Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

There are over 550 post in this thread. You jumped in at the end. No one is throwing in a turkey in a thread about chickens.

HMMMMM
would you please look at the threads authors name?
THIS MY THREAD DUMBASS

You do realize that you don't own the thread just because you started it, correct asswad? Threads grow from the OP and you have no control over that. Go ahead, try to delete it, lock it, etc.

I never claimed I did, I was told I jumped in the end of this thread. As usual and as the those who bait others, you mad a claim that had no merit, it is the only way the Lib can keep up

People wonder why we cannot debate the issues. This is why

 

[JRK]

Hey dick head, that's not the same thing, you went straight to the top of my shit list bud. This was an adult conversation about what we pay adults trying to make a living out here and you ******* race baited me and you know it
Never respond to one of my threads again scum bag

I "race baited" you? I never mentioned race. I simply quibbled with your claim that it was fair to pay a teenager less than a high school graduate who were doing the exact same job.

The subject was never about what a person makes in hi school, so what would call all it?

 

[Bern80]

Hey dick head, that's not the same thing, you went straight to the top of my shit list bud. This was an adult conversation about what we pay adults trying to make a living out here and you ******* race baited me and you know it
Never respond to one of my threads again scum bag

I "race baited" you? I never mentioned race. I simply quibbled with your claim that it was fair to pay a teenager less than a high school graduate who were doing the exact same job.

The subject was never about what a person makes in hi school, so what would call all it?

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I "race baited" you? I never mentioned race. I simply quibbled with your claim that it was fair to pay a teenager less than a high school graduate who were doing the exact same job.

The subject was never about what a person makes in hi school, so what would call all it?

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

 

[Care4all]

jrk's discussion was based on a 40 hour work week, and living wage....

not part time work.

 

[Bern80]

The subject was never about what a person makes in hi school, so what would call all it?

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

That STILL wasn't the comparision being made. The debate was never about SOME types of jobs and what they pay. It was about ALL jobs. From the most menial job that anyone can do the most skilled. I don't have a problem with how pay the high school kid. You pay them based on their value, which is what I have said all along. What I have been asking is when there is NOTHING else to differentiate two employees by, other than their income requirements, would he pay more to the one that needs the income more? The only disagreement I would have with the above is paying people based on how you think the avg. person would perform rather than how THAT person actually performs. Because believe it or not there are plenty of highly financially motivated teenagers out there, while there are also a lot very lazy adults who do no more than what is required of them.

 

[JRK]

The subject was never about what a person makes in hi school, so what would call all it?

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

Thank you
There is a faction of people in this country that just care about anger and hate. I will never understand it
I get sucked into there crap until I catch them
This thread as it is wrote is about a living wage
again thank-you

 

[Bern80]

jrk's discussion was based on a 40 hour work week, and living wage....

not part time work.

And I get that. I just don't see the importance in the distinction. It makes no sense. I have worked at companies where two people have the exact same job functions, but one is part time while one is full time. Are you trying to say the the full timer should be paid more per hour than the part timer just because that person puts in more hours and/or because they need more to live on?

 

[JRK]

jrk's discussion was based on a 40 hour work week, and living wage....

not part time work.

There is some truth to that, but his point is spot on as fr as the intent
The one thing no-one wants to discuss is how many people get off of social programs and actually start putting some back @ 27,000.00 a year?
A living wage that we all would be part of making, difference being the private sector would be supplying it, not the fed govt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

While one side argues minimum wage is below poverty and need to be higher.Arguably true.The other side say if you raise it to much you will choke out new business.Also true. Minimum wage should be set AT a percentage of the production of a bussiness. When we are debating what that % should be then we are having a real debate. Until then its all talk about nothing...

