Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Amelia]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

 

[rightwinger]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

 

[bendog]

And

WNYT.com - Paying back college loans

 

[Impenitent]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

While the other thread implies that Republicans are against higher wages because business will suffer, you seem to be against them because poor people are undeserving of higher wages.

Are both true at the same time?

Or is the former given as the excuse, while the real reason is the latter?

 

[Amelia]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Nobody's "having" the taxpayers do anything except the folks with no education/training that are trying to raise 8 kids on minimum wage. Have you ever worked fast food? It's the most mindless shit imaginable and unfortunately, our public school system is cranking out an endless supply of semi-literate fast food workers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And

WNYT.com - Paying back college loans

Student loans should be treated like any loan... you should have a plan. Loaning all this money for people to spend 12 years in college getting PhD's in literature is asinine.

 

[kaz]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

The relevant question is, if someone isn't worth enough to an employer to pay what you consider "a living wage," should they be prohibited from working? What is the win in that?

 

[Amelia]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.



Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?

Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

While the other thread implies that Republicans are against higher wages because business will suffer, you seem to be against them because poor people are undeserving of higher wages.

Are both true at the same time?

Or is the former given as the excuse, while the real reason is the latter?

I asked concrete questions with specific examples. You chose not to answer them and instead opted to make general and negative comments about my motives. Thus, I choose not to answer your questions. If you would like to try again with a post which is more related to my OP and not so personal, perhaps I will reconsider.

 

[bendog]

Is the thread's premise that everyone who works should not be able to have some level of housing and food and medical care, or that public benefits are so high that able bodied, sound minded people actually choose not to get the best job they are capable of doing because bendfits are so high?

I'm not arguing that there aren't malingerers, but if anyone doubts the working poor aren't working two or three jobs to support families, they need more education.

 

[Rozman]

And who makes the call on what a "living wage is".
To be able to buy steaks twice a week from a butcher and not the Super Market.
To be able to go out to dinner at a restaurant and not a coffee shop once a week...

Designer jeans for the family.

 

[rightwinger]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

 

[bendog]

And

WNYT.com - Paying back college loans

Student loans should be treated like any loan... you should have a plan. Loaning all this money for people to spend 12 years in college getting PhD's in literature is asinine.

The link went to rates, soggy. Why should a kid pay rates higher than a 30 year mortgage?

 

[DiamondDave]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

End state welfare.. corporate and individual..

You don't make enough??.. work more jobs.. or do what you have to do...

 

[rightwinger]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

End state welfare.. corporate and individual..

You don't make enough??.. work more jobs.. or do what you have to do...

Good answer....

But it assumes there are two or three additional low paying jobs available for the millions of people who do not make enough to support themselves or their families

 

[Steven_R]

And

WNYT.com - Paying back college loans

Student loans should be treated like any loan... you should have a plan. Loaning all this money for people to spend 12 years in college getting PhD's in literature is asinine.

The flip side of that coin is loans should be made, but a risk involved which pushes for lenders to be more strict on who gets a loan in the first place. Any other debt can be discharged in a bankruptcy, but not Student Loans. The lender should be able to say "oh, you want a degree in English Lit? sorry, but your prospects in paying us back after graduation is too low. Get a STEM degree instead."

 

[bendog]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Obamacare is a LW elitist nightmare devised by two relative affluent politicians who never worked in the private sector, but rather benefited via patronage to secure better govt jobs: Pelosi and Obama.

But the only argument I can see against the general approach to universal care is pretty much the same one against a minimum wage, and the argument is more attractive intellectually than what the actual effects of min wage appear to be, i.e. we still can have full employment even with a min wage.

 

[Amelia]

Is the thread's premise that everyone who works should not be able to have some level of housing and food and medical care, or that public benefits are so high that able bodied, sound minded people actually choose not to get the best job they are capable of doing because bendfits are so high?

I'm not arguing that there aren't malingerers, but if anyone doubts the working poor aren't working two or three jobs to support families, they need more education.

This thread doesn't have a premise, per se. It asks questions.

For example, should a paper route pay enough for someone to be able to support a family?

What is your opinion about that? And about the other questions asked in the OP?

People who wish to draw conclusions about my motives or beliefs are free to do so, but if they don't care to answer my questions, then I don't care to go off on whatever tangent they prefer to take this.

 

[Steven_R]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Businesses don't pay taxes. All they do is raise their prices to cover any expenses. In effect, all you'd be doing is contributing to a rate increase.

 

[kaz]

I still haven't heard why there's something wrong with taxing insurance companies and HC providers and using the proceeds to pay for healthcare for workers whose jobs don't pay enough to include that benefit. Or even taxing passive income of the Wal-Mart heirs.

Ah, the Hillary Clinton school of taxation: "We tax everything that moves."

So basically, instead of forcing the medical industry to provide free healthcare, you force them to provide free insurance. Which the they then use to get healthcare. This way it's not free, it's paid for. Before, the Healtcare industry was paying for the uninsured, and your proposal it to get them to pay for the uninsured.

That is a lot better, you should be in the Obama administration. Take the wealth redistribution out of the shadows and make it mainstream.