Minimal Wage. Raises. Inflation. Cost of living.

[ThatDude30]

I understand that minimum wage only accounts for a small percentage of the US workforce. What about the 1.5 million people who earned less that minimum wage last year? What about the people who make $7.26 which is technically more than minimum wage and not included in the percent of minimum wage in the US workforce? What about the people who make more than minimum wage but not quite enough? If you add all those numbers together you will get a higher percentage and total number of people.

Send those people our way. We need them. The US is short over 30,000 drivers industry can't find. Some places will not only train you, but pay you while you learn. Once licensed, you only have to work for that company for a year under contract. After that, you have a promising career where destiny is within your grasp.

Right now our roads are loaded with foreigners. They are driving 75,000 lbs vehicles and can't even read English. They are here because Americans won't take these jobs. Industry has to do something to fill the void. I'm sure they would love to hire Americans, but can't find enough of them that want to work.

Truck driving is good money, most truck drivers make more than enough to cover their cost of living.

My point is this. If your annual required amount to cover your cost of living expenses( Rent, utilities, food, gas, basic human needs) is $20,606 and that is not including a car payment, car insurance, any other debt, and you only make $15,080 a year before taxes and you bring home roughly $13,926 after taxes, that's about $6,680 you still need to be able cover your living expenses.

They are even saying that the middle class is dying out and one of the biggest reasons why the middle class is shrinking is because their pay checks are staying about the same while the cost of living continues to rise steadily.

So its ok for the minimum wage to stay the same and not be enough to cover cost of living, but of for the cost of living and inflation continues to rise steadily? Everyone saying o is the minimum wage raises then companies will have to raise their cost for products and services. But its ok when companies raising their cost of products and services and the cost of living without the minimum wage increasing?

 

[ThatDude30]

Minimum wage isn't enough annual income required to cover an individuals cost of living.

That is NOT the purpose of a minimum wage. What part of that do you refuse to believe or accept? It just makes you look foolish.

Please answer these same questions you have ignored in the past.

What is the average income of a household where one of the workers earns minimum wage?

How many households are there in the United States existing on only one worker earning minimum wage?

I know what the purpose of minimum wage. Doesn't matter what the purpose is. If it was $3 an hour no matter how much a company is making they would love the chance to pay their workers only $3 an hour.
MY point is that, Any American citizen working a full time position in the United States of America should make enough to cover their annual cost of living wages. I don't care what the purpose of minimum wage is. There still are people who work full time living off minimum wage, and that shouldn't be the case.

Minimum wage workers represent between 3% and 4% of the US workforce. Even if one third of them were trying to support themselves (or others) on that wage, we are talking about 1% of the workforce.

I can't see making a national effort for this 1% of people who are in charge of their own destiny. No measure comes without ramifications. Some startup businesses may be forced to close. Some may reconsider opening up a business in the first place. An employer may reduce or eliminate benefits for their workforce in exchange for paying more in wages. It's just not as clean-cut as you might think.

When an employer gives a worker a one dollar an hour increase, it costs the employer more than that one dollar an hour. It increases the employers matching contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It costs more to pay that worker while they are not working such as holidays and vacation just to name a few. It increases the cost of their Workman's compensation and Unemployment insurance.

So you take a small family owned company like the one I work for. They have ten employees. A measure passes that increases minimum wage by $2.50 an hour. That's $25.00 an hour more an employer has to pay his or her employees. At the end of the day, that's a $200.00 additional per day expense. At the end of the week, that's a $1,000 expense. At the end of the month, $5,000 expense, and again, that's just the wage alone.

If the company is working more than 40 hours per week, add even more expense because now that one dollar per hour is a dollar fifty an hour past 40.

I understand where you are coming from. There were 701,000 people who earned minimum wage in 2016 and another 1.5 million who earned less then minimum wage. Total percentage of the 2 is 2.7%. That is a very low percentage, but the 2.2 million people who earned minimum wage or less is an exact number of people who made $7.25 or less. 2.7% looks like a small number but it is actually 2.2 million people.
My whole issue is not only focused on the people who make minimum wage or less cant afford their required annual income to cover their cost of living expenses every year, m issue is also focused on those how make less then the wage the need to make to be able to cover cost of living.
Some companies, instead of paying $7.25 per hour, they pay $7.30 per hour so they can say the pay more than minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to a rate so everyone can cover their cost of living wouldn't just benefit the people who are making minimum wage but those how make a little more than minimum but not enough.

