The living wage

[shintao]

Heck, if raising the min wage to a "living wage" (who gets to decide what is living or not?) then why not institute a "rich man's wage" so we can all be rich? Instead of a piddling $10/hr why not $50? Why not $500? After all, companies have all this money lying around they could be paying to people.

That is absolutely one of the stupidest ideas I have heard in a very long time. And this site comes up with some winners. It betrays a gross and total ignorance of how wages are set and the realities of business.

Corporations have 1 trillion laying around they could be paying people with a living wage.

When you are stupid yourself, you have no idea what stupid is, so stop trying to impress people here, as it comes across at ignorance. I can tell you have no concept of how living wage relates to business.

Really? I have a corporation and I hardly have $1T lying around. If I did, I'd be retired. Most people do not work for large corporations, especially those earning lower wages.
You're right: the only concept I have of living wage is something that would make it impossible to hire many workers. That is already my experience with min wage, where I would actually hire someone if I could set the wage rate. As it is I cannot afford to pay someone min wage to do work that will not pay me a sufficient return.
Like I said, you have no understanding business or wages or economics.

You don't usnderstand "plural, and the difference between "singular." So naturally, you don't have a trillion laying around. Sounds like you shouldn't be in business if you can't even afford minimum wage jobs. Maybe you should look into getting your workforce from a state reformatory for boys. The state pays half the wages, you select the boys by their skills, etc. Funny, for a guy like me with no business background, (according to you)who has no concept, I am giving you a way to go, even though I doubt you can make it in the business world.

 

[thereisnospoon]

HAHAHA!!!!

Yeah, I laughed halfway through that.

OP says more teens at home, and not at work, will lead to more students at home studying.
OP says more stay at home moms will mean less crime, less unwanted pregnancy, etc.


Hey, OP, ride through the ghetto tomorrow. Notice all the teens NOT working, and all the moms NOT working and all staying at home. Then notice the LOW crime in the ghetto, notice all the teens studying, and notice all the women NOT pregnant out of wedlock.

Your theory is dead on arrival. Sorry.

You're basically saying people should be entitled to get paid more than the market value for their labor.

In other words "I wanna bigger paycheck!!!".

Yeah, working for a living sucks doesn't it.

Irrelevant post is not based on living wage.

Of course it is. You wish a change from the current marketplace system to a system where government artificially sets wage levels. It CANNOT function without the requsite inbound revenue.
One of two things MUST occur for this to work. Higher prices or higher taxes. In either case, the increase in pay levels is negated by either or both.
In other words this is an exercise in futility AND stupidity.

 

[Oddball]

It is a trade off with more benefits to you, than the current state of government power. It is going to lower your taxes and create a smaller government, so it doesn't appear to give government more control over you. In fact if you are making more than your local living wage (most people are), it will have no impact on you at all, cept to lower your taxes.

Whenever Fabian socialist/progressive moonbats tell you that their authoritarian central planner do-goodery is going to shrink gubmint, lower your taxes and give you more control over your own life, your best bet would be to lock up your wallet, put on your Kevlar underpants and keep a sharp eye on your six.

Find the flaw in my 1-10, and the LW calculator link I provided which would show the LW for you area. They could be similar to what you have now.

The flaw is that collectivist authoritarian fools like you believe that you can run everyone's life for them, off of some centralized bureaucratic formula.

 

[rightwinger]

Right now, those who don't earn a living wage receive government subsidies for housing, food and medical care. Local businesses benefit from the government filling the void of low wages. They still get to employ low cost labor and the government pays for the workers to live in the commuting area.

Works out to be welfare for local businesses

Yes, I would like to end this poor capitalist system of patches & plugs to make it work in some knee jerk fashion. A living wage is a fair wage for American workers to succeed. Obviously what we have today is not working, again, and again.

Of course businesses and their workers pay tax for programs like WIC. So they aren't exactly getting a free ride.
Why is the system "obviously" not working??