It is a percentage. Typically a business will attempt to keep it's labor cost at or below 30% of gross revenues.
That includes wages and benefits. So for example. A full time worker making $15 per hour will cost the business twice that when one figures in SS taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, worker's comp insurance, medicare taxes, health insurance and state disability insurance. So it is not just the wage that is factored in to labor cost. It is all the other taxes, fees and insurance premiums as well. And do not forget the cost to administer payroll. That is an expense that must be covered as well.
So let's say a business grosses $400k for the year. It has 3 full time employees. Each worker is paid $15 per hour with the lead person or supervisor getting $20 per hour. Now for arguments sake and to simplify the math let's assume each worker works exactly 40 hours each week. So we have 2 workers at $31,200 per year and one at $41,600 per year.
That's About $106,000 in wages alone for the year. Now, the owners still has not paid himself. Remember that. So lets say the average cost of each worker is roughly ten more dollars per hour....Add thirty times 40 which is 1,200 times 52 weeks. That's over $60,000...Now payroll plus benefits is up to $160,000 for the fiscal year. That firm's labor cost rounds out to about 40%...Much too high. So the business owner who has not paid himself because the labor he employs is excellent but still a commodity has a decision to make. He can cut pay or cut one worker to part time status. That's assuming revenue for the upcoming year does not increase more than 10%.
BTW, if you want to question my estimates, feel free. I can give you one solid right from my insurance agent's mouth the cost of workers comp for an average of $35k per year. $7,000...That $35k just turned into $42k....
SO you see, when those who ***** and moan about profit and how much the owner makes and how the workers should share, it's coming from those who've never owned or operated a business and don't know shit.
All this crap about greedy business owners comes form the mouths of "they know not of what they speak" people.
They should shut it. Then ask their boss what they can do to help him increase revenues so that the business owner can afford to offer wage increases.
Yeah yeah yeah..Now I am going to see all kinds of commentary about huge corporations and CEO's and multi-million dollar compensation...Baloney. Most of those "salaries" are on paper. As we know many bard members are paid salaries but the bulk of the compensation is in company stock.

 

[JRK]

what defines part time?
look at the problem from a yearly wage for resolve

I think it is a 27,000 for me a year
@ 35 hours a week that is 14.83 an hour
to much

Is the point being if w went to a 13.00 an hour living wage that every-one would go to 25-30 hour weeks?

still costs the same in MH and cost to the bottom line. it saves nothing

 

[uscitizen]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

First thing is you are obviously not a lib.

 

[Care4all]

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

That STILL wasn't the comparision being made. The debate was never about SOME types of jobs and what they pay. It was about ALL jobs. From the most menial job that anyone can do the most skilled. I don't have a problem with how pay the high school kid. You pay them based on their value, which is what I have said all along. What I have been asking is when there is NOTHING else to differentiate two employees by, other than their income requirements, would he pay more to the one that needs the income more? The only disagreement I would have with the above is paying people based on how you think the avg. person would perform rather than how THAT person actually performs. Because believe it or not there are plenty of highly financially motivated teenagers out there, while there are also a lot very lazy adults who do no more than what is required of them.

but in most areas of the country, each region pays differently for the same job done now, don't they?

each employer has a ''minimum'', according to law that they have to pay the least of their employees.....then according to the quality of the worker, the employer pays MORE.....

how would jrk's living wage, be any different?

if the employer has a lazy employee not worth the money, then they hire someone better to replace them, just as they do now, no?

and i had thought jrk was talking about people working full time for an employer?

some part timers doing the same job as full timers, right NOW get paid less per hour for the same job....shoot, full timers right now can get paid differently for the same job, that's up to the employer now and it would be, under a full time worker, living wage....no? the employer can always pay more than a minimum, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Foxfyre - don't get me started. I am an alumnus of Rutgers - the most expensive state school in the country. The Star Ledger did an expose on the football program that loses millions annually. They also listed all the six figure salaries - and not one was a professor. It is beyond corrupt. Yet when people point fingers, it's rarely at the SCHOOL itself. I was watching CNN this morning about the 3 trillion bubble that's about to burst. Never did they blame the problem on the system. And they had the nerve to segueway (sp?) the conversation into "universal pre-school" because early education leads to college or some shit. They are still drumming for "college for all" These students are being conned.

I hail from New Jersey. It is by far one of the top five most politically corrupt states in the union.
Go to nj.com and look up "Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission" and read about that den of nepotism and corruption. That's just the beginning. The City of Newark had to lay off 25% of their cops but yet the city employs hundreds of administrators and other "suits" who are paid 6 figure salaries to do next to nothing.
I just checked the City of Newark's payroll...There are 612 city workers who make $99,000 per year and up. Yet, the City government lays off police officers.
For further examples go to New Jersey Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - NJ.com then search "new jersey by the numbers....or just click on the link below...
New Jersey by the Numbers - NJ.com

 

[francoHFW]

Soon time for us to no longer be the only industrialized country with full time workers living in poverty with no health care...Min wage should ALWAYS be the equivalent of 1968's, now about $11. If you want strong consumer demand, and less crime, domestic violence, more civility PERIOD, just do it!. (BTW, and on the other hand,, Australia has $15, NZ $13- very admirable societies)

 

[Bern80]

but in most areas of the country, each region pays differently for the same job done now, don't they?

each employer has a ''minimum'', according to law that they have to pay the least of their employees.....then according to the quality of the worker, the employer pays MORE.....

how would jrk's living wage, be any different?

if the employer has a lazy employee not worth the money, then they hire someone better to replace them, just as they do now, no?

and i had thought jrk was talking about people working full time for an employer?

some part timers doing the same job as full timers, right NOW get paid less per hour for the same job....shoot, full timers right now can get paid differently for the same job, that's up to the employer now and it would be, under a full time worker, living wage....no? the employer can always pay more than a minimum, right?

