Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[SAYIT]

In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.
Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?
Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?

What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?

If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?

In the 50's a person working at a bagel shop made enough to purchase a home, 2 cars and put 2 children through college on that income.

Yup ... if they owned the shop.

 

[SAYIT]

No question our poor people do not suffer enough

Republicans are looking to rectify that situation

They really don't suffer at all.

Don't ya just hate it?

They are poor for a reason. If they don't suffer, everyone will want to be poor

On the other hand if we make poverty nice and cushy (maybe throw in a car and a driver) a lot more peeps will just slide down your wabbit hole. Woohoo!

 

[thereisnospoon]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Straw man argument. Don't go thinking you're going to establish your own narrative.

 

[SAYIT]

People are paid what they are worth. It's their responsibility to make a living wage by educating themselves. If they don't like what an employer pays them get a better job.

Fast food is hardly a career.

Employees make all of the revenue for a company. How much should that be worth?

Investors (owners) risk their resources to establish businesses and create those jobs.
How much should that be worth?

 

[Impenitent]

So if I can do a job for 5 dollars an hour and that pay would meet my needs, I shouldn't have the ability to negotiate with the employer to get the job?

That pay would not meet your needs. Nor would any but a desperate man enter into that agreement .

Then WHY do they enter into it?

This shit isn't hard, son.

Who is "they?"

 

[thereisnospoon]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

Actually there are jobs that pay well and go unfilled.
Washington View: As grads seek work, trade jobs go unfilled | The Columbian

Millions of unemployed college graduates are back where they started, living with their parents. Upon receiving their diploma, they find themselves saddled with crushing student loan debt and unable to find a job. More than 36 percent of those who have found jobs aren’t working in their chosen profession and many are working for minimum wage.

At the same time, millions of good-paying jobs are going unfilled.

Nationally, an estimated 3 million jobs are available in the skilled trades — electricians, plumbers, manufacturing workers, pipefitters, mechanics, appliance repair, computer techs and welders. Known as blue collar jobs, they routinely pay $40,000 to $60,000 a year or more. According to Salary.com, the average heavy equipment operator in Seattle earns more than $93,000 a year in wages and benefits.

Still, these jobs go begging — and the situation will only worsen as skilled craft workers retire. “The average age of a skilled craftsman such as a carpenter is 49; welder, 55; plumber, 56; and stonemason, 69,” said Phil Crone, executive officer of the Dallas Builders Association.

Washington’s Workforce Training Board reports that, despite the best efforts of the state, the Association of Washington Business, labor unions and community colleges, our state faces a significant shortage of skilled craft workers.

From 2016 to 2021, job openings in manufacturing, production, installation, maintenance and repair are projected to outstrip the supply of skilled workers by three-to-one. Many employers will be forced to import workers from other countries.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am proud of you

Now, if you can only provide another 30 million jobs or so we can get rid of that welfare

Getting rid of welfare is easy. You just stop writing checks. Most of those 30million will then get work. Hunger is a strong motivator. The ones that can't work... let their families or local charities take care of them or ship them to canada.

There are not 30 million unfilled jobs out there. Right now, our economy is adding about 200,000 jobs a month

Cutting off support will not encourage people to work. It will only encourage them to be hungry

Complete, utter nonsense. There is quite literally an infinite number of unfilled jobs out there. Anyone that would go hungry would only do so out of being to lazy to get off their ass.

 

[Impenitent]

So if I can do a job for 5 dollars an hour and that pay would meet my needs, I shouldn't have the ability to negotiate with the employer to get the job?

That pay would not meet your needs. Nor would any but a desperate man enter into that agreement .

Really, I didn't say it would be my only source of income, I might just be looking for some additional mad money, for my hobbies as an example. You see not everyone is the same so your cookie cutter approach doesn't always apply, that's what limiting freedom gets you, a fucked up system.

That already exists in the joyless future of Mitt Romney. Remember the 47% speech, where he is in awe of the Chinese women, locked in baracks with no excape, assembling toasters and Mr. Coffees for the free world.