What is not working is wages are not keeping up with increases in the cost of living. The costs of rent, gas and electric, healthcare, education, food exceed what workers can make in many high cost communities

Right now, the Government steps in and gives vouchers and subsidies to cover the difference. Those businesses that rely on low cost labor reap the benefit. If you don't think they should reimburse the taxpayer...then who should pay?

 

[slackjawed]

It is a trade off with more benefits to you, than the current state of government power. It is going to lower your taxes and create a smaller government, so it doesn't appear to give government more control over you. In fact if you are making more than your local living wage (most people are), it will have no impact on you at all, cept to lower your taxes.

While I understand your point of view, I would not support it.

Ok, but would you prefer it over a minimum wage (which you probably don't support either)? I think you have other motives for your opposition.

I only have one motive, I just want to be left alone to live my life like I live my life.

no support for a minimum wage here

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations have 1 trillion laying around they could be paying people with a living wage.

When you are stupid yourself, you have no idea what stupid is, so stop trying to impress people here, as it comes across at ignorance. I can tell you have no concept of how living wage relates to business.

Really? I have a corporation and I hardly have $1T lying around. If I did, I'd be retired. Most people do not work for large corporations, especially those earning lower wages.
You're right: the only concept I have of living wage is something that would make it impossible to hire many workers. That is already my experience with min wage, where I would actually hire someone if I could set the wage rate. As it is I cannot afford to pay someone min wage to do work that will not pay me a sufficient return.
Like I said, you have no understanding business or wages or economics.

You don't usnderstand "plural, and the difference between "singular." So naturally, you don't have a trillion laying around. Sounds like you shouldn't be in business if you can't even afford minimum wage jobs. Maybe you should look into getting your workforce from a state reformatory for boys. The state pays half the wages, you select the boys by their skills, etc. Funny, for a guy like me with no business background, (according to you)who has no concept, I am giving you a way to go, even though I doubt you can make it in the business world.

Actually 99% of corporations do not have a $1T lying around. And since most people work for smaller companies that also don't have $1T lying around your "plan" (and I put it in quotes because it is so half-baked it hardly qualifies as even that) would put about 40% of them out of work.
I realize you are posting your personal experience here but believe it or not not every state hires out their reformatory boys, nor are they suitable for many jobs, nor would an employer want the risk of employing one.
You continue to impress me and the rest of this board with your idiocy. Keep up the good work!

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, I would like to end this poor capitalist system of patches & plugs to make it work in some knee jerk fashion. A living wage is a fair wage for American workers to succeed. Obviously what we have today is not working, again, and again.

Of course businesses and their workers pay tax for programs like WIC. So they aren't exactly getting a free ride.
Why is the system "obviously" not working??

What is not working is wages are not keeping up with increases in the cost of living. The costs of rent, gas and electric, healthcare, education, food exceed what workers can make in many high cost communities

Right now, the Government steps in and gives vouchers and subsidies to cover the difference. Those businesses that rely on low cost labor reap the benefit. If you don't think they should reimburse the taxpayer...then who should pay?

Maybe government ought to cut out the subsidies and prices would fall to normal?
Who do you think pays for those vouchers and subsidies?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Corporations have 1 trillion laying around they could be paying people with a living wage.

When you are stupid yourself, you have no idea what stupid is, so stop trying to impress people here, as it comes across at ignorance. I can tell you have no concept of how living wage relates to business.

Really? I have a corporation and I hardly have $1T lying around. If I did, I'd be retired. Most people do not work for large corporations, especially those earning lower wages.
You're right: the only concept I have of living wage is something that would make it impossible to hire many workers. That is already my experience with min wage, where I would actually hire someone if I could set the wage rate. As it is I cannot afford to pay someone min wage to do work that will not pay me a sufficient return.
Like I said, you have no understanding business or wages or economics.

You don't usnderstand "plural, and the difference between "singular." So naturally, you don't have a trillion laying around. Sounds like you shouldn't be in business if you can't even afford minimum wage jobs. Maybe you should look into getting your workforce from a state reformatory for boys. The state pays half the wages, you select the boys by their skills, etc. Funny, for a guy like me with no business background, (according to you)who has no concept, I am giving you a way to go, even though I doubt you can make it in the business world.