In Allegheny county Pa, the average cost of living for 1 person is $20,606 a year. $9.91 an hour will get you that amount.
So on top of the 2.2 million people how make exactly $7.25 or less, add the people who make $7.26-$9.90 who also don't make enough to cover cost of living. So now that 2.7%, 2.2 million people that number will now increase to a larger percentage.

In 2017 federal Poverty level for 1 person is $12,060 or less annually. $15,080 is the amount before taxes a minimum wage worker will make a year. So there take home is roughly $13,926, only $1,866 more than the poverty level. To me that is not much of a difference and I consider that poverty. Any annual income that cannot cover cost of living expenses is still poverty to me.

Now add the 40.5 million people suffering from poverty, there are a lot of people that can make it.

So not only would increasing the minimum wage benefit the people who exactly make the minimum or less but those that make a little more but not enough.

So what makes you think that a company will increase their wages for employees that make slightly better than minimum wage? That's just a guess on your part. More than likely they won't make adjustments to all their employees wages except minimum because it's the new law. Then the employees who were making just above minimum will be at minimum. I don't know how that helps matters any.

And again, not many people are trying to support themselves on minimum wage. Many are homemakers just getting some extra money while the kids are in school; college kids that work when the opportunity presents itself; retired people who feel worthless just sitting at home and need something to do. Kids out of high school still living at home with mom and dad.

I worked my share of minimum wage jobs in a younger day. It was low income that inspired me to try harder; to figure out a way to learn more things and find some kind of career. If somebody back then made minimum wage $12.00 an hour, I may have spent much of my life at my first job at the car wash.

I used to rent to a younger couple who both worked fast food joints. They never had any money, but always came up with rent and able to pay their utilities. They were pretty good tenants. Anyway, the reason they didn't pursue better opportunities is because they loved their pot, and better paying jobs usually drug test employees.

She moved here with her girlfriend when she was 19. The girlfriend left and a boyfriend moved in. They left in their mid 20's. It was always my hope that they would get sick of living check to check, give up the pot, and start to make something of themselves. I'm sure it will happen at some point, but the longer they wait, the tougher it will be to accomplish anything in life. Now if our state set a $15.00 minimum wage, that would likely prolong their failed path, and they may end up working fast food joints into their 30's or 40's. By then, it would be too late to make any serious life changes.

I understand the business perspective but is it humane to pay someone for their labor less so they cant afford their living costs. Employees are the reason the company stays in business. No employees = No business.
Minimum wage is not fair. To me it is modern day slavery justified by the minimum wage to be the federal minimum amount to pay some one for their labor.

 

[ThatDude30]

I understand that minimum wage only accounts for a small percentage of the US workforce. What about the 1.5 million people who earned less that minimum wage last year? What about the people who make $7.26 which is technically more than minimum wage and not included in the percent of minimum wage in the US workforce? What about the people who make more than minimum wage but not quite enough? If you add all those numbers together you will get a higher percentage and total number of people.

Send those people our way. We need them. The US is short over 30,000 drivers industry can't find. Some places will not only train you, but pay you while you learn. Once licensed, you only have to work for that company for a year under contract. After that, you have a promising career where destiny is within your grasp.

Right now our roads are loaded with foreigners. They are driving 75,000 lbs vehicles and can't even read English. They are here because Americans won't take these jobs. Industry has to do something to fill the void. I'm sure they would love to hire Americans, but can't find enough of them that want to work.

Truck driving is good money, most truck drivers make more than enough to cover their cost of living.

My point is this. If your annual required amount to cover your cost of living expenses( Rent, utilities, food, gas, basic human needs) is $20,606 and that is not including a car payment, car insurance, any other debt, and you only make $15,080 a year before taxes and you bring home roughly $13,926 after taxes, that's about $6,680 you still need to be able cover your living expenses.

They are even saying that the middle class is dying out and one of the biggest reasons why the middle class is shrinking is because their pay checks are staying about the same while the cost of living continues to rise steadily.

So its ok for the minimum wage to stay the same and not be enough to cover cost of living, but of for the cost of living and inflation continues to rise steadily? Everyone saying o is the minimum wage raises then companies will have to raise their cost for products and services. But its ok when companies raising their cost of products and services and the cost of living without the minimum wage increasing?

I for got to add this link

Dying Middle Class: The Number Of Americans That Can't Afford Their Own Homes Has More Than Doubled

 

[initforme]

The way to force wage increases at low paying jobs is to have nobody apply for them. Hopefully the owner either eliminates the position or raises the wage to attract an American worker. Of course some would complain that can't find good workers but I feel no pity for them. Using laws is not the way to get it done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The way to force wage increases at low paying jobs is to have nobody apply for them. Hopefully the owner either eliminates the position or raises the wage to attract an American worker. Of course some would complain that can't find good workers but I feel no pity for them. Using laws is not the way to get it done.

