Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[kwc57]

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

Do you have any idea what "pedantic" means? Because nothing I said qualifies.

I'm not sure how much further one CAN discuss this. What else is there to say beyond the painfully obvious fact that employers are not responsible for your problems; they are consumers purchasing the commodity of your service?

Thanks for answering my question. You're clearly an arrogant ****.

negged for being a sniveling little *****

 

[Cecilie1200]

States have their own minimum wage, the fed sets mim. wage standards so that companies like Walmart and other larger corporations don't get into the habit of paying someone $3.35 an hour and getting away with it. However, corporations still use discrimination tactics, even after the Ledbetter Law was signed into being. Ask any woman who works for big corporations and they'll tell you they're still underpaid compared to their male counterparts.

And they'd be full of shit.

Now if you're here in the U.S.A. illegally, employers can pay you whatever the **** they want to.
BTW, if anyone (righty) thinks a burger flipper can own a car, a home, and provide for a family on current wage standards, I know of some armadillo land in Texas near the N-head Perry ranch for sale. cheap.

We never said a burger flipper could have a family and luxuries on his salary, and if you thought we did, you're dumber than I currently think you are. What we said was, "Why would anyone think they SHOULD have all those things on a burger flipper's salary? Why would anyone be TRYING to?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you interested in discussing this further, or are you here simply to be pedantic?

Do you have any idea what "pedantic" means? Because nothing I said qualifies.

I'm not sure how much further one CAN discuss this. What else is there to say beyond the painfully obvious fact that employers are not responsible for your problems; they are consumers purchasing the commodity of your service?

Thanks for answering my question. You're clearly an arrogant ****.

I accept your unconditional surrender. You may tuck your misogynistic tail between your legs now and begone.

 

[JRK]

It depends. It depends on what you think the purpose and responsibility of a business is. Some say the purpose of a business is to make a profit. Some say the more accurate purpose of a business is to create customers. NEVER have I heard it said that a business exists for the purpose of providing for the basic neccessities of its employees.

It cost my company about 70.00 an hour to have me hear and they charge about 80 for me
Now what part of my success turning into there success exists so we all succeed?
its the same for every-one. If your not helping a business succeed then you should not be there

People are making that much now (4-500 a week), the govt is subsidizing most of it, think about it
We can do it in the free market

I don't know what you're getting at here. You keep dodging the question; Why is it an employers responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for your basic needs? Either the you believe that's their responsibility or you don't. Or you don't think that's what you're really saying, but the reality is you are.

Bern to start with chill, okay?
I am not dodging any question, your question is not relevant, It is the oldest liberal trick in the world, (not saying you are a lib, or that if you are that is bad) make the conversation about something its not
Companies large, medium and small that need people to provide there service/product. What the market can bear is what they pay those people

Following your logic every entitlement with-in our federal, state and local government should be done away with.
People pay all taxes. companies charge that amount so the consumer pays all taxes, it would be the same if you paid Mr X 7.25 an hour or 12.50 an hour. If the market will bear (and it would if it was the minimum wage) then your comment is irrelevant.

If we pay 25% in payroll and income tax and the federal minimum wage is 7.25 an hour or we pay 20% in payroll taxes and the minimum wage is 12.50 an hour whats the diff?

I also understand the argument that it is none of the government's business what we pay, right?
The day we as a nation do not pay 1 penny in taxes and every business does not require the use of 1 govt funded entity to provide its service, That,s when your point becomes valid

Look where all in this together. An asphalt company cannot pave 1 sf of asphalt without people, why not pay them a living wage?

 

[Care4all]

the me me me crowd is killing capitalism's pay structure.....those at the very top are taking more of the profits themselves in their own compensation and giving less of a portion of the good fortunes to their worker bees. This is what I have been reading on it....and statistics do show that those at the top ARE taking more of the company's earnings while the workers are getting less of it, as a percentage? No???