Can't afford....Same here. Our business is a "revenue neutral" business. In other words we depend on incoming work for our revenue stream. So if there are no calls, we do not work.
Do you really expect a business owner to hire people for which there is a limited amount of work?
Even when we are busy, we hire temp labor because it is more economical for us to do so.
We pay these people to work when we need them. The agency takes care of getting them to our job sites. I think this is a perfect situation. Oh, before your knee jerks and hits you in the mouth, most of the guys have full time jobs. They temp to earn a few extra bucks so they can save or use as disposable income. Of course I know those of us who work (GASP) two jobs really pisses you off.

 

[Samson]

it is NOT the Federal Governments business what an employer pays his employees.

or what they dump into the rivers...


right?

China Travel and China Tour - Low Fare Airline Tickets

No thanks: I don't need the side of Red Herring to go with The Bullshit OP.

 

[Samson]

People live on minimum wage now so your argument is full of shit. Further it is NOT the Federal Governments business what an employer pays his employees. Might be a States business if the people agree and vote for it in an amendment to their State Constitution.

No it's not.

No one "lives' On the minimum wage..

They either get supplemental help from the government or have multiple wage earners in the household.

I know several people who live on minimum wage

Did they risk their lives illegally crossing a desert to get here so they could earn it?

 

[ConservativeDad]

The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual must earn to support their family, if they are the sole provider and are working full-time (2080 hours per year). The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. The poverty rate is typically quoted as gross annual income. We have converted it to an hourly wage for the sake of comparison. Wages that are less than the living wage are shown in red.

Monthly Expenses One Adult One Adult, One Child Two Adults Two Adults, One Child Two Adults, Two Children
Food $212 $345 $410 $543 $676
Child Care $0 $467 $0 $467 $827
Medical $98 $193 $196 $291 $386
Housing $501 $555 $501 $555 $555
Transportation $218 $397 $436 $615 $794
Other $151 $296 $302 $447 $592
Monthly After-Tax Income That's Required $1,180 $2,253 $1,845 $2,918 $3,830
Annual After-Tax Income That's Required $14,160 $27,036 $22,140 $35,016 $45,955
Annual Taxes $957 $1,805 $1,536 $2,340 $3,025
Annual Before Tax Income That's Required $15,117 $28,841 $23,676 $37,356 $48,980

Just out of curiousity, since your living wage "calculator" is based on the concept of an individual's earnings, why does a household with two adults and two children need to incur an $827.00 childcare expense? Or, since by your lights, a car is outside the living wage responsibilities, a $794 transportation expense?

note: sorry about the spacing, but my living wage does not cover the expense of recreating a columnar table...

 

[The Rabbi]

Really? I have a corporation and I hardly have $1T lying around. If I did, I'd be retired. Most people do not work for large corporations, especially those earning lower wages.
You're right: the only concept I have of living wage is something that would make it impossible to hire many workers. That is already my experience with min wage, where I would actually hire someone if I could set the wage rate. As it is I cannot afford to pay someone min wage to do work that will not pay me a sufficient return.
Like I said, you have no understanding business or wages or economics.

You don't usnderstand "plural, and the difference between "singular." So naturally, you don't have a trillion laying around. Sounds like you shouldn't be in business if you can't even afford minimum wage jobs. Maybe you should look into getting your workforce from a state reformatory for boys. The state pays half the wages, you select the boys by their skills, etc. Funny, for a guy like me with no business background, (according to you)who has no concept, I am giving you a way to go, even though I doubt you can make it in the business world.

Can't afford....Same here. Our business is a "revenue neutral" business. In other words we depend on incoming work for our revenue stream. So if there are no calls, we do not work.
Do you really expect a business owner to hire people for which there is a limited amount of work?
Even when we are busy, we hire temp labor because it is more economical for us to do so.
We pay these people to work when we need them. The agency takes care of getting them to our job sites. I think this is a perfect situation. Oh, before your knee jerks and hits you in the mouth, most of the guys have full time jobs. They temp to earn a few extra bucks so they can save or use as disposable income. Of course I know those of us who work (GASP) two jobs really pisses you off.