Yes, if you can get everybody to not apply. But the better way is to support representatives that want strict limits on immigration. Legal or not, they come here and lower wages for Americans.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is NOT the purpose of a minimum wage. What part of that do you refuse to believe or accept? It just makes you look foolish.

Please answer these same questions you have ignored in the past.

What is the average income of a household where one of the workers earns minimum wage?

How many households are there in the United States existing on only one worker earning minimum wage?

I know what the purpose of minimum wage. Doesn't matter what the purpose is. If it was $3 an hour no matter how much a company is making they would love the chance to pay their workers only $3 an hour.
MY point is that, Any American citizen working a full time position in the United States of America should make enough to cover their annual cost of living wages. I don't care what the purpose of minimum wage is. There still are people who work full time living off minimum wage, and that shouldn't be the case.

Minimum wage workers represent between 3% and 4% of the US workforce. Even if one third of them were trying to support themselves (or others) on that wage, we are talking about 1% of the workforce.

I can't see making a national effort for this 1% of people who are in charge of their own destiny. No measure comes without ramifications. Some startup businesses may be forced to close. Some may reconsider opening up a business in the first place. An employer may reduce or eliminate benefits for their workforce in exchange for paying more in wages. It's just not as clean-cut as you might think.

When an employer gives a worker a one dollar an hour increase, it costs the employer more than that one dollar an hour. It increases the employers matching contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It costs more to pay that worker while they are not working such as holidays and vacation just to name a few. It increases the cost of their Workman's compensation and Unemployment insurance.

So you take a small family owned company like the one I work for. They have ten employees. A measure passes that increases minimum wage by $2.50 an hour. That's $25.00 an hour more an employer has to pay his or her employees. At the end of the day, that's a $200.00 additional per day expense. At the end of the week, that's a $1,000 expense. At the end of the month, $5,000 expense, and again, that's just the wage alone.

If the company is working more than 40 hours per week, add even more expense because now that one dollar per hour is a dollar fifty an hour past 40.

I understand where you are coming from. There were 701,000 people who earned minimum wage in 2016 and another 1.5 million who earned less then minimum wage. Total percentage of the 2 is 2.7%. That is a very low percentage, but the 2.2 million people who earned minimum wage or less is an exact number of people who made $7.25 or less. 2.7% looks like a small number but it is actually 2.2 million people.
My whole issue is not only focused on the people who make minimum wage or less cant afford their required annual income to cover their cost of living expenses every year, m issue is also focused on those how make less then the wage the need to make to be able to cover cost of living.
Some companies, instead of paying $7.25 per hour, they pay $7.30 per hour so they can say the pay more than minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to a rate so everyone can cover their cost of living wouldn't just benefit the people who are making minimum wage but those how make a little more than minimum but not enough.

In Allegheny county Pa, the average cost of living for 1 person is $20,606 a year. $9.91 an hour will get you that amount.
So on top of the 2.2 million people how make exactly $7.25 or less, add the people who make $7.26-$9.90 who also don't make enough to cover cost of living. So now that 2.7%, 2.2 million people that number will now increase to a larger percentage.

In 2017 federal Poverty level for 1 person is $12,060 or less annually. $15,080 is the amount before taxes a minimum wage worker will make a year. So there take home is roughly $13,926, only $1,866 more than the poverty level. To me that is not much of a difference and I consider that poverty. Any annual income that cannot cover cost of living expenses is still poverty to me.

Now add the 40.5 million people suffering from poverty, there are a lot of people that can make it.

So not only would increasing the minimum wage benefit the people who exactly make the minimum or less but those that make a little more but not enough.

So what makes you think that a company will increase their wages for employees that make slightly better than minimum wage? That's just a guess on your part. More than likely they won't make adjustments to all their employees wages except minimum because it's the new law. Then the employees who were making just above minimum will be at minimum. I don't know how that helps matters any.

And again, not many people are trying to support themselves on minimum wage. Many are homemakers just getting some extra money while the kids are in school; college kids that work when the opportunity presents itself; retired people who feel worthless just sitting at home and need something to do. Kids out of high school still living at home with mom and dad.

I worked my share of minimum wage jobs in a younger day. It was low income that inspired me to try harder; to figure out a way to learn more things and find some kind of career. If somebody back then made minimum wage $12.00 an hour, I may have spent much of my life at my first job at the car wash.