Most of that is true. It's the reason that they're paid differently that is important. And you're right, employers can all kinds of different reasons for paying two people that have the same job different rates. The ONLY reason I'm concerned with is paying two people with the same job differently BECAUSE one of them needs the money more.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It most certainly was about that. Otherwise explain why teenagers and/or jobs teenagers are qualified to work at 'don't count' in this debate. You still have yet to answer the very simple questionl; should two people hired at the same time for the same job be paid differently based on their income needs?

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

That STILL wasn't the comparision being made. The debate was never about SOME types of jobs and what they pay. It was about ALL jobs. From the most menial job that anyone can do the most skilled. I don't have a problem with how pay the high school kid. You pay them based on their value, which is what I have said all along. What I have been asking is when there is NOTHING else to differentiate two employees by, other than their income requirements, would he pay more to the one that needs the income more? The only disagreement I would have with the above is paying people based on how you think the avg. person would perform rather than how THAT person actually performs. Because believe it or not there are plenty of highly financially motivated teenagers out there, while there are also a lot very lazy adults who do no more than what is required of them.

I think you are complicating the issue for no apparent reason.
The bottom line is it doesn't matter what anyone believes is "fair".
Business owners will always defer to their past experiences with various types of people when determining who to hire and wages.
Businesses use all sorts of criteria. Some of these are bound to anger certain people.
I read a story about how HR managers are using criteria that enter gray areas in terms of illegal discrimination. However, as of now, none have been challenged.
One manager that represented a company with mostly white collar professionals that require much travel, explained that she will disqualify from consideration candidates with young children. Others may disqualify single people because they are viewed in certain circumstances as less likely to be reliable than those with families. Some will use credit history as a criteria. Others have disqualified candidates based on the type of vehicle and the condition of said vehicle the candidate uses to commute. The thinking is, "how can I rely on a person to be at work every day if their transportation is always in the shop for repairs."
Yeah, looks "unfair" doesn't it? However, at the end of the day, businesses must only hire those people who can be at work when the job requires the worker to be reliable.
I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[kwc57]

HMMMMM
would you please look at the threads authors name?
THIS MY THREAD DUMBASS

You do realize that you don't own the thread just because you started it, correct asswad? Threads grow from the OP and you have no control over that. Go ahead, try to delete it, lock it, etc.

I never claimed I did, I was told I jumped in the end of this thread. As usual and as the those who bait others, you mad a claim that had no merit, it is the only way the Lib can keep up

People wonder why we cannot debate the issues. This is why

Lib? The only thing lib about me is that it's the first three letters of libertarian. Here's a dollar, go but a freaking clue.

 

[JRK]

While one side argues minimum wage is below poverty and need to be higher.Arguably true.The other side say if you raise it to much you will choke out new business.Also true. Minimum wage should be set AT a percentage of the production of a bussiness. When we are debating what that % should be then we are having a real debate. Until then its all talk about nothing...