 

[JRK]

the me me me crowd is killing capitalism's pay structure.....those at the very top are taking more of the profits themselves in their own compensation and giving less of a portion of the good fortunes to their worker bees. This is what I have been reading on it....and statistics do show that those at the top ARE taking more of the company's earnings while the workers are getting less of it, as a percentage? No???

I am a staunch conservative. This does not mean there is a responsibility for the private sector to do the right thing when it comes to annual income is an item that I am not in favor of. My problem with starting a business is 2 ex wives as well lack of cash flow. If we use the services of a person to make profit with that person then we should pay that person a living wage.
Simple as i can put it and 290.00 a week is not a living wage

 

[Bern80]

Bern to start with chill, okay?
I am not dodging any question, your question is not relevant, It is the oldest liberal trick in the world, (not saying you are a lib, or that if you are that is bad) make the conversation about something its not

It is very releveant because it's what you're saying a business should do. I'm not sure if you just have not looked at it that way or what. But when you say a burger flipper should make enough money to provide for their basic needs you are in fact saying it is the responsibility of an employer to provide for the basic needs of an individual. What is even further confusing is I'm not a lib. Used to be a conservative, but now lean more libertarian. What I don't get is YOU claim to be a conservative. Yet you are essentially asking for a government entitlement. Advocating personal responsibility, which is what I am doing by suggesting people need to be responsible for providing for their own needs, is generally considered a conservative trait, not a liberal one. Why you are calling advocating for personal responsibility the oldest liberal trick in the book is rather confusing.

Companies large, medium and small that need people to provide there service/product. What the market can bear is what they pay those people

And in some cases the market is not going to bear a wage that a person could live off of. You are advocating, it seems, that those jobs should be forced to pay a living wage anyway.

Following your logic every entitlement with-in our federal, state and local government should be done away with.
People pay all taxes. companies charge that amount so the consumer pays all taxes, it would be the same if you paid Mr X 7.25 an hour or 12.50 an hour. If the market will bear (and it would if it was the minimum wage) then your comment is irrelevant.

If we pay 25% in payroll and income tax and the federal minimum wage is 7.25 an hour or we pay 20% in payroll taxes and the minimum wage is 12.50 an hour whats the diff?

While a bit convuluted, I get where you're going....I think. 'The diff' is in exchanging mandated higher pay for lower taxes you are going to increase unemployment. You likely won't have changed anything. The other diff is as a I keep saying you are essentially absolving individuals of the responsibility of providng for themselves and shifting it to their employers. You need to understand some basics of human nature. People will do no more than they have to most of the time. It's like raising a child. When they're little with limited vocabulary what do they say when they want something? Maybe 'wa wa' for water or 'da da' for Dad. At some point you teach them to get water they need to actually say water instead of 'wa wa'. If you don't require more of people, most will not vountarily give more. Why would you? Why would you push yourself harder for no more benefit. Why why would I train myself in the skills that are valued at a living wage level when the government will just tell every employer out there they have to pay me at least what i need?

I also understand the argument that it is none of the government's business what we pay, right?
The day we as a nation do not pay 1 penny in taxes and every business does not require the use of 1 govt funded entity to provide its service, That,s when your point becomes valid

I'm not advocating that there be no taxes. But no, it isn't the government's business what a business pays it's employees. The nice thing about a free market is that rates for labor, service and goods are all self governed. Buyers and sellers come together to negotiate rates. As more and more of that takes place for similar skill sets, goods and services across regions and nation accepted rates for those skills start to take hold. Where such a prospective employee can make a decision as to what jobs to seek. The value of a burger flipper for example has been established by the market, (and by the market I mean many thousands of franchise owners negotiating with many thousands of prosepective job seekers) to be about $8-$9 an hour. If you want to get deeper into why that has become they going rate for that job we can. Another example, the job I work in a call center. The avg. pay of a call center agent is about $14 and believe it or not, that is more than enough for a single guy like myself to live on where I live. It requires no formal education past high school to do (though I am a college grad) meaning most anyone can be trained to do it. So it's not like it even takes considerable effort for an individual to make enough to live on.

Look where all in this together. An asphalt company cannot pave 1 sf of asphalt without people, why not pay them a living wage?