I used to rent to a younger couple who both worked fast food joints. They never had any money, but always came up with rent and able to pay their utilities. They were pretty good tenants. Anyway, the reason they didn't pursue better opportunities is because they loved their pot, and better paying jobs usually drug test employees.

She moved here with her girlfriend when she was 19. The girlfriend left and a boyfriend moved in. They left in their mid 20's. It was always my hope that they would get sick of living check to check, give up the pot, and start to make something of themselves. I'm sure it will happen at some point, but the longer they wait, the tougher it will be to accomplish anything in life. Now if our state set a $15.00 minimum wage, that would likely prolong their failed path, and they may end up working fast food joints into their 30's or 40's. By then, it would be too late to make any serious life changes.

I understand the business perspective but is it humane to pay someone for their labor less so they cant afford their living costs. Employees are the reason the company stays in business. No employees = No business.
Minimum wage is not fair. To me it is modern day slavery justified by the minimum wage to be the federal minimum amount to pay some one for their labor.

It can't get more fair than that. Mr. X is offering X money and benefits to do X job. Nobody is forcing people to take that job. If you don't want the job, find something that suits you. Unfair would be forcing Mr.X to overpay his workers because people think it's the nice thing to do, but once again, not many open up a business for the sole purpose to provide good paying jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand that minimum wage only accounts for a small percentage of the US workforce. What about the 1.5 million people who earned less that minimum wage last year? What about the people who make $7.26 which is technically more than minimum wage and not included in the percent of minimum wage in the US workforce? What about the people who make more than minimum wage but not quite enough? If you add all those numbers together you will get a higher percentage and total number of people.

Send those people our way. We need them. The US is short over 30,000 drivers industry can't find. Some places will not only train you, but pay you while you learn. Once licensed, you only have to work for that company for a year under contract. After that, you have a promising career where destiny is within your grasp.

Right now our roads are loaded with foreigners. They are driving 75,000 lbs vehicles and can't even read English. They are here because Americans won't take these jobs. Industry has to do something to fill the void. I'm sure they would love to hire Americans, but can't find enough of them that want to work.

Truck driving is good money, most truck drivers make more than enough to cover their cost of living.

My point is this. If your annual required amount to cover your cost of living expenses( Rent, utilities, food, gas, basic human needs) is $20,606 and that is not including a car payment, car insurance, any other debt, and you only make $15,080 a year before taxes and you bring home roughly $13,926 after taxes, that's about $6,680 you still need to be able cover your living expenses.

They are even saying that the middle class is dying out and one of the biggest reasons why the middle class is shrinking is because their pay checks are staying about the same while the cost of living continues to rise steadily.

So its ok for the minimum wage to stay the same and not be enough to cover cost of living, but of for the cost of living and inflation continues to rise steadily? Everyone saying o is the minimum wage raises then companies will have to raise their cost for products and services. But its ok when companies raising their cost of products and services and the cost of living without the minimum wage increasing?

In many cases your raise goes to other places. Medical coverage is the largest one. It goes up every year for your employer. So how can your employer keep up with medical insurance costs and cost of living costs? It becomes to cumbersome after a while. Something has to give.

 

[Markle]

No truer comment has ever been posted in support of the thinking of the self righteous and callous conservatives set.

How is it callous when someone is taught to support themselves, stand up for themselves, be personally responsible, regaining their self-respect and soul a bad thing?

Being callous is teaching a whole group of people that they are unworthy and it is the fault of others. That they are not as good as other people and without the help of these race baiters working to get them something for nothing, they would starve is brutal and steals the very heart and soul of those people.

Q. "How is it callous when someone is taught to support themselves, stand up for themselves, be personally responsible, regaining their self-respect and soul a bad thing?"

A. By blaming an entire set of people as irresponsible and lazy, and not providing a ladder for them to lift themselves up. In fact the efforts by callous conservatives is to remove the ladder and keep the poor, especially the working poor in a hole.

That hole might be one they dug themselves or one which was created by the anomalies of birth or life or people like you.

The ladder does not need to be two stories high, all it needs - and what callus cons and the self righteous reject - are equal opportunities, equal rights and a geteway to a better life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The average annual cost of living for 1 person that lives In Cuyahoga Co. Ohio(Cleveland) is $20,635 a year. You need to make $9.92 working 40 hours a week to be able to cover your cost of living.

So answer me this. Do you think it is right/fair for someone to work full time and barely make ends meet and still need several thousand more a year to cover their cost of living? To be able to pay rent for shelter, food on the table, heat and light, water and sewage. To not have to worry about only being able to pay this and that but this has to wait? Can buy food but gas will be shut off? Minimum wage jobs don't provide any type of benefits. So you injure you leg outside of work and have to miss 1, 2, maybe 3 months of work and you don't have any type of long term or short term medical insurance?

