Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[JRK]

I said from the start a living wage is 25,000 a year for a single person
to me a minimum wage is a starting point, not the end

Where? In New York City that wouldn't even pay the rent on a 300 sqft apartment. In Jacksonville FL you could live on less than that.

The idea that anyone is entitled to a given income, not based on what his skills are worth, but instead based on some arbitrary definition of what he "needs" is so obviously bogus that it's hard to believe anyone would utter the claim in public.

Yea practicing the 1st amendment scares every lib I know
your point is valid, your sarcasm is not

 

[JRK]

It is really none of youir business
HB Zachary
Bechtal
PCL
TIC
KBR
there is a start
what I do?

I build big shit
My expertise?
I can do much, I have been doing this for 30+ years

right now I like to work 8 months and hunt and fish for 4 months when I can

Everybody can't weld. Or build big shit. And wtf, you telling me that 30 years ago you were making 200k a year. But that is what it takes for you to live now eh, 200k a year. Can't get by on less. You think that if everyone was a welder, they would pay you 200k a year?

Instead of a living wage discussion, how about a discussion about what is the LEAST amount a person could be paid and still survive at a basic level.

That's where you all really want to go. No minimum on wages. Start out at wages that would make a welfare check look like a big pay raise.

What is the least amount that a burger flipper should be paid?

I got the solution. Everytime a company needs to hire a new worker, they should open the job up to a wage bidding war. The potential employee who bids the lowest hourly amount they would work for gets the new job.[/SIZE

]Would that be great or what? Then we could really drive down the cost of labor and find out just what a "living wage" is. It is the least amount a person will work for.

never claimed I made 200k a year
the full intent of this thread was exactly that
what does it take?
The lib states its about 8.00 an hour as in Washington there nine miles up the Cons ass over this minimum wage
As Rush says and I agree, why not make it 15 a hour?
30?
The point here is exactly what you said. my claim to 25,000 was the rule as I see it, not the excpetion of NYC
now if you do not think you can go to Wheeler Texas in 115 degree heat and work a gas rig, then maybe becoming a OTR truck driver?
The opportunity is out there
For some leaving home is not an option

BTW 30 years ago? about 15k a year as I recall (7.80 an hour)

 

[zeke]

Everybody can't weld. Or build big shit. And wtf, you telling me that 30 years ago you were making 200k a year. But that is what it takes for you to live now eh, 200k a year. Can't get by on less. You think that if everyone was a welder, they would pay you 200k a year?

Instead of a living wage discussion, how about a discussion about what is the LEAST amount a person could be paid and still survive at a basic level.

That's where you all really want to go. No minimum on wages. Start out at wages that would make a welfare check look like a big pay raise.

What is the least amount that a burger flipper should be paid?

I got the solution. Everytime a company needs to hire a new worker, they should open the job up to a wage bidding war. The potential employee who bids the lowest hourly amount they would work for gets the new job.[/SIZE

]Would that be great or what? Then we could really drive down the cost of labor and find out just what a "living wage" is. It is the least amount a person will work for.

never claimed I made 200k a year
the full intent of this thread was exactly that
what does it take?
The lib states its about 8.00 an hour as in Washington there nine miles up the Cons ass over this minimum wage
As Rush says and I agree, why not make it 15 a hour?
30?
The point here is exactly what you said. my claim to 25,000 was the rule as I see it, not the excpetion of NYC
now if you do not think you can go to Wheeler Texas in 115 degree heat and work a gas rig, then maybe becoming a OTR truck driver?
The opportunity is out there
For some leaving home is not an option

BTW 30 years ago? about 15k a year as I recall (7.80 an hour)

Why not make it 5 dollars an hour? Or 3. Guess you didn't like the idea of allowing employers to open the jobs they have available to the lowest bidder. Lets say that your company need a welder. Why not allow the qualified people applying for this job to offer bids on what they would work for. Maybe one welder wants 30 dollars an hour and the next guy coming to apply will work for 23 dollars an hour.

Sounds like the free labor market at work. But somehow I don't think you would like it that YOUR job could be subject to decreasing wages IF there were more people who could weld and who would weld for less than you.

