This is why we need a living wage

[CaféAuLait]

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.

Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.

Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?

Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014

How about Firefighters?

Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise

State Troopers?

State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families

Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home

The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?

 

[Asclepias]

no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.

they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.

Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?

Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?

Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?

Neither to be honest. I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing. I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.

 

[Asclepias]

90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")

If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage. Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.

I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?

If you have a product that people will buy then by all means do that. Its actually better to be an entrepreneur than a worker anyway.

 

[Asclepias]

Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?

It is nice to see that a company is willing to hire people to help them transition off assistance or allow parents the chance to work around their life schedules some. If the MW were $15 an hour, the poverty levels and benefits tables for public assistance will just be re-indexed to reflect the new cost of living and those people will still be receiving assistance and American labor costs will be even more out of alignment with foreign competition than they already are.
The reason some European companies build in the US is because our labor costs are lower than they are there.

Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?

No. There should always be a MW. Unscrupulous business owners would barely pay anything at all and there would be nothing you could do about it. MW is just a cost of doing business.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following. WARNING: REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:

Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour. We increase their hourly wage to $15.00. Great. Now they have a "living wage". What do we do for the people who are making:

• $8.50
• $8.75
• $9.00
• $9.25
• $9.50
• $9.75
• $10.00
• $10.25
• $10.50
• $10.75
• $11.00
• $11.25

... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?

If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct? And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time. How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?

Please explain. Oh, and while you're at it, please describe any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.

So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue. Since I'm sure you have thought this through, I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park. Ready, set, go!

Looking forward to it, thanks. I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.

they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.

Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?

Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?

Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?

Neither one. Those people should stop stealing jobs from teenagers and old people and get a job that will support a family. But that would require effort,so I dont expect these sad sacks will do it. To bad for them...and their families.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?

If the correct answer is really yes!

And I live in a very rural, poor part of the country. Still?

I would suggest moving. If you dont want to do that then you have no one to blame but yourself if you're a failure.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.

Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.

Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?

Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014

How about Firefighters?

Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise

State Troopers?

State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families

Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home

The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?

There are two good reasons to join the military. One is self explanatory,the other is a college education.
If you dont use that opportunity,who's fault is it?

 

[Missourian]

The third major fast food chain restaurant closed up in my town.

Their former employees are now making zero.

 

[dblack]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

The problem with this line of reasoning, Mac, is that it assumes raising the minimum wage will provide any real long-term relief. And I can't find any reason why it would.

The value that we, as a society, place on different jobs is a relative, subjective judgment that doesn't change merely by slapping a different number on it. Attempting to do so only disrupts current pricing and job availability. And then, only for awhile. Eventually, even in a convoluted not-quite-so-free market, prices reflect the real value of the jobs in question.

When we make these delusional attempts to deny that real value we're essentially telling people that they're not allowed to work for less than some minimum price. This will create one of two results. Either employers will cut back on hiring, focusing on only those employees who can provide the additional value, or they soak up the additional costs, passing some, if not most, of the bump on to consumers. In the first case, we're merely pushing more people into the underclass. In the second, we're implementing defacto welfare via inflated prices for consumers. But the point is both effects are temporary. They are nullified in time by the market rebalancing itself.

Most people who look much at economics understand that minimum wage is just a political tool. Something to manipulate voters (and of course threaten wealthy lobbying interests).

 

[Mac1958]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

The problem with this line of reasoning, Mac, is that it assumes raising the minimum wage will provide any real long-term relief. And I can't find any reason why it would.

The value that we, as a society, place on different jobs is a relative, subjective judgment that doesn't change merely by slapping a different number on it. Attempting to do so only disrupts current pricing and job availability. And then, only for awhile. Eventually, even in a convoluted not-quite-so-free market, prices reflect the real value of the jobs in question.

When we make these delusional attempts to deny that real value we're essentially telling people that they're not allowed to work for less than some minimum price. This will create one of two results. Either employers will cut back on hiring, focusing on only those employees who can provide the additional value, or they soak up the additional costs, passing some, if not most, of the bump on to consumers. In the first case, we're merely pushing more people into the underclass. In the second, we're implementing defacto welfare via inflated prices for consumers. But the point is both effects are temporary. They are nullified in time by the market rebalancing itself.