Yes, I do think it's right. If you take a job for X amount of money, agree to do said work, get paid that amount of money, I don't see how that can't be right.

I just don't grasp the mentality of "what I am owed." I never went looking for a job with the idea of what employers owe me. They don't owe me anything. I don't owe them anything. It's a simple verbal contract that we make. An employer offers X amount of money, I either accept or decline the offer. He may renegotiate that offer if I decline, but he or she does so on their own accord--not governments.

Another concept I can't understand is what is this 40 hours a week bullshit? For crying out loud, I'm pushing 60 and I still work over 40 a week. Before I made real estate investments, many times I had two jobs, or at the very least, one job that works six to seven days a week.

I have a close friend only a year or two behind me. We were friends since children. Anyway he's old fashioned and wanted to raise his family of five being the only income earner so his wife could stay home with the kids and home school them. He did it. He's had two full-time jobs for the last 30 years. He works seven days a week every week.

If you need more money, work more hours. Problem solved.

You don't think that every American Citizen working full time shouldn't have to be paid a rate to cover their cost of living?

You think that its ok for a company like Mcdonalds who made a gross profit of $10.2 billion last year and most of their employees make only minimum wage and they provide no type of health insurance which is required by law now to have?

I don't know about that. By law, if employees work over 30 hours a week, they have to be covered by health insurance. Either that or McDonald's chose to pay the fine.

Do you know how much McDonald's has to pay their kiosks? Nothing. Do you know how much health insurance they have to provide their kiosks? None. Do you know how many hours they need to restrict their kiosks to in order to avoid paying medical insurance? Zero.

That's why McDonald's and Wendy's are buying them.

Put the companies and corporation views to the side, and look at it from a workers point of view.
Shouldn't every citizen that works full time be able to cover their annual cost of living?

That's optional. First off an employee needs to decide what their living expenses are. Then the employee needs to find a job that pays for those expenses. My pay is not based on what my living costs are, that's my problem; not governments, not my employers......mine.

Should I make more than my coworkers who do the same job? After all, most of my coworkers are married and have working wives. They bring in much more income than I do. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I couldn't marry if I wanted, but I chose not to ever get married. I made that decisions. So because I made that decision, should it be governments or my employers obligation for me to make more because of that decision?

I bet if the minimum wage was enough to cover every citizens annual cost of living expenses the percent of people on welfare will decrease. If I was making minimum wage making $15,080 a year before taxes and bringing home $13,926, only 1,866 more then the poverty level in which one could receive benefits, I would just manipulate the government like most people on welfare and get free housing, all utilities paid, $700+ a month in food stamps, and Free healthcare instead of busting my ass for 40 hours a week, company taking advantage and expecting more and more from you, no paid vacation, no paid personal days, and no healthcare.

No, you don't know welfare people.

Several of our customers use temporary help. They do so for two reasons: one of course is they can fluctuate their staff based on the amount of work that needs to be done, and two, so they can try employees out before offering them a full-time job with the company.

When they get busy, they ask their temp help if they can work more hours. Most of them refuse. Why? Because they need to make under X amount per month to receive government benefits. If they work more hours, it's like working for free. If they make an extra $150.00 a month working more hours, the government simply cuts their food stamps the following month by $150.00.

Our social programs are designed to discourage success--not promote it. I know a guy that works for one of our customers. He moved down the street a few years back, and then moved again. I learned it was a HUD house. He and his girlfriend have been together for over ten years, they even have a child together. The reason they don't get married is because she can get HUD benefits and live in a house up the street from me while not working. She has four children. If they got married, the financial burden would be on him instead of the taxpayers. So he lives in that HUD house with her and they use his pay to live like kings.

These people know how to play the system, so don't believe for a minute that increasing wages would stop that.

 

[ThatDude30]

I know what the purpose of minimum wage. Doesn't matter what the purpose is. If it was $3 an hour no matter how much a company is making they would love the chance to pay their workers only $3 an hour.
MY point is that, Any American citizen working a full time position in the United States of America should make enough to cover their annual cost of living wages. I don't care what the purpose of minimum wage is. There still are people who work full time living off minimum wage, and that shouldn't be the case.

Minimum wage workers represent between 3% and 4% of the US workforce. Even if one third of them were trying to support themselves (or others) on that wage, we are talking about 1% of the workforce.