It is a percentage. Typically a business will attempt to keep it's labor cost at or below 30% of gross revenues.
That includes wages and benefits. So for example. A full time worker making $15 per hour will cost the business twice that when one figures in SS taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, worker's comp insurance, medicare taxes, health insurance and state disability insurance. So it is not just the wage that is factored in to labor cost. It is all the other taxes, fees and insurance premiums as well. And do not forget the cost to administer payroll. That is an expense that must be covered as well.
So let's say a business grosses $400k for the year. It has 3 full time employees. Each worker is paid $15 per hour with the lead person or supervisor getting $20 per hour. Now for arguments sake and to simplify the math let's assume each worker works exactly 40 hours each week. So we have 2 workers at $31,200 per year and one at $41,600 per year.
That's About $106,000 in wages alone for the year. Now, the owners still has not paid himself. Remember that. So lets say the average cost of each worker is roughly ten more dollars per hour....Add thirty times 40 which is 1,200 times 52 weeks. That's over $60,000...Now payroll plus benefits is up to $160,000 for the fiscal year. That firm's labor cost rounds out to about 40%...Much too high. So the business owner who has not paid himself because the labor he employs is excellent but still a commodity has a decision to make. He can cut pay or cut one worker to part time status. That's assuming revenue for the upcoming year does not increase more than 10%.
BTW, if you want to question my estimates, feel free. I can give you one solid right from my insurance agent's mouth the cost of workers comp for an average of $35k per year. $7,000...That $35k just turned into $42k....
SO you see, when those who ***** and moan about profit and how much the owner makes and how the workers should share, it's coming from those who've never owned or operated a business and don't know shit.
All this crap about greedy business owners comes form the mouths of "they know not of what they speak" people.
They should shut it. Then ask their boss what they can do to help him increase revenues so that the business owner can afford to offer wage increases.
Yeah yeah yeah..Now I am going to see all kinds of commentary about huge corporations and CEO's and multi-million dollar compensation...Baloney. Most of those "salaries" are on paper. As we know many bard members are paid salaries but the bulk of the compensation is in company stock.

It would cost the same for each competing company as long as the wages were a federal mandate
the restaurants etc... would be hit hardest.
your right about the built up cost it takes to run a business

ones true labor cost has much more than just what the bare salary is

 

[Bern80]

That's a non-sequitur question.
The debate is about wages and the ability for those in the permanent work force vs how they can work/earn and sustain themselves.
How this debate ran off into part time students in low wage entry level service jobs is a mystery.
Now, employers set wages based first on the value of the work vs the cost of the labor.
That said, I maintain that yes, an inexperienced high school kid working in an ice cream shop would be paid a lower wage than an experienced adult who is there at that job trying to make some extra money to help with family finances.
If that somehow offends you sensibilities, so be it.
To further explain.....I have two part time workers. One is a kid in school. The other a man who is out of work except for what he does for me. The wife of the adult has a full time job.
Ok,. The man and the kid have been working with me the same amount of calendar months. The man is reliable, on time and does what I require of him. The kid does good work as well, but on occasion shows up late, has to take off for school activities, dates or because he has a big party to go to...Which worker has more value to my business? Easy. The adult. He is getting a higher wage. Period.
Now, let's say I am in need of part time help for the first time. I get a few applicants. I have chosen two people. The same as the two described above.
Given their circumstances and plugging in the percentages, I am STILL going to pay the adult more money because adults on average are more likely to be on time, require less supervision and motivation and will have better attendance records.
Now...That should be enough of that debate.
Back to the subject matter of the thread, please.

That STILL wasn't the comparision being made. The debate was never about SOME types of jobs and what they pay. It was about ALL jobs. From the most menial job that anyone can do the most skilled. I don't have a problem with how pay the high school kid. You pay them based on their value, which is what I have said all along. What I have been asking is when there is NOTHING else to differentiate two employees by, other than their income requirements, would he pay more to the one that needs the income more? The only disagreement I would have with the above is paying people based on how you think the avg. person would perform rather than how THAT person actually performs. Because believe it or not there are plenty of highly financially motivated teenagers out there, while there are also a lot very lazy adults who do no more than what is required of them.

I think you are complicating the issue for no apparent reason.
The bottom line is it doesn't matter what anyone believes is "fair".
Business owners will always defer to their past experiences with various types of people when determining who to hire and wages.
Businesses use all sorts of criteria. Some of these are bound to anger certain people.
I read a story about how HR managers are using criteria that enter gray areas in terms of illegal discrimination. However, as of now, none have been challenged.
One manager that represented a company with mostly white collar professionals that require much travel, explained that she will disqualify from consideration candidates with young children. Others may disqualify single people because they are viewed in certain circumstances as less likely to be reliable than those with families. Some will use credit history as a criteria. Others have disqualified candidates based on the type of vehicle and the condition of said vehicle the candidate uses to commute. The thinking is, "how can I rely on a person to be at work every day if their transportation is always in the shop for repairs."
Yeah, looks "unfair" doesn't it? However, at the end of the day, businesses must only hire those people who can be at work when the job requires the worker to be reliable.
I see nothing wrong with this.

Nor do I. Most of those criteria I have no problem with. I don't think I'm complicating anything at all because I have maintained through this thread there is only one criteria for paying people that have a real problem with that is paying someone based on what the employee needs (i.e. a living wage) as opposed to their value. And in recent pages I have an even bigger problem when two people are paid differently ONLY because one person needs more to live on.