How do you explain the concept that every job has to cost-justify itself or it won't exist to someone who clearly has never even worked in business before?
I currently employ a gunsmith. If I had to pay him twice his curent hourly rate I would only be able to employ him half as many hours. At some point I could not employ him at all and the job would disappear.
It seems the Left wants business to pay more for labor but they don't care if the ranks of the unemployed grow as a result.

 

[shintao]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work.

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

My favorite:

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

No need for cars in this alternate reality anyway. You can just ride your personal unicorn to work.

Ahh, the unicorn rancher has shown up. I realize it wouldn't make sense to a guy like you unable to deal with logic and tie his shoes. I do hope you get it figured out with your crayon drawings.

 

[Samson]

The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual must earn to support their family, if they are the sole provider and are working full-time (2080 hours per year). The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. The poverty rate is typically quoted as gross annual income. We have converted it to an hourly wage for the sake of comparison. Wages that are less than the living wage are shown in red.

Monthly Expenses One Adult One Adult, One Child Two Adults Two Adults, One Child Two Adults, Two Children
Food $212 $345 $410 $543 $676
Child Care $0 $467 $0 $467 $827
Medical $98 $193 $196 $291 $386
Housing $501 $555 $501 $555 $555
Transportation $218 $397 $436 $615 $794
Other $151 $296 $302 $447 $592
Monthly After-Tax Income That's Required $1,180 $2,253 $1,845 $2,918 $3,830
Annual After-Tax Income That's Required $14,160 $27,036 $22,140 $35,016 $45,955
Annual Taxes $957 $1,805 $1,536 $2,340 $3,025
Annual Before Tax Income That's Required $15,117 $28,841 $23,676 $37,356 $48,980

Just out of curiousity, since your living wage "calculator" is based on the concept of an individual's earnings, why does a household with two adults and two children need to incur and $827.00 childcare expense? Or, since by your lights, a car is outside the living wage responsibilities, a $794 transportation expense?

note: sorry about the spacing, but my living wage does not cover the expense of recreating a columnar table...

WTF is "Other $151 $296 $302 $447 $592?"

$592 for a family of 4, doing WHAT? Cell phones?

Hell, Cable TV is only $100/mo.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heck, if raising the min wage to a "living wage" (who gets to decide what is living or not?) then why not institute a "rich man's wage" so we can all be rich? Instead of a piddling $10/hr why not $50? Why not $500? After all, companies have all this money lying around they could be paying to people.

That is absolutely one of the stupidest ideas I have heard in a very long time. And this site comes up with some winners. It betrays a gross and total ignorance of how wages are set and the realities of business.

Corporations have 1 trillion laying around they could be paying people with a living wage.

When you are stupid yourself, you have no idea what stupid is, so stop trying to impress people here, as it comes across at ignorance. I can tell you have no concept of how living wage relates to business.

Again I say.........this is the "Politics" forum. Accordingly, when you advocate for something based solely on some kind of whimsical theory that doesnt at all play with the majority, that means you're the minority = irrelevant. Thats how politics works.

Anyway........we did this topic yesterday and the consensus is that the socialist view of this is gay. Might as well be walking naked down the middle of Main Street shaking a bannana at people screaming, "Hoooray for the living wage!!!"


This Shiintao asshole is like the kid in Willy Wonka still buying candy bars in search of the golden ticket decades after the contest ended!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Of course businesses and their workers pay tax for programs like WIC. So they aren't exactly getting a free ride.
Why is the system "obviously" not working??

What is not working is wages are not keeping up with increases in the cost of living. The costs of rent, gas and electric, healthcare, education, food exceed what workers can make in many high cost communities

Right now, the Government steps in and gives vouchers and subsidies to cover the difference. Those businesses that rely on low cost labor reap the benefit. If you don't think they should reimburse the taxpayer...then who should pay?