I can't see making a national effort for this 1% of people who are in charge of their own destiny. No measure comes without ramifications. Some startup businesses may be forced to close. Some may reconsider opening up a business in the first place. An employer may reduce or eliminate benefits for their workforce in exchange for paying more in wages. It's just not as clean-cut as you might think.

When an employer gives a worker a one dollar an hour increase, it costs the employer more than that one dollar an hour. It increases the employers matching contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It costs more to pay that worker while they are not working such as holidays and vacation just to name a few. It increases the cost of their Workman's compensation and Unemployment insurance.

So you take a small family owned company like the one I work for. They have ten employees. A measure passes that increases minimum wage by $2.50 an hour. That's $25.00 an hour more an employer has to pay his or her employees. At the end of the day, that's a $200.00 additional per day expense. At the end of the week, that's a $1,000 expense. At the end of the month, $5,000 expense, and again, that's just the wage alone.

If the company is working more than 40 hours per week, add even more expense because now that one dollar per hour is a dollar fifty an hour past 40.

I understand where you are coming from. There were 701,000 people who earned minimum wage in 2016 and another 1.5 million who earned less then minimum wage. Total percentage of the 2 is 2.7%. That is a very low percentage, but the 2.2 million people who earned minimum wage or less is an exact number of people who made $7.25 or less. 2.7% looks like a small number but it is actually 2.2 million people.
My whole issue is not only focused on the people who make minimum wage or less cant afford their required annual income to cover their cost of living expenses every year, m issue is also focused on those how make less then the wage the need to make to be able to cover cost of living.
Some companies, instead of paying $7.25 per hour, they pay $7.30 per hour so they can say the pay more than minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to a rate so everyone can cover their cost of living wouldn't just benefit the people who are making minimum wage but those how make a little more than minimum but not enough.

In Allegheny county Pa, the average cost of living for 1 person is $20,606 a year. $9.91 an hour will get you that amount.
So on top of the 2.2 million people how make exactly $7.25 or less, add the people who make $7.26-$9.90 who also don't make enough to cover cost of living. So now that 2.7%, 2.2 million people that number will now increase to a larger percentage.

In 2017 federal Poverty level for 1 person is $12,060 or less annually. $15,080 is the amount before taxes a minimum wage worker will make a year. So there take home is roughly $13,926, only $1,866 more than the poverty level. To me that is not much of a difference and I consider that poverty. Any annual income that cannot cover cost of living expenses is still poverty to me.

Now add the 40.5 million people suffering from poverty, there are a lot of people that can make it.

So not only would increasing the minimum wage benefit the people who exactly make the minimum or less but those that make a little more but not enough.

So what makes you think that a company will increase their wages for employees that make slightly better than minimum wage? That's just a guess on your part. More than likely they won't make adjustments to all their employees wages except minimum because it's the new law. Then the employees who were making just above minimum will be at minimum. I don't know how that helps matters any.

And again, not many people are trying to support themselves on minimum wage. Many are homemakers just getting some extra money while the kids are in school; college kids that work when the opportunity presents itself; retired people who feel worthless just sitting at home and need something to do. Kids out of high school still living at home with mom and dad.

I worked my share of minimum wage jobs in a younger day. It was low income that inspired me to try harder; to figure out a way to learn more things and find some kind of career. If somebody back then made minimum wage $12.00 an hour, I may have spent much of my life at my first job at the car wash.

I used to rent to a younger couple who both worked fast food joints. They never had any money, but always came up with rent and able to pay their utilities. They were pretty good tenants. Anyway, the reason they didn't pursue better opportunities is because they loved their pot, and better paying jobs usually drug test employees.

She moved here with her girlfriend when she was 19. The girlfriend left and a boyfriend moved in. They left in their mid 20's. It was always my hope that they would get sick of living check to check, give up the pot, and start to make something of themselves. I'm sure it will happen at some point, but the longer they wait, the tougher it will be to accomplish anything in life. Now if our state set a $15.00 minimum wage, that would likely prolong their failed path, and they may end up working fast food joints into their 30's or 40's. By then, it would be too late to make any serious life changes.

I understand the business perspective but is it humane to pay someone for their labor less so they cant afford their living costs. Employees are the reason the company stays in business. No employees = No business.
Minimum wage is not fair. To me it is modern day slavery justified by the minimum wage to be the federal minimum amount to pay some one for their labor.

It can't get more fair than that. Mr. X is offering X money and benefits to do X job. Nobody is forcing people to take that job. If you don't want the job, find something that suits you. Unfair would be forcing Mr.X to overpay his workers because people think it's the nice thing to do, but once again, not many open up a business for the sole purpose to provide good paying jobs.