Most people who look much at economics understand that minimum wage is just a political tool. Something to manipulate voters (and of course threaten wealthy lobbying interests).

I don't disagree at all. But we, as a culture, have allowed this to happen. I'll spare you my diatribe (you're welcome!), but this is all part of the decay we're seeing as a country. You're absolutely right, this would cause significant damage.

Look, perhaps we're both wrong. Perhaps someone will come along and provide a reasoned and workable response to my post. Maybe we're missing something. Maybe they really have thought it through. I'm completely sincere in that post. We're obviously headed in this direction and we need to find a way to mitigate the inevitable damage.

.

 

[Mathbud1]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following. WARNING: REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:

Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour. We increase their hourly wage to $15.00. Great. Now they have a "living wage". What do we do for the people who are making:

• $8.50
• $8.75
• $9.00
• $9.25
• $9.50
• $9.75
• $10.00
• $10.25
• $10.50
• $10.75
• $11.00
• $11.25

... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?

If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct? And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time. How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?

Please explain. Oh, and while you're at it, please describe any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.

So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue. Since I'm sure you have thought this through, I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park. Ready, set, go!

Looking forward to it, thanks. I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.

.

First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:

Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."

So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.

Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, "You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job." It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.

 

[Mathbud1]

Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following. WARNING: REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:

Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour. We increase their hourly wage to $15.00. Great. Now they have a "living wage". What do we do for the people who are making:

• $8.50
• $8.75
• $9.00
• $9.25
• $9.50
• $9.75
• $10.00
• $10.25
• $10.50
• $10.75
• $11.00
• $11.25

... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?

If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct? And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time. How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?

Please explain. Oh, and while you're at it, please describe any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.

So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue. Since I'm sure you have thought this through, I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park. Ready, set, go!

Looking forward to it, thanks. I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.

.

First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:

Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."

So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.

Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, "You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job." It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.

This is the part that concerns me. Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?

I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.

.

 

[Mathbud1]

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage. When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it. Too late now, they're all over the place. A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following. WARNING: REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:

Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour. We increase their hourly wage to $15.00. Great. Now they have a "living wage". What do we do for the people who are making:

• $8.50
• $8.75
• $9.00
• $9.25
• $9.50
• $9.75
• $10.00
• $10.25
• $10.50
• $10.75
• $11.00
• $11.25

... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?

If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct? And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time. How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?

Please explain. Oh, and while you're at it, please describe any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.

So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue. Since I'm sure you have thought this through, I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park. Ready, set, go!

Looking forward to it, thanks. I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.

.

First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:

Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."

So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.

Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, "You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job." It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.

This is the part that concerns me. Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?

I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.

.

It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.

Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.

 

[Asclepias]

First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:

Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."

So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.

Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, "You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job." It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.

This is the part that concerns me. Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?

I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.

.

It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.

Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.

You forgot the people that would benefit a little from the wage increase. The workers themselves. I have been at minimum wage and every little bit helps. However, I realized I simply had to make myself more valuable by acquiring better skills. That doesn't mean I would have turned down an increase.

 

[kiwiman127]

I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class. When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth. Canada recently passed the US as having t
the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
This shouldn't be a partisan subject. Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace. They didn't benefit at all. But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.

 

[dblack]

I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class. When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth. Canada recently passed the US as having t
the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
This shouldn't be a partisan subject. Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace. They didn't benefit at all. But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.

*sigh*....

Yep.

 

[Asclepias]

I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class. When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth. Canada recently passed the US as having t
the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
This shouldn't be a partisan subject. Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace. They didn't benefit at all. But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.

They are ok because the whole concept of wages is getting paid for the worth you provide in the time you provide it to the company paying you. If your skill set is only worth $10 to them you have to either accept it or decide you are worth more by acquiring the skills to get paid more. Even when I was minimum wage I knew that and accepted it.

 

[Againsheila]

So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.

You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?

When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage. You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?