Of course, you could be a union welder. Now I know KBR is non union. But there are plenty of oil companies that do employ union welders or pipe fitters. You ever had a union card?

 

[Foxfyre]

This came form the age old game the left plays about doing the poor a favor with a minimum wage
bottom line is that 8.00 an hour is better than 7, but a living wage is dictated by the person and his/her work ethic,
ot the federal govt

And, who is likely to prosper more? The person who can't qualify for the $12/hour job as well as 10 other people wanting the job, so s/he goes on welfare and sits on his/her butt hoping the economy improves?. . . .

or. . . .

The person who takes a minimum wage job and works a second job to make ends meet until the economy improves enough he can get a job paying a living wage without a second job?

Which one would YOU hire?

During a weak economy and high unemployment is not the time to raise the minimum wage. You already have dozens of people competing for the same limited amount of work. And in a weak economy, labor simply is not going to generate the profits for the employer that will usually be the case in a strong, robust economy. Make the mandatory wages and benefits too high, and the employer will not hire at all rather than hire people and take a loss when the people cannot earn even what they are being paid, much less that plus a profit for the employer.

 

[JRK]

never claimed I made 200k a year
the full intent of this thread was exactly that
what does it take?
The lib states its about 8.00 an hour as in Washington there nine miles up the Cons ass over this minimum wage
As Rush says and I agree, why not make it 15 a hour?
30?
The point here is exactly what you said. my claim to 25,000 was the rule as I see it, not the excpetion of NYC
now if you do not think you can go to Wheeler Texas in 115 degree heat and work a gas rig, then maybe becoming a OTR truck driver?
The opportunity is out there
For some leaving home is not an option

BTW 30 years ago? about 15k a year as I recall (7.80 an hour)

Why not make it 5 dollars an hour? Or 3. Guess you didn't like the idea of allowing employers to open the jobs they have available to the lowest bidder. Lets say that your company need a welder. Why not allow the qualified people applying for this job to offer bids on what they would work for. Maybe one welder wants 30 dollars an hour and the next guy coming to apply will work for 23 dollars an hour.

Sounds like the free labor market at work. But somehow I don't think you would like it that YOUR job could be subject to decreasing wages IF there were more people who could weld and who would weld for less than you.

Of course, you could be a union welder. Now I know KBR is non union. But there are plenty of oil companies that do employ union welders or pipe fitters. You ever had a union card?

you have much to learn
and is you have been reading my threads I have no issue with the way the trade unions in the south work
In fact I wish they would expand

Union welders make less than they do in the free market within the trades I have managed
And my friend
paying a person 5.00 an hour to perform a task means your going to profit on that 5.00 and hour if your very good of 8%
or 40 pennies an hour

think about it before you go down that path again
No-one is going to get out of bed for 40 pennies per person per hour profit in the trades

 

[zeke]

Seems to me that if people like you complain that the government has no business setting a "minimum wage", then it only stands to reason that what you really mean is you want all people to work for the least amount of money that they could be paid.

Why should there even be a "minimum wage"? Why should you be paid your 35 dollars an hour when there has to be another welder willing to work for 25 dollars an hour. Why pay a hamburger flipper 7.25 an hour when they could flip the same burger for 3.25 an hour. Or 2.25.

If your boss comes out tommorrow and says that you need to take a pay cut because the company has found another welder who will work for less. Would you continue to work or pack your shit and go home?

Hey maybe it would be better for the government to come out and tell people that they have to work for whatever wage a company is willing to pay. No minimum no maximum. Just the good ole free labor market at work.

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems to me that if people like you complain that the government has no business setting a "minimum wage", then it only stands to reason that what you really mean is you want all people to work for the least amount of money that they could be paid.

Why should there even be a "minimum wage"? Why should you be paid your 35 dollars an hour when there has to be another welder willing to work for 25 dollars an hour. Why pay a hamburger flipper 7.25 an hour when they could flip the same burger for 3.25 an hour. Or 2.25.

If your boss comes out tommorrow and says that you need to take a pay cut because the company has found another welder who will work for less. Would you continue to work or pack your shit and go home?

