Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.
Do you see the words living wage in any of my posts? A minimum wage at the poverty level for 2,000 hours of work is just enough to exist, meaning not starve to death or succumb to the elements from exposure. It's room and board pay. Let me see you live off of that amount!
The only point I'll make about your position is it's the position of a fool. Running an economy with our present minimum wage destroys the market just like outsourcing jobs destroys the market for any business relying on the American market. When you are in business paying low wages is only a benefit to you if you are the only one doing it. When wages are generally too low the whole market is depressed. The corporation outsourcing jobs initially benefits, but all the other businesses lose that money from their market. Eventually, the corporation doing the outsourcing will suffer once too many other corporations follow the same example. Importing goods is only beneficial when a country has balanced trade and can benefit from comparative advantage in the exchange. Businesses that depend on the American market are obviously affected by low wages eating up their sales volume more than they save paying lower wages.
Some people don't need to earn a wage high enough to support a family. They are young and living at home. They are seniors who use a post retirment job to supplement their retirement or just keep busy. They are disabled intending to be useful.
Every time the minimum wage goes up employment participation goes down.
Then you should be able to post data supporting your statement, but you can't, because economists have examined the connection between raising the minimum wage and employment/unemployment and there is no such effect.
I've posted the data on minimum wage and below minimum wage workers and they aren't the people you claim they are. If some kid or elderly person happens to make more than they need to exist, what does that hurt? I doubt seriously if a surplus is going to follow that kid throughout his life and if some elderly person has some money left when they die, their family can more than likely use it. Why do conservatives think it's good for working people to be poor? All we have to do to make poor people is elect a Republican, because that's what you people stand for.
Elites? Small business which is the hardest hit by federal and state meddling, are certainly NOT "the elites"..We are talking about minimum wage jobs, so how do you come up with different wages? Are you talking about the differences in the cost of living throughout the country? If so, life is still a requirement to do a job. Wages tend to follow the cost of living of the area where the employees are working.
What I am trying to point out to you is you are arguing for a living wage. To me that means enough for a person to live on. So figure it out some time. What would your expenses be just to survive? Do you really think that's going to be the same things for any two people? And I'm not talking about two people with the same job in two different parts of the country. I'm talking about two employees that have the same job, are of the same merit, that work for the same employer in the same place. Let's take two production workers that work for the same company I do. They both have the same job requirements. They are both equally proficient at it. One of those people is a single mother of two. The other is a single male. Obviously the mother of two requires more money to meet the needs of herself and here children then the single male. People are going to have different living expenses as well. One person will have to pay a mortgage and property taxes while another may be a renter. One will live further from work than another and thus require more gas money. It goes on and on. These are the logistical things I am talking about that make a well intended idea immoral. Rarely are you going to be able to come up with one figure that is going to cover everyone's basic needs and no more. Thus the premise of my original question. To meet your demand that everyone make a living wage, I see no way to meet that without having to pay two people (or more) different wages for the same work. Again, how do either a) get around the obvious moral problem with that or b) how do you justify that requirment of your position?
My point is your argument is that everyone deserves enough to live on even for jobs that require the most basic of skill sets. The problem is for you to get what you say you deserve, someone else must earn that and more. They must hold themselves to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself to provide that which you say you deserve. There are all kinds of ways a person's income stream can be improved. What bothers me is you only advocate for solutions that require somoene else to give a person that extra income flow rather than advocate for the many things a person can do for themselves to improve their income flow.
You people who object to minimum wage increases say all kinds of things that don't really apply. Almost every minimum wage job has basic requirements that must mastered. You keep acting like someone who can only run a cash register or make hamburgers half as fast can be paid half the rate and it will work. It doesn't work that way on jobs. The customers aren't going to want to wait twice as long in line or twice as long to get a hamburger. There isn't usually room to have twice the people doing a job slowly. You may consider all those jobs unskilled, but many require abilities, that everybody doesn't possess.
They are, in part, indeed unskilled. It's also that the skills they do posses are common to a lot of people. That's why they get paid what they do. Again it goes back to supply and demand. If there is excess supply of something its cost goes down. Labor is no exception. Those jobs pay low wages because there is a surplus of people who can do it. If one person won't accept wages for that skill set, someone else will. One person may be trying to make enough to live on. Someone else may not need that much and will be fine with it. That is the beauty of the free market. Two parties can enter into whatever agreement they feel like without outside interference posing unneccessary rules. Who are you, as a third party, to get in the middle of agreed upon compensation between two parties? Maybe it isn't a living wage, but if it's fine with the employee, what business is it of yours? Why is an employer not allowed to pay as little as an employee will agree to?
I don't give a shit what a living wage means to you and quote where I said I was arguing for a living wage! I said the minimum wage should be equivalent to the poverty level at 2,000 hours and adjusted to the true cost of living. I've pointed out many times that very few minimum wage workers will get 2,000 hours from one employer, so rarely will they ever receive overtime for working more than 40 hours per week. The amount of wages I suggested have been proven in the past to work for the American economy and that was back in the days when people were paid minimum wage to pump gas.
The rest of your bullshit statements ignore the reality that employers who hire minimum wage workers don't have a means to accommodate people who can't perform the job. Employers can't hire twice the people to make french fries and pay them half as much because they are slow. Employers can't have slow people operating cash registers, because the customers aren't going to put up with the hastle of someone being slow. They'll find another way to shop. You believe minimum wage jobs are unskilled, but how many people like you could actually hold down some of those jobs? It takes skill to quickly find the bar codes on all the products in a store. I'm not claiming most people can't do it, but some people can't do it fast enough to be acceptable. The fact is we need people doing those jobs and the people should be directly paid for their work and not paid substandard wages with taxpayers subsidizing the business.
You support the bullshit from the elites designed to preserve the value of their fortunes by suppressing wages, while I support what's best for the market. Work that is required will survive inflation even if the wages keep pace with inflation. The economy of the United States should be controlled to help the people and not the elites.
You're an arrogant SOB, who definitely shouldn't reproduce more scum like yourself.
Figure this out, fool! The Federal Reserve has a mandate from Congress to prevent a wage/price spiral and the Fed openly states they watch the unemployment rate and up their discount rate as unemployment begins to approach 4% in the sub-5% range. They are on record saying 4% unemployment is considered full employment, therefore 1 in 25 people will always be out of work and necessity dictates some of those jobs by working people have to be minimum wage jobs, because our economy requires them to be. Those are the realities facing the people of working age, so some of those people are left with the choice of taking a minimum wage job or not working at all. Like you were told, regardless of how much education the entire work force acquires, someone is going to have to do those jobs or change our economic reality with some advanced technology to eliminate that necessary work.
No one is forced to have children.
That has nothing to do with our controlled economy.
If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.
Are you really as big an asshole as you come off here? Just curious.
But what about the person that HAD a good job when they had their kids, lost that job because it went elsewhere and rather than offend fuking assholes like you by applying for governmnet benes, they took a minimum wage job because some pay is better than a welfare check. Some self respect for having any job is better than living off the tax dollars from people like you.
You should be applauding those people.
Right jerk?
