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

[syrenn]

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.

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

 

[Wicked Jester]

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.

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

^^^double bingo!^^^

 

[tjvh]

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.

How do you profess to know what my work ethics are? I've done many labor intensive jobs over the years and my wages were between myself and my employer. If I thought it wasn't enough, I had the fortitude to find something better... But I sure as hell never bitched about it. DESERVES???? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does Bill Gates DESERVE the Billions he has made over the years, or should he be forced to redistribute his wealth to those who have nothing to do with his success? Sorry if you think people are entitled to other people's success, but the real world doesn't work that way. If you don't like it, use your brain and start a company... And by all means pay your employees whatever you think you need to -however much, or little you desire. But that's your decision, not theirs. If they don't like it, I suspect they too will seek employment elsewhere. If being a maid sucks so bad, why then in thirty years did your friend not further his/her education at some community college somewhere and better themselves? Thirty years is a long time to think about furthering your education... And a lot longer to remain dormant with regards to making something better for oneself... DESERVE indeed.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

Don't worry, Syrenn she has tourettes syndrom and her body is giving out, she will soon be on welfare and you can be happy that she didn't have a living wage job so that she could save up for retirement and will live out her life on the taxpayers dime.

I wish people could see the whole picture. You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better. You hoard it in the hands of a few and everyone but the hoarders lose.

The top 10% of this country holds more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's a sad statistic for any country especially for one that's suppose to be a first world nation.

 

[Amelia]

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.

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

Don't worry, Syrenn she has tourettes syndrom and her body is giving out, she will soon be on welfare and you can be happy that she didn't have a living wage job so that she could save up for retirement and will live out her life on the taxpayers dime.

I wish people could see the whole picture. You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better. You hoard it in the hands of a few and everyone but the hoarders lose.

The top 10% of this country holds more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's a sad statistic for any country especially for one that's suppose to be a first world nation.

"You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better."


But what about the people who can't afford to pay a maid a living wage but are willing to give someone what they can afford to help both lives be a little easier?

The maid who doesn't have anyone else in the household to help supplement her income needs to make sure she's doing her work for someone who can afford that kind of money and is willing to pay it.

But should the would-be employer who has less money and the maid who is willing to work for less not be allowed to make an employment arrangement which would be mutually beneficial to both of them?

 

[ReallyMeow]

only an idiot would argue out of one side of his mouth that workers should gladly lap up whatever scant salary an employer offers out of thanks for having a job at all, yet complain to no end that the govt has to step in to take care of all these people that have no retirement to show for a lifetime of work. If the employer didnt NEED the employee, they wouldnt hire the person at all as zero is a whole lot cheaper than even minimum wage. the employee is working, theyre holding up their end, you flaccid sack of crap.

When people are earning decent wages, the economy booms, bring the minimum wage up to the level that someone is going to be able to build a retirement, raise a family or start a small business and watch as the welfare infrastructure withers away before your eyes because working people have enough to take care of themselves. Isnt that you want for Americans, republicans? No, of course not, thats why the average wage in red states is 30k while blue states pay 50k on average. Its pathetic how much republicans hate America, but there you have it: culturally inferior.

 

[Againsheila]

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

Don't worry, Syrenn she has tourettes syndrom and her body is giving out, she will soon be on welfare and you can be happy that she didn't have a living wage job so that she could save up for retirement and will live out her life on the taxpayers dime.

I wish people could see the whole picture. You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better. You hoard it in the hands of a few and everyone but the hoarders lose.

The top 10% of this country holds more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's a sad statistic for any country especially for one that's suppose to be a first world nation.

"You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better."


But what about the people who can't afford to pay a maid a living wage but are willing to give someone what they can afford to help both lives be a little easier?

The maid who doesn't have anyone else in the household to help supplement her income needs to make sure she's doing her work for someone who can afford that kind of money and is willing to pay it.

But should the would-be employer who has less money and the maid who is willing to work for less not be allowed to make an employment arrangement which would be mutually beneficial to both of them?

Seems to me you are drifting away from a company and sliding into individuals which I already said wasn't in the same category. If I work as a maid part time for my next door neighbor because she can't do her housework anymore and she can't afford a lot of money, no she doesn't need to pay me a living wage. If I work for the local hotel as a maid full-time, yes, they do need to pay me a living wage.

 

[Wicked Jester]

LMAO!

It's just fucking mind boggling how seriously clueless so many people are.

 

[Amelia]

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

Don't worry, Syrenn she has tourettes syndrom and her body is giving out, she will soon be on welfare and you can be happy that she didn't have a living wage job so that she could save up for retirement and will live out her life on the taxpayers dime.

I wish people could see the whole picture. You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better. You hoard it in the hands of a few and everyone but the hoarders lose.

The top 10% of this country holds more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's a sad statistic for any country especially for one that's suppose to be a first world nation.

"You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better."