Hey maybe it would be better for the government to come out and tell people that they have to work for whatever wage a company is willing to pay. No minimum no maximum. Just the good ole free labor market at work.

Or how about we cut out all the middlemen and let a free, capable, competent, and hard working experienced employee negotiate a wage with the employers--sell his experience, expertise, and work ethic to the highest bidder as it were? The employer would likely hire and would get as much productivity out of two such employees as any five employees who were worth only minimum wage to the employer.

A persons labor is worth only as much as it turns a profit for the employer. That has to be the very first and most important consideration in establishing what is a fair wage.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Seems to me that if people like you complain that the government has no business setting a "minimum wage", then it only stands to reason that what you really mean is you want all people to work for the least amount of money that they could be paid.

Why should there even be a "minimum wage"? Why should you be paid your 35 dollars an hour when there has to be another welder willing to work for 25 dollars an hour. Why pay a hamburger flipper 7.25 an hour when they could flip the same burger for 3.25 an hour. Or 2.25.

If your boss comes out tommorrow and says that you need to take a pay cut because the company has found another welder who will work for less. Would you continue to work or pack your shit and go home?

Hey maybe it would be better for the government to come out and tell people that they have to work for whatever wage a company is willing to pay. No minimum no maximum. Just the good ole free labor market at work.

You've obviously just reached working age,so I'll explain how it works.
In order for a business to be successful it needs to hire good people.
If they dont pay decent wage they end up with the dredges of the work force which leads to a crappy product and the business closing.

 

[francoHFW]

Since the majority of business owners are dumbass greedy idiot Pub dupes- it's about $11, 1968's min wage, before Pubs were once again able to start their myopic campaign against the nonrich...

 

[kaz]

What happens when employers build Widgets and don't pay a wage their employees can support their families on?

The taxpayer steps in and subsidizes food, housing and healthcare for that family. Employer gets to profit off of cheap widgets.....taxpayers make up the difference

Companies need to pay employees what they "need," not what they are worth. You're just a fountain of information today, RW.

BTW, if employees aren't worth what you require them to pay, then they don't get jobs and instead of making up the "difference" you're paying the full freight. Well, you're not, you don't work. Actually I am.

 

[kaz]

Since the majority of business owners are dumbass greedy idiot Pub dupes- it's about $11, 1968's min wage, before Pubs were once again able to start their myopic campaign against the nonrich...

As a business owner I'll take your test.

dumbass - depends who you ask. Let's pick my wife and my mother. OK, I'm 1-1 on that one, let's call it a tie...
greedy - guilty
idiot - even my enemies don't think I'm an idiot
Pub - nope, libertarian
dupes - that would be you.

You're 1 win, 3 losses and a tie.

 

[JRK]

Since the majority of business owners are dumbass greedy idiot Pub dupes- it's about $11, 1968's min wage, before Pubs were once again able to start their myopic campaign against the nonrich...

As a business owner I'll take your test.

dumbass - depends who you ask. Let's pick my wife and my mother. OK, I'm 1-1 on that one, let's call it a tie...
greedy - guilty
idiot - even my enemies don't think I'm an idiot
Pub - nope, libertarian
dupes - that would be you.

You're 1 win, 3 losses and a tie.

Not a business owner, but I do manage other peoples resources
so I can also take the test
Dumbass: never been called that one
Greedy: to an extent every-one wants more. I am a compassionite con. but we allways come first
Idiot: never been called that
Pub: nope Libertarian
dupes: do not even know what that means, "to be buped" is to be fooled. I have been fooled, we all have

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems that our more leftist friends draw on their Marxist leanings in a concept that people should be paid what they need rather than on what they produce.

Let's evaluate that.

Let's say I need somebody to do some grundge work in my business and am willing to hire and train a new employee who has little or no experience. Now I can pay this employee minimum wage on the theory that he will free up some of my time or another of my employee's time who will then be able to devote more time to income producing activities. He probably won't earn his wages plus benefits for awhile, but I can afford to take a reasonable loss during training. As the employee learns the ropes and become more efficient in his duties, he can take on more responsibilities, become more useful and merit more pay. Eventually he may qualify for a full time job in production and be earning the living wage he needs.

