is a "living wage" for those who flip burgers, etc should occur there would likely be an effect on the compensation paid to other occupations and professions which entail more education and skills with a corresponding effect on inflation as companies raise prices to make up for the higher compensation. You can be sure that would result in more outsourcing of jobs that can be outsourced.

We have lost a lot of manufacturing and other jobs that have shifted overseas. Do we want to see more of a trend in that direction? You can be sure that will happen if the minimum wage was increased significantly. I would not blame any company for doing so. After all, we live in a global economy so why would it be a surprise if that should happen?

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

But not so much of a heart as to think the min. wage should be a living wage?

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the immigrant PP's story is not altogether unusual. There are several people at my place of work who have the same backgrounds and have achieved considerable success despite the odds.

If I had to identify a single characteristic that seems to be the common thread among them it is the lack of a sense of entitlement. They feel that to get ahead they have to work hard and earn it. It is this same attitude they are able to inculcate into their children which is why many of these kids also excel in school and college. Immigrants who come to the US frequently come from countries where there is no social safety net. They don't expect the government to bail them out and certainly know that employers will not do so. So they come here expecting to make it on their own and with the opportunities the US offers many of them excel.

I think there is a lesson in it for us. I am not arguing for eliminating the social safety net but I think we would do well to be more selective about who qualifies for it and how long it lasts. A culture of dependence merely breeds more dependence.

PP here that the immigrant PP responded to. I think he is simplyfying things somewhat. Those countries with no social safety net are also the ones with the biggest income disparities.

I agree 100% on the social safety net issue. But something has to give, right? If you decrease the social safety net but yet do not want to pay a wage that closes the gap (or comes close to it), where does that leave you? I am all for breaking the cycle of dependence on the social safety net. But you are either going to have to pay higher wages or pay more money for education and job training.

I am simplyfying the issue for the purposes of this discussion. But if we pay higher wages, let's assume that less people are dependent on the social safety net. Then the government can either lower my taxes (or redeploy that money elsewhere more useful). To the extent I pay lower taxes, I can invest that money or spend it at these businesses. In the best case, the business owner will see an increase in revenue or will have access to more capital to offset the higher wages.

My initial point is that to the extent the businesses are not paying a "living" wage, the taxpayers are bridging the gap. We can debate "hard work = success" until we are blue in the face. But that does not help us NOW!

IMO, the immigrant PP's story is not altogether unusual. There are several people at my place of work who have the same backgrounds and have achieved considerable success despite the odds.

If I had to identify a single characteristic that seems to be the common thread among them it is the lack of a sense of entitlement. They feel that to get ahead they have to work hard and earn it. It is this same attitude they are able to inculcate into their children which is why many of these kids also excel in school and college. Immigrants who come to the US frequently come from countries where there is no social safety net. They don't expect the government to bail them out and certainly know that employers will not do so. So they come here expecting to make it on their own and with the opportunities the US offers many of them excel.

I think there is a lesson in it for us. I am not arguing for eliminating the social safety net but I think we would do well to be more selective about who qualifies for it and how long it lasts. A culture of dependence merely breeds more dependence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The relevant point about PP's story is that it is possible for people to start at the lowest rung and move up with effort and dedication. Admittedly, this is just one person's experience but it is interesting how many immigrants to the US end up doing well as do their children. Is there a lesson in their success for those of us who have been here for several generations?

Reading the comments of various posters, if we went the route they are suggesting, we'd end up being like Europe with the expectation that if people are wanting either employers or the government should fill the gap. It has not done Europe any good and it will not be good for the US.

Yes, wrongdoing by those working for companies should be severely punished and it is a crying shame that the bank meltdown has caused hardly anyone to be held accountable, but I don't think it should be used as an excuse for subsidizing those who are not willing to work to be self-sufficient.

