Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

  • Obama voter - No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non-Obama voter - Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
all jobs should pay..... the minimum wage set by federal, state or local government....

as to living wage... hell who doesnt want $100 bucks an hour to stock a shelf or take tickets at the movies.

sorry... you should be paid based on the job you are preforming.
 
This is very interesting. If a job doesn't pay your gas money to turn up at it, then why do you take the job? It would be logical that this would set a natural minimum wage pay. But it doesn't. Why do people take jobs that pay so little that they end up at a loss for taking that job, like they pay for the job and not the job for them? If you advertise a job that you open for applicants and you offer 1c/hour, you will still get applicants. Why?
 
I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.
 
I am always amazed the Conservatives see obscene greed in the form of corporate vultures who pay themselves millions and billions of dollars for little justification is a good thing, while people that actually do the work are getting coolie wages.

We have a wage disparity in this country of over 400:1. Third world countries don't even have that.
 
This is very interesting. If a job doesn't pay your gas money to turn up at it, then why do you take the job? It would be logical that this would set a natural minimum wage pay. But it doesn't. Why do people take jobs that pay so little that they end up at a loss for taking that job, like they pay for the job and not the job for them? If you advertise a job that you open for applicants and you offer 1c/hour, you will still get applicants. Why?

why?..... really you have to ask that?


never heard that entitlements pay more?
 
Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?
Only a fetus should have a right to live. Anyone else who can't afford to live deserves to die. :badgrin:
 
What constitutes a "living wage" is a matter of perception, but that aside, the answer is no. You should be paid what your skill is worth and only someone with a childish intellect would argue otherwise.
 
Sorry, but I don't need to subsidize through higher prices anyone who chooses to spend their life banging away at a cash register at a job meant for teenagers simply because they have no ambition to go any further in their own life... Sorry, but it's not my problem to financially subsidize losers who want to make a kids job a career choice.
 
Define "all". Certainly all fulltime jobs working for companies. Girls babysitting over the summer for working moms, no. Boys mowing lawns in the summer, no. I also think they should limit the number of part time jobs a company can have. It's stupid for a department store as big as Sears to have ALL part time workers, even the manager is part time.
 
Sorry, but I don't need to subsidize through higher prices anyone who chooses to spend their life banging away at a cash register at a job meant for teenagers simply because they have no ambition to go any further in their own life... Sorry, but it's not my problem to financially subsidize losers who want to make a kids job a career choice.

You do know that once upon a time, those cashier workers made a living wage don't you? In fact, they were considered very well paid. Come to think of it, most workers were paid decently way back when. It's only since the 70's and changes in corporate law that we've become a country of the rich and the poor.
 
I am always amazed the Conservatives see obscene greed in the form of corporate vultures who pay themselves millions and billions of dollars for little justification is a good thing, while people that actually do the work are getting coolie wages.

We have a wage disparity in this country of over 400:1. Third world countries don't even have that.



You're talking .01%, I'm talking everybody else. Why don't you tell us how you think the problem can be solved, instead of spreading bullshit.
 
Sorry, but I don't need to subsidize through higher prices anyone who chooses to spend their life banging away at a cash register at a job meant for teenagers simply because they have no ambition to go any further in their own life... Sorry, but it's not my problem to financially subsidize losers who want to make a kids job a career choice.

You do know that once upon a time, those cashier workers made a living wage don't you? In fact, they were considered very well paid. Come to think of it, most workers were paid decently way back when. It's only since the 70's and changes in corporate law that we've become a country of the rich and the poor.

Oh, we've been a country of rich and poor long before the 70's. It still doesn't change the fact that people should not have to subsidize lazy bums with no ambition.
 
Sorry, but I don't need to subsidize through higher prices anyone who chooses to spend their life banging away at a cash register at a job meant for teenagers simply because they have no ambition to go any further in their own life... Sorry, but it's not my problem to financially subsidize losers who want to make a kids job a career choice.

You do know that once upon a time, those cashier workers made a living wage don't you? In fact, they were considered very well paid. Come to think of it, most workers were paid decently way back when. It's only since the 70's and changes in corporate law that we've become a country of the rich and the poor.

Oh, we've been a country of rich and poor long before the 70's. It still doesn't change the fact that people should not have to subsidize lazy bums with no ambition.

My friend has been working as a maid for 30 years. She's not a lazy bum and she does have ambition, but things don't always work out the way you want. She deserves a LIVING wage. Everyone working in the richest country in the world DESERVES a living wage. No one DESERVES 500 times what their employees are making and I seriously doubt you deserve what you are paid. I don't think you know what hard work is, if we paid according to how hard the work was, those people you disparage would be making a lot more than you.
 
If someone can't afford to pay a maid what the gov't deems is a living wage, then they shouldn't be allowed to hire anyone to help them?

What if they only need someone for light housework, and their would-be helper would be grateful for a few extra dollars to supplement their household's main breadwinner's income?

This should not be allowed?



A whole lot of jobs will evaporate if the employer is forced to pay a living wage for them. Employers will spread the extra tasks among their better performing employees. Unemployment will be even higher than it is now.
 
I am always amazed the Conservatives see obscene greed in the form of corporate vultures who pay themselves millions and billions of dollars for little justification is a good thing, while people that actually do the work are getting coolie wages.

We have a wage disparity in this country of over 400:1. Third world countries don't even have that.

Link to that 400:1 statistic?
 
You do know that once upon a time, those cashier workers made a living wage don't you? In fact, they were considered very well paid. Come to think of it, most workers were paid decently way back when. It's only since the 70's and changes in corporate law that we've become a country of the rich and the poor.

Oh, we've been a country of rich and poor long before the 70's. It still doesn't change the fact that people should not have to subsidize lazy bums with no ambition.

My friend has been working as a maid for 30 years. She's not a lazy bum and she does have ambition, but things don't always work out the way you want. She deserves a LIVING wage. Everyone working in the richest country in the world DESERVES a living wage. No one DESERVES 500 times what their employees are making and I seriously doubt you deserve what you are paid. I don't think you know what hard work is, if we paid according to how hard the work was, those people you disparage would be making a lot more than you.
Sooooo, what about those small business owners who make nowhere near "500 times" more than their employees (and that covers the vast majority of those business owners)), who are paying the overhead, paying for benefits for those employees, putting their own asses and credit on the line to run the business and provide those employees with jobs?

Seriously, do you have any clue as to what it's like to run a business, particularly a small business, and what the damage to this country would be if we implemented such a ridiculous mandate?

As for your friend, good to hear she's a hard worker....It's nobody's responsibility but hers to provide for herself, or to make the decisions for her that would allow her to provide more for herself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top