Meanwhile, he works a second job to supplement his income while he qualifies for a more lucrative position with my business. If he finds a better job before that happens and leaves, he is easily replaced.

But if I have to start him out at the $15/hour he needs as a minimum to support himself plus FICA, plus SUTA, plus FUTA, plus work comp and general liability premiums, plus all the other costs associated with employing this person, he won't offset enough of my or somebody else's time to justify the expense. So I don't hire him.

At the same time, if I don't pay my good, experienced, already trained production people a wage commensurate with what they produce for me, I will likely lose them to a competitor who is willing to pay them well. And they won't be so easy to replace. So it is in my best interest to pay them as well as I can to keep them and still make a reasonable profit.

The less profit I make, the less ability I have to expand, grow, and increase wages and benefits to my employees as well as hire more people. The more profit I make, the better able I am to pay better wages and hire more people.

That is how the free market system works. Whenever artificially dictated wages and/or benefits are inserted into it, it generally benefits nobody but those in government over the long haul.

 

[kaz]

Seems that our more leftist friends draw on their Marxist leanings in a concept that people should be paid what they need rather than on what they produce.

Let's evaluate that.

Let's say I need somebody to do some grundge work in my business and am willing to hire and train a new employee who has little or no experience. Now I can pay this employee minimum wage on the theory that he will free up some of my time or another of my employee's time who will then be able to devote more time to income producing activities. He probably won't earn his wages plus benefits for awhile, but I can afford to take a reasonable loss during training. As the employee learns the ropes and become more efficient in his duties, he can take on more responsibilities, become more useful and merit more pay. Eventually he may qualify for a full time job in production and be earning the living wage he needs.

Meanwhile, he works a second job to supplement his income while he qualifies for a more lucrative position with my business. If he finds a better job before that happens and leaves, he is easily replaced.

But if I have to start him out at the $15/hour he needs as a minimum to support himself plus FICA, plus SUTA, plus FUTA, plus work comp and general liability premiums, plus all the other costs associated with employing this person, he won't offset enough of my or somebody else's time to justify the expense. So I don't hire him.

At the same time, if I don't pay my good, experienced, already trained production people a wage commensurate with what they produce for me, I will likely lose them to a competitor who is willing to pay them well. And they won't be so easy to replace. So it is in my best interest to pay them as well as I can to keep them and still make a reasonable profit.

The less profit I make, the less ability I have to expand, grow, and increase wages and benefits to my employees as well as hire more people. The more profit I make, the better able I am to pay better wages and hire more people.

That is how the free market system works. Whenever artificially dictated wages and/or benefits are inserted into it, it generally benefits nobody but those in government over the long haul.

If a liberal read this with a critical mind, they would immediately oppose the minimum wage. It's undeniable. The paradox to that happening being that if they had a critical mind, they wouldn't have been a liberal...

 

[JRK]

Seems that our more leftist friends draw on their Marxist leanings in a concept that people should be paid what they need rather than on what they produce.

Let's evaluate that.

Let's say I need somebody to do some grundge work in my business and am willing to hire and train a new employee who has little or no experience. Now I can pay this employee minimum wage on the theory that he will free up some of my time or another of my employee's time who will then be able to devote more time to income producing activities. He probably won't earn his wages plus benefits for awhile, but I can afford to take a reasonable loss during training. As the employee learns the ropes and become more efficient in his duties, he can take on more responsibilities, become more useful and merit more pay. Eventually he may qualify for a full time job in production and be earning the living wage he needs.

Meanwhile, he works a second job to supplement his income while he qualifies for a more lucrative position with my business. If he finds a better job before that happens and leaves, he is easily replaced.

But if I have to start him out at the $15/hour he needs as a minimum to support himself plus FICA, plus SUTA, plus FUTA, plus work comp and general liability premiums, plus all the other costs associated with employing this person, he won't offset enough of my or somebody else's time to justify the expense. So I don't hire him.