Not really a good example. Better to stick to jobs that actually do pay less than a 'living wage' like someone working at McDonalds. So, why not pay them a living wage? There are two answers to that I can immediately think of. The first brutally honest one is simply because they don't have to. The skill set exists in a large enough quantity among enough people that have decided they will accept less than what one can live on for a variety of reasons (they're teenagers, they're looking for supplemental income) that McDondalds simply doesn't have to pay what it would take someone to live on. The second reason is as I keep saying. If you insist that every job pay a living wage, whether necessary for that individual or not you will have essentially shifted the burden of providing for your basic needs from yourself to your employer. Incentivizing people to be less responsible for themselves is never a good idea for a society.

 

[Foxfyre]

the me me me crowd is killing capitalism's pay structure.....those at the very top are taking more of the profits themselves in their own compensation and giving less of a portion of the good fortunes to their worker bees. This is what I have been reading on it....and statistics do show that those at the top ARE taking more of the company's earnings while the workers are getting less of it, as a percentage? No???

But what the employer keeps for himself is not the issue. The employer has no obligation to share any of his/her good fortune and to force him to share it takes individual liberties away from us all. The employers sese of charity, greed, selfishness, etc. etc. etc. is irrelevent to what labor is worth.

The concern of the worker bees is whether they will accept an offered wage or not. If all consider the wage unacceptable, and the employer has to have somebody to work, the employer will raise the wage to whatever it takes to hire the employee IF the employer can still make a reasonable profit by doing so. IF the demanded wage is more than the employer considers acceptable, he won't hire at all. It is as simple as that. The free market at work.

The concern of the employee should be to make himself/herself as valuable as necessary to earn the wage he/she will be happy with. It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide that to the employee if the employer does not consider the value of the work to be at that level.

 

[Bern80]

the me me me crowd is killing capitalism's pay structure.....those at the very top are taking more of the profits themselves in their own compensation and giving less of a portion of the good fortunes to their worker bees. This is what I have been reading on it....and statistics do show that those at the top ARE taking more of the company's earnings while the workers are getting less of it, as a percentage? No???

I am a staunch conservative. This does not mean there is a responsibility for the private sector to do the right thing when it comes to annual income is an item that I am not in favor of. My problem with starting a business is 2 ex wives as well lack of cash flow. If we use the services of a person to make profit with that person then we should pay that person a living wage.
Simple as i can put it and 290.00 a week is not a living wage

See and that is where the paradox with you is. You claim to be a conservative but I have rarely heard a more liberal stance from anyone including liberals. Which makes me think you really haven't thought about what you are really saying. I hate to beat a dead horse, but you will at some point have to accept that it is a fact that what you have said is that YOU, JRK, are not responsibile for providing for yourself. That respsonsibility falls to your employer or the government. At least saying it's government's responsibility you could make some semblence of a rationale argument. But claiming it's an employers responsibility? That is about as ridiculous as it gets.

 

[JRK]

the me me me crowd is killing capitalism's pay structure.....those at the very top are taking more of the profits themselves in their own compensation and giving less of a portion of the good fortunes to their worker bees. This is what I have been reading on it....and statistics do show that those at the top ARE taking more of the company's earnings while the workers are getting less of it, as a percentage? No???

I am a staunch conservative. This does not mean there is a responsibility for the private sector to do the right thing when it comes to annual income is an item that I am not in favor of. My problem with starting a business is 2 ex wives as well lack of cash flow. If we use the services of a person to make profit with that person then we should pay that person a living wage.
Simple as i can put it and 290.00 a week is not a living wage

See and that is where the paradox with is. You claim to be a conservative but I have rarely hear a more liberal stance from anyone including liberals. Which makes me think you really haven't thought about what you are really saying. I hate to beat a dead horse, but you will at some point have to accept that it is a fact that what you have said is that YOU, JRK, are not responsibile for providing for yourself. That respsonsibility falls to my employer or the government. At least saying it's government's responsibility you could make some semblence of a rationale argument. But claiming it's an employers responsibility? That is about as ridiculous as it gets.