Right it is possible - not guaranteed, even for the hardest workers. A lot of factors come into play. My point is that many of the working poor are "willing to work to be self sufficient." They ARE working - for goodness sake. Not everyone who is poor is lazy or unwilling to work. The problem I have with a lot of this discussion is that a lot of people fail to even acknowledge some the hurdles that the working poor do have. Housing is obvious, but many of the working poor are single parents (or parents with mutiple jobs like PP) so child care is an issue. So...you have people resistant to raising wages who, at the same time, want to cut Head Start and child care subsidies. Despite what you have heard, there ARE working people out there who are trying to make a better life for themselves. But based on this thread, they are in a lose/lose situation. People do not want them to be paid a wage that would make them more self sufficient. At the same time, you have people who want to cut the supplemental government benefits that they do get. It is a serious Catch-22 for them.

Like I said, the increasing income and SES gap in this country is the biggest problem that we have.

Anonymous wrote:And if that applies -- full time workers should be eligible for food stamps, etc. -- why limit that to burger flippers?

Why not secretaries? marketing managers? Vice Presidents?

Why should any company pay anyone more than $7/ hour?

But there are full time workers who are eligible for food stamps - a lot of them work at Walmart.

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.

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?

I am not sure I understand your question and I do not know how the government does things with respect to military families, but I do know that Walmart's policies are intentionally designed to achieve that result.

If a small business cannot afford to hire workers, then the owner needs to do that menial job. Unless he can outsource those tasks to a remote worker in a third world country.

Anonymous wrote:

Reading the comments of various posters, if we went the route they are suggesting, we'd end up being like Europe with the expectation that if people are wanting either employers or the government should fill the gap. It has not done Europe any good and it will not be good for the US.

What do you mean, "it has not done Europe any good?" It's done Europe plenty of good. Social mobility is higher in Europe, income inequality is lower, and public health indicators (such as infant mortality rates) are better.

Anonymous wrote:

The relevant point about PP's story is that it is possible for people to start at the lowest rung and move up with effort and dedication. Admittedly, this is just one person's experience but it is interesting how many immigrants to the US end up doing well as do their children. Is there a lesson in their success for those of us who have been here for several generations?

It is possible for some people. I think it's equally true that there are some people who start at the lowest rung and cannot make it to the next. It might be a personal failing, it might be a lack of vision, it might be insurmountable bad luck, it might be some circumstances are harder than others to get beyond.

I think generally, when we're talking about living wage requirements, how extensive our social nets should be, and those sorts of things, the people who successfully climb that ladder are not the ones we're having that discussion about. I think most of those folks would find a way out of dire circumstances because they're simply that motivated/lucky/capable.

We're left with asking ourselves what we are obligated to do about the people who won't make it off that lowest rung. I think many people don't even see it as an obligation to the person on that lowest rung, but rather an obligation to their children. That makes the arguments for aid more compelling anyway, because even if we view the adult as deserving of his own circumstances, few people are so callous as to think children deserve deprived environments.

There may well be lessons in the successes of some. But what *is* that lesson? Is it "you can starve because if you really wanted food you'd work for it" ? Or "some people have vision and drive and create success, we're going to try to find a way to give everyone pathways to success" ? Something else?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The relevant point about PP's story is that it is possible for people to start at the lowest rung and move up with effort and dedication. Admittedly, this is just one person's experience but it is interesting how many immigrants to the US end up doing well as do their children. Is there a lesson in their success for those of us who have been here for several generations?

Reading the comments of various posters, if we went the route they are suggesting, we'd end up being like Europe with the expectation that if people are wanting either employers or the government should fill the gap. It has not done Europe any good and it will not be good for the US.

Yes, wrongdoing by those working for companies should be severely punished and it is a crying shame that the bank meltdown has caused hardly anyone to be held accountable, but I don't think it should be used as an excuse for subsidizing those who are not willing to work to be self-sufficient.

Anonymous wrote:And if that applies -- full time workers should be eligible for food stamps, etc. -- why limit that to burger flippers?

Why not secretaries? marketing managers? Vice Presidents?

Why should any company pay anyone more than $7/ hour?

If you don't know the answer to that, then I have to question if you finished high school.

And if that applies -- full time workers should be eligible for food stamps, etc. -- why limit that to burger flippers?

Why not secretaries? marketing managers? Vice Presidents?

Why should any company pay anyone more than $7/ hour?