At the same time, if I don't pay my good, experienced, already trained production people a wage commensurate with what they produce for me, I will likely lose them to a competitor who is willing to pay them well. And they won't be so easy to replace. So it is in my best interest to pay them as well as I can to keep them and still make a reasonable profit.

The less profit I make, the less ability I have to expand, grow, and increase wages and benefits to my employees as well as hire more people. The more profit I make, the better able I am to pay better wages and hire more people.

That is how the free market system works. Whenever artificially dictated wages and/or benefits are inserted into it, it generally benefits nobody but those in government over the long haul.

In reality your going to pay 50-75% again for private sector wages more than the hourly wage
For govt jobs it is probably close to 100% again because of the pension and for ever ins, etc....

Like I said I am all for a 15.00 and hour minimum wage, but that means a big mac would be 5.00
a gallon of gas? about the same. the real feel would be in the wall mart/Burger King type business

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's no cap on the minimum wage. So what's so minimum about it? Liberals?

 

[zeke]

Seems that our more leftist friends draw on their Marxist leanings in a concept that people should be paid what they need rather than on what they produce.

Let's evaluate that.

Let's say I need somebody to do some grundge work in my business and am willing to hire and train a new employee who has little or no experience. Now I can pay this employee minimum wage on the theory that he will free up some of my time or another of my employee's time who will then be able to devote more time to income producing activities. He probably won't earn his wages plus benefits for awhile, but I can afford to take a reasonable loss during training. As the employee learns the ropes and become more efficient in his duties, he can take on more responsibilities, become more useful and merit more pay. Eventually he may qualify for a full time job in production and be earning the living wage he needs.

Meanwhile, he works a second job to supplement his income while he qualifies for a more lucrative position with my business. If he finds a better job before that happens and leaves, he is easily replaced.

But if I have to start him out at the $15/hour he needs as a minimum to support himself plus FICA, plus SUTA, plus FUTA, plus work comp and general liability premiums, plus all the other costs associated with employing this person, he won't offset enough of my or somebody else's time to justify the expense. So I don't hire him.

At the same time, if I don't pay my good, experienced, already trained production people a wage commensurate with what they produce for me, I will likely lose them to a competitor who is willing to pay them well. And they won't be so easy to replace. So it is in my best interest to pay them as well as I can to keep them and still make a reasonable profit.

The less profit I make, the less ability I have to expand, grow, and increase wages and benefits to my employees as well as hire more people. The more profit I make, the better able I am to pay better wages and hire more people.

That is how the free market system works. Whenever artificially dictated wages and/or benefits are inserted into it, it generally benefits nobody but those in government over the long haul.

So you need to hire a low skill worker eh? Why not let the worker bid on the job you have?
Lets say one worker come in and will work for 7 dollars an hour. And the next applicant, upon being aware that the payment for the job is open to bidding may decide they can do the job for 5 bucks an hour.

What's wrong with that? You just increased profit by opening the position up to bidding. That is what happens every day in my line of work. You have to bid for the job.

I can see where this would reduce all labor costs. At least while their is a shortage of jobs and a surplus of labor. Might not work as well IF their is ever full employment again.

But give it a try. Low bidder is always best. Right?

 

[dblack]

Seems that our more leftist friends draw on their Marxist leanings in a concept that people should be paid what they need rather than on what they produce.

Let's evaluate that.

Let's say I need somebody to do some grundge work in my business and am willing to hire and train a new employee who has little or no experience. Now I can pay this employee minimum wage on the theory that he will free up some of my time or another of my employee's time who will then be able to devote more time to income producing activities. He probably won't earn his wages plus benefits for awhile, but I can afford to take a reasonable loss during training. As the employee learns the ropes and become more efficient in his duties, he can take on more responsibilities, become more useful and merit more pay. Eventually he may qualify for a full time job in production and be earning the living wage he needs.

Meanwhile, he works a second job to supplement his income while he qualifies for a more lucrative position with my business. If he finds a better job before that happens and leaves, he is easily replaced.

But if I have to start him out at the $15/hour he needs as a minimum to support himself plus FICA, plus SUTA, plus FUTA, plus work comp and general liability premiums, plus all the other costs associated with employing this person, he won't offset enough of my or somebody else's time to justify the expense. So I don't hire him.