The company I work for has made about 40,000.00 of of my services in the last 20 months
that is probably a little low. This what the market could bear. Now exactly how is it this company can make that profit off of me if there is no-one to provide that service? your sure looking at this from one point of view bud

It is as we call it a win-win. If every company thought like you do, we would never get nothing done. One cannot prosper with out the other unless your day trading stocks, and even then you would interact with multiple people and not even realize it
The reason the few that do make minimum wage in this country that are also trying to make a living wage is only one, that the minimum that have to be paid

Look you think a company can get away in paying people 1.00 an hour, that's your business. Most companies try to pay a minimum of 9-10 an hour no matter
You want those people who make profits off of those who work for them to pay 1.00 an hour?
I hope you never know what its like to be faced with that in life. I tell where this idea was sold to me, Australia has a minimum wage as stated below and it is working

The federal minimum wage is currently $15.00 per hour or $569.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).

Casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also get at least a 21 per cent casual loading. http://www.netlawman.com.au/info/minimum-wages-australia.php

 

[Bern80]

The company I work for has made about 40,000.00 of of my services in the last 20 months
that is probably a little low. This what the market could bear. Now exactly how is it this company can make that profit off of me if there is no-one to provide that service? your sure looking at this from one point of view bud

What is your point. Of course a business needs employees to make a profit. That has nothing to do with whether they owe you a living wage. Yet again; WHY IS IT NOT YOUR RESPSONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR BASIC NEEDS? I am looking at this from the point of view of both an employee and employer. The problem is there are so many like you that really don't get how to operate a business that ask ridiculous questions like, 'well why don't they just pay me based on what I need to live on'? To someone looking at things from the perspective of having to manage a successful business such a question is so stupid as to make the brain hurt.

It is as we call it a win-win. If every company thought like you do, we would never get nothing done. One cannot prosper with out the other unless your day trading stocks, and even then you would interact with multiple people and not even realize it
The reason the few that do make minimum wage in this country that are also trying to make a living wage is only one, that the minimum that have to be paid

No it isn't a win win. Not for people that will be unemployed as a result of the wage increase. Every company already thinks like I do and look at how many of them pay far above and beyond living wage. No JRK, if the world operated as you thought it should and the only responsibility of an employer was to pay people what they need, then every single job in the country would pay $15.00/hr. No more, no less.

Look you think a company can get away in paying people 1.00 an hour, that's your business. Most companies try to pay a minimum of 9-10 an hour no matter
You want those people who make profits off of those who work for them to pay 1.00 an hour?
I hope you never know what its like to be faced with that in life. I tell where this idea was sold to me, Australia has a minimum wage as stated below and it is working

The federal minimum wage is currently $15.00 per hour or $569.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).

Casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also get at least a 21 per cent casual loading. Guide to Australian minimum wages

The market is what prevents a business from doing that. No government stepped in and said mcdonalds or some mom and pop restaurant had to pay the dish washer $9/hr. The market, on its own, established that. As for australia it's relative JRK, how can you not see this? There $15.00 is our $7.75/hr. This is another huge misconception. You seem to think that raising the min wage happens in a vacuum and nothing else in the economy is going to react to that. That simply isn't so the cost of everything else goes up with it. All you've done is create a new bottom.

 

[kwc57]

JRK.

I've enjoyed your posts in other threads where you do indeed take a conservative stance on other issues. On this issue, you are FAR afield of a conservative stance. You are indeed embracing a very socialist stance. Can you not see that? Companies have a business model. It takes in all sorts of factors. If your overhead exceeds your profits, you go out of business.....usually owing money to people. If your profits exceeds your overhead, you are anywhere from just barely breaking even to being able to sock away some cash. any number of things can upset the apple cart. If a component of the product you make costs you 5 cents and it suddenly jimps to $1, you're kind of screwed if you can't find a replacement closer to the cost of your model. If you were selling your product for $1 and that one component went up by 95 cents, your product now will cost $1.95. Your customers may not be willing to pay double for that product. Same goes for pay. If you have figured an hourly wage into your model that will allow your profit to exceed your overhead and the government all of a sudden mandates that you have to double that wage to pay a "living wage", you are screwed. Let's say that you are paying a minimum wage of $7.75 and the government says you have to pay $15, will that fit your model? Will your customers be willing to pay a substantially higher price for your product? Probably not......and you go out of business.