No body is forcing them but they may have no choice due to some circumstance that requires immediate income, the availability of jobs, or for whatever reason.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimum wage workers represent between 3% and 4% of the US workforce. Even if one third of them were trying to support themselves (or others) on that wage, we are talking about 1% of the workforce.

I can't see making a national effort for this 1% of people who are in charge of their own destiny. No measure comes without ramifications. Some startup businesses may be forced to close. Some may reconsider opening up a business in the first place. An employer may reduce or eliminate benefits for their workforce in exchange for paying more in wages. It's just not as clean-cut as you might think.

When an employer gives a worker a one dollar an hour increase, it costs the employer more than that one dollar an hour. It increases the employers matching contribution to Social Security and Medicare. It costs more to pay that worker while they are not working such as holidays and vacation just to name a few. It increases the cost of their Workman's compensation and Unemployment insurance.

So you take a small family owned company like the one I work for. They have ten employees. A measure passes that increases minimum wage by $2.50 an hour. That's $25.00 an hour more an employer has to pay his or her employees. At the end of the day, that's a $200.00 additional per day expense. At the end of the week, that's a $1,000 expense. At the end of the month, $5,000 expense, and again, that's just the wage alone.

If the company is working more than 40 hours per week, add even more expense because now that one dollar per hour is a dollar fifty an hour past 40.

I understand where you are coming from. There were 701,000 people who earned minimum wage in 2016 and another 1.5 million who earned less then minimum wage. Total percentage of the 2 is 2.7%. That is a very low percentage, but the 2.2 million people who earned minimum wage or less is an exact number of people who made $7.25 or less. 2.7% looks like a small number but it is actually 2.2 million people.
My whole issue is not only focused on the people who make minimum wage or less cant afford their required annual income to cover their cost of living expenses every year, m issue is also focused on those how make less then the wage the need to make to be able to cover cost of living.
Some companies, instead of paying $7.25 per hour, they pay $7.30 per hour so they can say the pay more than minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage to a rate so everyone can cover their cost of living wouldn't just benefit the people who are making minimum wage but those how make a little more than minimum but not enough.

In Allegheny county Pa, the average cost of living for 1 person is $20,606 a year. $9.91 an hour will get you that amount.
So on top of the 2.2 million people how make exactly $7.25 or less, add the people who make $7.26-$9.90 who also don't make enough to cover cost of living. So now that 2.7%, 2.2 million people that number will now increase to a larger percentage.

In 2017 federal Poverty level for 1 person is $12,060 or less annually. $15,080 is the amount before taxes a minimum wage worker will make a year. So there take home is roughly $13,926, only $1,866 more than the poverty level. To me that is not much of a difference and I consider that poverty. Any annual income that cannot cover cost of living expenses is still poverty to me.

Now add the 40.5 million people suffering from poverty, there are a lot of people that can make it.

So not only would increasing the minimum wage benefit the people who exactly make the minimum or less but those that make a little more but not enough.

So what makes you think that a company will increase their wages for employees that make slightly better than minimum wage? That's just a guess on your part. More than likely they won't make adjustments to all their employees wages except minimum because it's the new law. Then the employees who were making just above minimum will be at minimum. I don't know how that helps matters any.

And again, not many people are trying to support themselves on minimum wage. Many are homemakers just getting some extra money while the kids are in school; college kids that work when the opportunity presents itself; retired people who feel worthless just sitting at home and need something to do. Kids out of high school still living at home with mom and dad.

I worked my share of minimum wage jobs in a younger day. It was low income that inspired me to try harder; to figure out a way to learn more things and find some kind of career. If somebody back then made minimum wage $12.00 an hour, I may have spent much of my life at my first job at the car wash.

I used to rent to a younger couple who both worked fast food joints. They never had any money, but always came up with rent and able to pay their utilities. They were pretty good tenants. Anyway, the reason they didn't pursue better opportunities is because they loved their pot, and better paying jobs usually drug test employees.

She moved here with her girlfriend when she was 19. The girlfriend left and a boyfriend moved in. They left in their mid 20's. It was always my hope that they would get sick of living check to check, give up the pot, and start to make something of themselves. I'm sure it will happen at some point, but the longer they wait, the tougher it will be to accomplish anything in life. Now if our state set a $15.00 minimum wage, that would likely prolong their failed path, and they may end up working fast food joints into their 30's or 40's. By then, it would be too late to make any serious life changes.