At the same time, if I don't pay my good, experienced, already trained production people a wage commensurate with what they produce for me, I will likely lose them to a competitor who is willing to pay them well. And they won't be so easy to replace. So it is in my best interest to pay them as well as I can to keep them and still make a reasonable profit.

The less profit I make, the less ability I have to expand, grow, and increase wages and benefits to my employees as well as hire more people. The more profit I make, the better able I am to pay better wages and hire more people.

That is how the free market system works. Whenever artificially dictated wages and/or benefits are inserted into it, it generally benefits nobody but those in government over the long haul.

So you need to hire a low skill worker eh? Why not let the worker bid on the job you have?
Lets say one worker come in and will work for 7 dollars an hour. And the next applicant, upon being aware that the payment for the job is open to bidding may decide they can do the job for 5 bucks an hour.

What's wrong with that? You just increased profit by opening the position up to bidding. That is what happens every day in my line of work. You have to bid for the job.

I can see where this would reduce all labor costs. At least while their is a shortage of jobs and a surplus of labor. Might not work as well IF their is ever full employment again.

But give it a try. Low bidder is always best. Right?

Hmmm... I haven't been following this argument closely, but I was under the impression you were arguing in favor of minimum wage laws. What you describe here is argument generally offered as the alternative. What gives? Are you making some subtle point I'm missing?

 

[Katzndogz]

Seems to me that if people like you complain that the government has no business setting a "minimum wage", then it only stands to reason that what you really mean is you want all people to work for the least amount of money that they could be paid.

Why should there even be a "minimum wage"? Why should you be paid your 35 dollars an hour when there has to be another welder willing to work for 25 dollars an hour. Why pay a hamburger flipper 7.25 an hour when they could flip the same burger for 3.25 an hour. Or 2.25.

If your boss comes out tommorrow and says that you need to take a pay cut because the company has found another welder who will work for less. Would you continue to work or pack your shit and go home?

Hey maybe it would be better for the government to come out and tell people that they have to work for whatever wage a company is willing to pay. No minimum no maximum. Just the good ole free labor market at work.

It doesn't work that way now. Why would it work any differently if there were no minimum wage. Minimum wage is just over $7.00 an hour. Welders might well make $35.00 an hour. Why aren't welders who make $35.00 an hour being replaced by welders who will only be paid minimum wage?

 

[Foxfyre]

Seems to me that if people like you complain that the government has no business setting a "minimum wage", then it only stands to reason that what you really mean is you want all people to work for the least amount of money that they could be paid.

Why should there even be a "minimum wage"? Why should you be paid your 35 dollars an hour when there has to be another welder willing to work for 25 dollars an hour. Why pay a hamburger flipper 7.25 an hour when they could flip the same burger for 3.25 an hour. Or 2.25.

If your boss comes out tommorrow and says that you need to take a pay cut because the company has found another welder who will work for less. Would you continue to work or pack your shit and go home?

Hey maybe it would be better for the government to come out and tell people that they have to work for whatever wage a company is willing to pay. No minimum no maximum. Just the good ole free labor market at work.

It doesn't work that way now. Why would it work any differently if there were no minimum wage. Minimum wage is just over $7.00 an hour. Welders might well make $35.00 an hour. Why aren't welders who make $35.00 an hour being replaced by welders who will only be paid minimum wage?

This is what the socialists and Marxists can't seem to grasp. Labor is worth what it earns for the person or entity paying the wages. Somebody making minimum wage is highly unlikely to provide profits to his/her employer that are significantly higher than the wages he/she receives. If he/she IS earning significant profits for the employer and his/her wages are not increased proportionately, he/she will certainly go to a job where the earnings are porportional to the value of the work.

Welders get paid a whole lot more than the kid on his first day at his first job at McDonalds because the welder is far more valuable to his employer than is that kid to the owner of that McDonalds.

Labor does not have a value separate from how much it produces for the one paying the wages. People paid a 'living wage' above and beyond what they are able to produce with their labor are actually receiving charity, not wages.