The idea of a living wage sounds good. The execution can be devastating.

 

[JRK]

The company I work for has made about 40,000.00 of of my services in the last 20 months
that is probably a little low. This what the market could bear. Now exactly how is it this company can make that profit off of me if there is no-one to provide that service? your sure looking at this from one point of view bud

What is your point. Of course a business needs employees to make a profit. That has nothing to do with whether they owe you a living wage. Yet again; WHY IS IT NOT YOUR RESPSONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR BASIC NEEDS? I am looking at this from the point of view of both an employee and employer. The problem is there are so many like you that really don't get how to operate a business that ask ridiculous questions like, 'well why don't they just pay me based on what I need to live on'? To someone looking at things from the perspective of having to manage a successful business such a question is so stupid as to make the brain hurt.

It is as we call it a win-win. If every company thought like you do, we would never get nothing done. One cannot prosper with out the other unless your day trading stocks, and even then you would interact with multiple people and not even realize it
The reason the few that do make minimum wage in this country that are also trying to make a living wage is only one, that the minimum that have to be paid

No it isn't a win win. Not for people that will be unemployed as a result of the wage increase. Every company already thinks like I do and look at how many of them pay far above and beyond living wage. No JRK, if the world operated as you thought it should and the only responsibility of an employer was to pay people what they need, then every single job in the country would pay $15.00/hr. No more, no less.

Look you think a company can get away in paying people 1.00 an hour, that's your business. Most companies try to pay a minimum of 9-10 an hour no matter
You want those people who make profits off of those who work for them to pay 1.00 an hour?
I hope you never know what its like to be faced with that in life. I tell where this idea was sold to me, Australia has a minimum wage as stated below and it is working

The federal minimum wage is currently $15.00 per hour or $569.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).

Casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also get at least a 21 per cent casual loading. Guide to Australian minimum wages

The market is what prevents a business from doing that. No government stepped in and said mcdonalds or some mom and pop restaurant had to pay the dish washer $9/hr. The market, on its own, established that. As for australia it's relative JRK, how can you not see this? There $15.00 is our $7.75/hr. This is another huge misconception. You seem to think that raising the min wage happens in a vacuum and nothing else in the economy is going to react to that. That simply isn't so the cost of everything else goes up with it. All you've done is create a new bottom.

I looked to find a link in which 15.00 = 7.75 from here to there
I have yet to find it

If you take 3 people in a rest.
2 = 8.00
1 = 15.00

pay 2 12.50
1 = 15.00

your bare has went up only 3.00 an hour
72 a 8 hour day
504 a week

avg 6 meals an hour
you add 0.55 a meal (10% profit) your there

Its not that big of a deal

here is your dollar myth de-bunked
Wednesday, October 26, 2011

1 US Dollar = 0.95605 Australian Dollar
1 Australian Dollar (AUD) = 1.04597 US Dollar (USD)

Median price = 0.95588 / 0.95605 (bid/ask)
Minimum price = 0.95253 / 0.95269
Maximum price = 0.96170 / 0.96187

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/australia/currency-converter/

 

[Utilitarian]

I don't know what you're getting at here. You keep dodging the question; Why is it an employers responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for your basic needs? Either the you believe that's their responsibility or you don't. Or you don't think that's what you're really saying, but the reality is you are.

In most countries considered First World, there are public infrastructures aimed at serving basic needs. We have a few here, but they're far less comprehensive than in most of our peers.

So, naturally, a lot of these things, like healthcare are shifted towards employer benefits. In effect, the expectation is that employers should handle most of the burden of things like care.