I understand the business perspective but is it humane to pay someone for their labor less so they cant afford their living costs. Employees are the reason the company stays in business. No employees = No business.
Minimum wage is not fair. To me it is modern day slavery justified by the minimum wage to be the federal minimum amount to pay some one for their labor.

It can't get more fair than that. Mr. X is offering X money and benefits to do X job. Nobody is forcing people to take that job. If you don't want the job, find something that suits you. Unfair would be forcing Mr.X to overpay his workers because people think it's the nice thing to do, but once again, not many open up a business for the sole purpose to provide good paying jobs.

No body is forcing them but they may have no choice due to some circumstance that requires immediate income, the availability of jobs, or for whatever reason.

No evidence of that, just assumptions.

If you are a fat unshaven slob, and want to get more attractive women, you don't demand that more attractive women date you. You have to lose weight and workout. You may need a new hairstyle. You may have to purchase better looking attire. You may need to eliminate saying things that others find offensive.

In other words, you have to make yourself more attractive to get more attractive women. Working is the same way. If you want to make more money, you need to gain skills and experience that make you worth more money to employers.

What is my worth as an employee? That's a simple question with a simple answer.

You are worth only as much as another person willing to do the same quality work for the same money. That's it.

If you do a job anybody can do, you are worth less because your employer can easily replace you. If you take a job less people can do, your employer pays you more because it would cost him more to replace you. If you have a trade or education, you make more money because even less people are able to do the same job as you do. If you are extremely talented, such as an athlete, a musician, an actor or actress, a successful CEO, you are paid top money because very few can do the same job as you.

That's how your worth is determined.

 

[initforme]

Most ceos are severely overpaid and those positions could be done by the average person with marginal training.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most ceos are severely overpaid and those positions could be done by the average person with marginal training.

Is that so? Then when are you going to become a CEO?

You need to stop watching too many televisions shows. CEO's are not all filthy rich guys who practice their putts on their office greens every day. They all don't have beautiful large breasted secretaries they frequently have sex with.

 

[initforme]

I've seen a number of them in younger days when I was stuck in corporate america....I was however fortunate enough to walk off of 3 different jobs right into better paying ones. And I gave zero noitice...man that was empowering and fulfilling. Just as ray says your employer owes you no more than what someone else will do the job for a worker owes their employer no more than a solid days work....no loyalty, no pleasantries, no thankfulness, nothing. The worker does not have to buy into the companies goals he simply has to do what is asked. No more no less. Good workers will leave on a whim and I condone them doing so. Your employer is not someone to admire or be loyal to, they are only a means to a paycheck. In fact their should be conflict between employers and employees to an extent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've seen a number of them in younger days when I was stuck in corporate america....I was however fortunate enough to walk off of 3 different jobs right into better paying ones. And I gave zero noitice...man that was empowering and fulfilling. Just as ray says your employer owes you no more than what someone else will do the job for a worker owes their employer no more than a solid days work....no loyalty, no pleasantries, no thankfulness, nothing. The worker does not have to buy into the companies goals he simply has to do what is asked. No more no less. Good workers will leave on a whim and I condone them doing so. Your employer is not someone to admire or be loyal to, they are only a means to a paycheck. In fact their should be conflict between employers and employees to an extent.

I see you avoided the question, so one more time: If being a CEO is something anybody can do, when are you going to do it?

 

[initforme]

I am retired....81 years old. I could never be a CEO....my shoulder would fall off from all the golfing. I was the owner of my business but would never operate like a slimy CEO.....I wanted to be there actually working with my crew who helped me make my profit. Unlike a CEO who remains aloof. Not the life most people want...that or all the golfing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am retired....81 years old. I could never be a CEO....my shoulder would fall off from all the golfing. I was the owner of my business but would never operate like a slimy CEO.....I wanted to be there actually working with my crew who helped me make my profit. Unlike a CEO who remains aloof. Not the life most people want...that or all the golfing.

Of course................. that must be it.

 

[initforme]

Retirement is the way to go.....I highly recommend it. You won't miss work that's for sure. Been retired since I was 64....should have done it earlier as those were wasted years spent working....kick myself for that.

 

[Likkmee]

Bean, corn, rice,pepper, lettuce, squash seeds(other)/FREE
Baby Chickens/FREE
Pork /FREE
Electric/SOLAR
Fish ongoing breeding/ FREE
Yup. Bees, Honey/FREE

Machinery-robotics will replace the majority. DONT be there....

 

[Likkmee]

Oh, of course their is a Bolshevik behind it ( seed of Satan-Fake Jew)
Ex-Google executive Anthony Levandowski is founding a church where people worship an artificial intelligence god