You would say they are there willingly.

I say they are there from desperation. Their alternative - eating bark from the trees.

Your vision of America.

 

[Impenitent]

you make no sense; first you say Republicans aren't against higher wages, then you say they are.

Then you say the poor are poor because they have no marketable skills, but dummy, perhaps they have no marketable skills because they are poor!

Break the poverty loop - pay them!

One would have to be pretty dumb not to understand the difference between liberty and government mandates. Did you get hit on the head a lot as a child?

What you call "liberty" punishes and further impoverishes a large segment of society, yet, conveniently, benefits you.

You bend the concept of "liberty" until it would be unrecognizable to our founders.

You are merely considering labor just another part of the factor of production, in the land, labor, and capital equation, and trying to lower it beyond what is ethically possible. And that is not "liberty" for the working class.

It's funny how Republicans sound so much like their Chinese business partners.

When a Chinese industrialist was asked how this new infusion of capitalism could possiblly be congruent with communism, he replied, "We will do what works best for us, and call it communism."

Apparently, what works best for Republicans, is what you now call liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

Getting rid of welfare is easy. You just stop writing checks. Most of those 30million will then get work. Hunger is a strong motivator. The ones that can't work... let their families or local charities take care of them or ship them to canada.

There are not 30 million unfilled jobs out there. Right now, our economy is adding about 200,000 jobs a month

Cutting off support will not encourage people to work. It will only encourage them to be hungry

Complete, utter nonsense. There is quite literally an infinite number of unfilled jobs out there. Anyone that would go hungry would only do so out of being to lazy to get off their ass.

Welcome to Fantasy Island


Ecnomics is anything you want it to be

 

[kaz]

Of course you would let GM go belly up, those are union jobs.

So Walmart pays so little that employees are on welfare. I look at that as corporate welfare because the government it fitting the bill to ensure their employees are fit and healthy enough to work. Just one Walmart in WI cost tax payers over a million dollars a year. Now the Walton's make over $3 billion a year, the execs are making millions a year, plus the shareholders are making probably billions too. So Walmart could afford to pay enough to get employees off welfare. Instead they are getting rich off corporate welfare. But you're ok with that right?

It isn't a matter of what Walmart can afford (that's not your biz) and their wage policies are theirs to make ... not mine or yours. Walmart pays what is legally required. Anything above that - and certainly many of their employees earn more than min wage - is rightfully determined by Walmart. Just because you look at it as "corporate welfare" doesn't make it so.
What would those poor, put-upon Walmart employees cost WI if Walmart did not employ them? You can make a difference, however, by not shopping or working at Walmart. It's called freedom of choice and expression and in America it's still yours to use as you choose.
Ain't it grand?

You make a good argument to raise minimum wage.

I don't shop there, but my tax dollars are still helping to make the Walton's richer. See the problem? They are rich enough that they shouldn't be collecting welfare.

Let's examine the logic of that statement.

You say you are subsidizing Wal-mart. For that to be true, that would mean that the people who get jobs at Walmart could get jobs somewhere else supporting themselves, and they aren't taking those jobs.

Let's say you're FOS and they aren't turning down jobs that would support themselves, that would mean that they can't, which means Wal-mart is helping taxpayers by partially deferring the cost of their being on welfare.

You don't get the implication of that, do you, Brain?

 

[kaz]

There are not 30 million unfilled jobs out there. Right now, our economy is adding about 200,000 jobs a month

Cutting off support will not encourage people to work. It will only encourage them to be hungry

Complete, utter nonsense. There is quite literally an infinite number of unfilled jobs out there. Anyone that would go hungry would only do so out of being to lazy to get off their ass.

Welcome to Fantasy Island

Ecnomics is anything you want it to be

A liberal chastising someone for not grasping economics, OK, that made me laugh...

Anyone who is serious about wanting a job could get one. Maybe not paying what they want, maybe they need to work harder and care more about their job. But no one has an excuse not to be able to get one.