This discussion doesn't even really touch the benefits side of a minimum wage, since there is no such thing currently, but to even suggest that the bottom of the pay scale be slightly higher is apparently taboo.

So far, it's supposedly something that would discourage people from moving further in their careers, and that employers shouldn't be responsible for providing basic needs anyway.

So I guess the question becomes: if you don't think employers should provide basic needs, then why even accept your employer's benefits package if you're offered one?

Clearly, a lot of employers view providing basic needs like healthcare as a responsibility to their workers.

Wrong. Employers don't provide extra benefits out of a sense of obligation to provide basic needs to employees. They provide those things as a means of competing for employees.

It isn't taboo to bring up the wages of the lowest wage earners. It is taboo to suggest that your wages should be raised for no other reason than you need more to live on.

STILL no one of you living wage proponents will answer the question; why is it your employers responsibility, more so than your own, to provide for your basic needs?

Bern, I've changed my mind. I prefer to have a wage floor determined by illegal labor. It's much cheaper that way. Romney seems to agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you make $10/hour and a decent house costs $50,000 with other basic necessities proportionate to that, you can probably save up enough to make a down payment on a house and a 40-hr-wk job would qualify you for a loan on the balance.

If you make $20/hour and a decent house costs $150,000 with other basic necessities proportionate to that, you're going to have a tougher time saving up that down payment and qualifying for a loan for the balance is going to be a lot tougher.

Wage versus cost of living is all relative and a mandated higher wage does not always produce increased buying power or quality of life because that increase will be built into, and sometimes magnified, in every basic thing you buy.

We all benefit from allowing the free market to set the value of labor. Artificially manipulate that and you will see many unintended negative consequences.

 

[kwc57]

I am a staunch conservative. This does not mean there is a responsibility for the private sector to do the right thing when it comes to annual income is an item that I am not in favor of. My problem with starting a business is 2 ex wives as well lack of cash flow. If we use the services of a person to make profit with that person then we should pay that person a living wage.
Simple as i can put it and 290.00 a week is not a living wage

See and that is where the paradox with is. You claim to be a conservative but I have rarely hear a more liberal stance from anyone including liberals. Which makes me think you really haven't thought about what you are really saying. I hate to beat a dead horse, but you will at some point have to accept that it is a fact that what you have said is that YOU, JRK, are not responsibile for providing for yourself. That respsonsibility falls to my employer or the government. At least saying it's government's responsibility you could make some semblence of a rationale argument. But claiming it's an employers responsibility? That is about as ridiculous as it gets.

The company I work for has made about 40,000.00 of of my services in the last 20 months
that is probably a little low. This what the market could bear. Now exactly how is it this company can make that profit off of me if there is no-one to provide that service? your sure looking at this from one point of view bud

It is as we call it a win-win. If every company thought like you do, we would never get nothing done. One cannot prosper with out the other unless your day trading stocks, and even then you would interact with multiple people and not even realize it
The reason the few that do make minimum wage in this country that are also trying to make a living wage is only one, that the minimum that have to be paid

Look you think a company can get away in paying people 1.00 an hour, that's your business. Most companies try to pay a minimum of 9-10 an hour no matter
You want those people who make profits off of those who work for them to pay 1.00 an hour?
I hope you never know what its like to be faced with that in life. I tell where this idea was sold to me, Australia has a minimum wage as stated below and it is working

The federal minimum wage is currently $15.00 per hour or $569.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).

Casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also get at least a 21 per cent casual loading. Guide to Australian minimum wages

Not to criticize, but you really, really need to work on your post formatting. Punctuation is you friend. It make it easier to understand what you mean. I'm not sure where you live, but what happens in Australia really has no bearing on the US. When I read your comment that the federal minimum wage is $15, I wondered what planet you lived on. Had I not opened your link, I'd still think you were talking about the US federal minimum wage which is actually $7.25.

U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Wages - Minimum Wage

 

[Utilitarian]

Do you have any idea what "pedantic" means? Because nothing I said qualifies.