Maybe government ought to cut out the subsidies and prices would fall to normal?
Who do you think pays for those vouchers and subsidies?

OK..so lets do that

Now, we have people unable to afford to live in certain communities. They lose their home, hit the streets wandering from community to community looking for work. You are conservative..what do you care?

What happens to local businesses who lose the ability to hire workers at sub-living wages? Now, the only people residing in the community are those who can afford the high cost of living. The local businesses end up paying a much higher wage to stay in business

 

[Samson]

What is not working is wages are not keeping up with increases in the cost of living. The costs of rent, gas and electric, healthcare, education, food exceed what workers can make in many high cost communities

Right now, the Government steps in and gives vouchers and subsidies to cover the difference. Those businesses that rely on low cost labor reap the benefit. If you don't think they should reimburse the taxpayer...then who should pay?

Maybe government ought to cut out the subsidies and prices would fall to normal?
Who do you think pays for those vouchers and subsidies?

OK..so lets do that

Now, we have people unable to afford to live in certain communities. They lose their home, hit the streets wandering from community to community looking for work

Why don't they move into a "certain community" with lower cost living?

Hell, 20 illegals can share a 3 BR, 1 bath apartment in Houston.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is not working is wages are not keeping up with increases in the cost of living. The costs of rent, gas and electric, healthcare, education, food exceed what workers can make in many high cost communities

Right now, the Government steps in and gives vouchers and subsidies to cover the difference. Those businesses that rely on low cost labor reap the benefit. If you don't think they should reimburse the taxpayer...then who should pay?

Maybe government ought to cut out the subsidies and prices would fall to normal?
Who do you think pays for those vouchers and subsidies?

OK..so lets do that

Now, we have people unable to afford to live in certain communities. They lose their home, hit the streets wandering from community to community looking for work. You are conservative..what do you care?

What happens to local businesses who lose the ability to hire workers at sub-living wages? Now, the only people residing in the community are those who can afford the high cost of living. The local businesses end up paying a much higher wage to stay in business

Do you really think most people with their own homes are dependent on government welfare to make ends meet?
But let's assume that's even the case.
What happens to those local businesses? They go out of business. Their leased real estate sits empty. Their homes sit empty. Investors who own those properties lose money because there is no income from them. Eventually the place looks like Detroit.
Of course for a liberal looking like Detroit is a plus. It is a liberal's dream: a city run by minorities with high taxes, high wages (where the jobs exist), high levels of government dependence and many problems that of course cry out for "government solutions."
No wonder this is your wet dream.

 

[Defiant1]

I'm wondering if Shin is really a conservative, practicing his mole skills for liberal boards.

No one is that stupid, all the time.

 

[shintao]

So a business owner is paying $7.50 an hour for menial labor(anybody can do it)...The bleeding hearts, with the help of government, raise the minimum wage to $10.00 an hour...The cost of doing business dosen't go up? Businesses running close to the margins, to keep the prices down, won't have to raise prices to absorb that? Why is it that liberal/socialists think the government can monkey around in private business without having an adverse effect? As though printing money without backing it up in some way, will not turn $10.00 an hour into $5.00 an hour...or a meal in a restaurant that costs $10.00 will cost $15.00 the next time you go? "So don't go to the restaurant" you say (and many people will do just that)...The restaurant owner will have to lay off a hostess here...a dishwasher there...a line cook to follow. Or do liberal/socialists think it is the responsibility of businesses to keep or add employees until the business folds and "everyone" is out of a job?

Where is the living wage $10. an hour? Why wouldn't wages and employees go up if the business is selling more products and making more profits from consumers? Doesn't he want to stay competitive? Why is it capitalist can't think of what happens when a company pays a fair wage. As long as they are fucking the workers, they understand that.......... With the LW, and increased product sales and services, the owner will be hiring a salesmen here and and a CEO there. Or does the capitalist believe that the owner will lay off workers, not have enough products to sell, and close his doors?