But what about the people who can't afford to pay a maid a living wage but are willing to give someone what they can afford to help both lives be a little easier?

The maid who doesn't have anyone else in the household to help supplement her income needs to make sure she's doing her work for someone who can afford that kind of money and is willing to pay it.

But should the would-be employer who has less money and the maid who is willing to work for less not be allowed to make an employment arrangement which would be mutually beneficial to both of them?

Seems to me you are drifting away from a company and sliding into individuals which I already said wasn't in the same category. If I work as a maid part time for my next door neighbor because she can't do her housework anymore and she can't afford a lot of money, no she doesn't need to pay me a living wage. If I work for the local hotel as a maid full-time, yes, they do need to pay me a living wage.

I did overlook that part of your comments. Sorry.


So, focusing on only the company aspect, I still think that this will result in higher unemployment because employers will hire fewer people and try to get more out of them. A trend similar to what I expect the new healthcare regulations to cause.

 

[asterism]

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.

you do know what a living wage would mean for your friend don't you...

no job at all.

On the contrary, our country was stronger, our economy stronger and our income gap much, much smaller when our minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and the top tax rate was 70%. Of course there were more taxes being paid by corporations too and yet, the unemployment rate was what? 5%?

Don't worry, Syrenn she has tourettes syndrom and her body is giving out, she will soon be on welfare and you can be happy that she didn't have a living wage job so that she could save up for retirement and will live out her life on the taxpayers dime.

I wish people could see the whole picture. You pay the money to the people who spend it, it goes into the economy and gets spread around and EVERYONE does better. You hoard it in the hands of a few and everyone but the hoarders lose.

The top 10% of this country holds more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That's a sad statistic for any country especially for one that's suppose to be a first world nation.

During what time period do you refer? Be specific.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Don't faint, little drama queen.

 

[Amelia]

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.

Don't faint, little drama queen.

He wants everyone's wages lowered to third world wages. Forget that those people whom he says are getting "coolie" wages have air-conditioning and cars and video games and social security. It's just not right.

25 cents a day for everyone would be much better than having some people getting super rich while others are only comfortable.

 

[Rozman]

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 don't like what the job pays....
Don't take the job....

Duh!....

 

[Wiseacre]

Okay, so lay it on me, I want to see the proposal from any of the outraged lefties around here for a program to implement a living wage? Please answer the following questions:

1. Current minimum wage is what, somewhere between $8 and $10? What're you going to raise it to? I get that someplaces a person needs more than others, so let's just go for a ballpark average. 20%? 50%? 100%?

2. How would you implement a living wage? Increase the minimum wage? Gov't subsidy?

3. Where's that money going to come from? Borrow it?

4. Have you considered the economic effects of raising labor costs by that order of magnitude, assuming some or all of the wage increase comes out of the employer's bottom line. Do you really think there would be no adverse consequences? How many jobs would be lost due to outsourcing or business contraction, or simply going out of business?

5. So, you raise wages, guess what? Prices go up and that means inflation. How much higher would the prices for American products be compared to foreign ones? You think the standard of living would go up? I dunno about that, higher wages doesn't help much if you've got fewer employed and higher prices.

So, who's got some answers? Enough with the pie on the sky utopia, let's deal with reality.

 

[daveman]

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.

Your emotionalism aside, no one is legally getting coolie wages in this country.

 

[Katzndogz]

Absolutely NOT. Where's the incentive to improve?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

Your emotionalism aside, no one is legally getting coolie wages in this country.

In fact the pure beauty of capitalism is that it requires you to pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who will pay the highest wage possible.

Also, it requires you to cut your profit to $0 or be undersold by competition and go bankrupt.

These are simple points that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Your emotionalism aside, no one is legally getting coolie wages in this country.

In fact the pure beauty of capitalism is that it requires you to pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who will pay the highest wage possible.

Also, it requires you to cut your profit to $0 or be undersold by competition and go bankrupt.

These are simple points that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

Pure capitalism? With tax breaks to corporations and bailing out banks? Have you been paying attention?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your emotionalism aside, no one is legally getting coolie wages in this country.

In fact the pure beauty of capitalism is that it requires you to pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who will pay the highest wage possible.

Also, it requires you to cut your profit to $0 or be undersold by competition and go bankrupt.

These are simple points that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

Pure capitalism? With tax breaks to corporations and bailing out banks? Have you been paying attention?

Dear, you have created a strawman! No one used the term "pure capitalism" except you. Sorry

 

[Againsheila]

In fact the pure beauty of capitalism is that it requires you to pay the highest wage possible or lose your best workers to those who will pay the highest wage possible.

Also, it requires you to cut your profit to $0 or be undersold by competition and go bankrupt.

These are simple points that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

Pure capitalism? With tax breaks to corporations and bailing out banks? Have you been paying attention?

Dear, you have created a strawman! No one used the term "pure capitalism" except you. Sorry

So you agree that pure capitalism is not a good idea?