I'm not sure how much further one CAN discuss this. What else is there to say beyond the painfully obvious fact that employers are not responsible for your problems; they are consumers purchasing the commodity of your service?

Thanks for answering my question. You're clearly an arrogant ****.

negged for being a sniveling little *****

#2 on my ignore list

 

[kwc57]

Thanks for answering my question. You're clearly an arrogant ****.

negged for being a sniveling little *****

#2 on my ignore list

Proof positive.

 

[JRK]

JRK.

I've enjoyed your posts in other threads where you do indeed take a conservative stance on other issues. On this issue, you are FAR afield of a conservative stance. You are indeed embracing a very socialist stance. Can you not see that? Companies have a business model. It takes in all sorts of factors. If your overhead exceeds your profits, you go out of business.....usually owing money to people. If your profits exceeds your overhead, you are anywhere from just barely breaking even to being able to sock away some cash. any number of things can upset the apple cart. If a component of the product you make costs you 5 cents and it suddenly jimps to $1, you're kind of screwed if you can't find a replacement closer to the cost of your model. If you were selling your product for $1 and that one component went up by 95 cents, your product now will cost $1.95. Your customers may not be willing to pay double for that product. Same goes for pay. If you have figured an hourly wage into your model that will allow your profit to exceed your overhead and the government all of a sudden mandates that you have to double that wage to pay a "living wage", you are screwed. Let's say that you are paying a minimum wage of $7.75 and the government says you have to pay $15, will that fit your model? Will your customers be willing to pay a substantially higher price for your product? Probably not......and you go out of business.

The idea of a living wage sounds good. The execution can be devastating.

Its working fine in Australia
I also know a little about what I am talking about. That company is paying the highest corporate tax in the world because of the entitlement programs we have in place, such as welfare because people who do not make a living wage.

That consumer that purchases a widget pays for either the minimum wage of 13.00 and hour or he/she will be paying for the corporate income tax that has to be where it is because so many people do not make a living wage

Its a wash as long as the companies tax rate goes down if the minimum wage goes to the level that would be above the poverty level
eliminate most all well-fare, replace it with a living wage. whats the diff?

 

[Bern80]

JRK.

I've enjoyed your posts in other threads where you do indeed take a conservative stance on other issues. On this issue, you are FAR afield of a conservative stance. You are indeed embracing a very socialist stance. Can you not see that? Companies have a business model. It takes in all sorts of factors. If your overhead exceeds your profits, you go out of business.....usually owing money to people. If your profits exceeds your overhead, you are anywhere from just barely breaking even to being able to sock away some cash. any number of things can upset the apple cart. If a component of the product you make costs you 5 cents and it suddenly jimps to $1, you're kind of screwed if you can't find a replacement closer to the cost of your model. If you were selling your product for $1 and that one component went up by 95 cents, your product now will cost $1.95. Your customers may not be willing to pay double for that product. Same goes for pay. If you have figured an hourly wage into your model that will allow your profit to exceed your overhead and the government all of a sudden mandates that you have to double that wage to pay a "living wage", you are screwed. Let's say that you are paying a minimum wage of $7.75 and the government says you have to pay $15, will that fit your model? Will your customers be willing to pay a substantially higher price for your product? Probably not......and you go out of business.

The idea of a living wage sounds good. The execution can be devastating.

Its working fine in Australia
I also know a little about what I am talking about. That company is paying the highest corporate tax in the world because of the entitlement programs we have in place, such as welfare because people who do not make a living wage.

That consumer that purchases a widget pays for either the minimum wage of 13.00 and hour or he/she will be paying for the corporate income tax that has to be where it is because so many people do not make a living wage

Its a wash as long as the companies tax rate goes down if the minimum wage goes to the level that would be above the poverty level
eliminate most all well-fare, replace it with a living wage. whats the diff?

You were already told 'what the diff' is? If you effectively double the min wage in the U.S. unemployment among jobs paying that rate is going to go up.

But frankly the math is irrelevent. Why do you not have the character to answer my question? Why is it not your responsibility to provide for your basic needs?