 

[Amelia]

It isn't a matter of what Walmart can afford (that's not your biz) and their wage policies are theirs to make ... not mine or yours. Walmart pays what is legally required. Anything above that - and certainly many of their employees earn more than min wage - is rightfully determined by Walmart. Just because you look at it as "corporate welfare" doesn't make it so.
What would those poor, put-upon Walmart employees cost WI if Walmart did not employ them? You can make a difference, however, by not shopping or working at Walmart. It's called freedom of choice and expression and in America it's still yours to use as you choose.
Ain't it grand?

You make a good argument to raise minimum wage.

I don't shop there, but my tax dollars are still helping to make the Walton's richer. See the problem? They are rich enough that they shouldn't be collecting welfare.

Let's examine the logic of that statement.

You say you are subsidizing Wal-mart. For that to be true, that would mean that the people who get jobs at Walmart could get jobs somewhere else supporting themselves, and they aren't taking those jobs.

Let's say you're FOS and they aren't turning down jobs that would support themselves, that would mean that they can't, which means Wal-mart is helping taxpayers by partially deferring the cost of their being on welfare.

You don't get the implication of that, do you, Brain?

Interesting interpretation.

 

[Fishlore]

Complete, utter nonsense. There is quite literally an infinite number of unfilled jobs out there. Anyone that would go hungry would only do so out of being to lazy to get off their ass.

Welcome to Fantasy Island

Ecnomics is anything you want it to be

A liberal chastising someone for not grasping economics, OK, that made me laugh...

Anyone who is serious about wanting a job could get one. Maybe not paying what they want, maybe they need to work harder and care more about their job. But no one has an excuse not to be able to get one.

I assume that this poster is sincere about the statement concerning jobs. Where does Kaz live? I'm curious.

 

[Brain357]

It isn't a matter of what Walmart can afford (that's not your biz) and their wage policies are theirs to make ... not mine or yours. Walmart pays what is legally required. Anything above that - and certainly many of their employees earn more than min wage - is rightfully determined by Walmart. Just because you look at it as "corporate welfare" doesn't make it so.
What would those poor, put-upon Walmart employees cost WI if Walmart did not employ them? You can make a difference, however, by not shopping or working at Walmart. It's called freedom of choice and expression and in America it's still yours to use as you choose.
Ain't it grand?

You make a good argument to raise minimum wage.

I don't shop there, but my tax dollars are still helping to make the Walton's richer. See the problem? They are rich enough that they shouldn't be collecting welfare.

Let's examine the logic of that statement.

You say you are subsidizing Wal-mart. For that to be true, that would mean that the people who get jobs at Walmart could get jobs somewhere else supporting themselves, and they aren't taking those jobs.

Let's say you're FOS and they aren't turning down jobs that would support themselves, that would mean that they can't, which means Wal-mart is helping taxpayers by partially deferring the cost of their being on welfare.

You don't get the implication of that, do you, Brain?

I get the Walton's are making billions with help from corporate welfare. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to billionaires. You don't get that do you? How about we just start gov run stores that pay better and close walmart? Would be about the same thing, just cutting out the billionaires.

 

[kaz]

Welcome to Fantasy Island

Ecnomics is anything you want it to be

A liberal chastising someone for not grasping economics, OK, that made me laugh...

Anyone who is serious about wanting a job could get one. Maybe not paying what they want, maybe they need to work harder and care more about their job. But no one has an excuse not to be able to get one.

I assume that this poster is sincere about the statement concerning jobs. Where does Kaz live? I'm curious.

North Carolina, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[kaz]

You make a good argument to raise minimum wage.

I don't shop there, but my tax dollars are still helping to make the Walton's richer. See the problem? They are rich enough that they shouldn't be collecting welfare.

Let's examine the logic of that statement.

You say you are subsidizing Wal-mart. For that to be true, that would mean that the people who get jobs at Walmart could get jobs somewhere else supporting themselves, and they aren't taking those jobs.

Let's say you're FOS and they aren't turning down jobs that would support themselves, that would mean that they can't, which means Wal-mart is helping taxpayers by partially deferring the cost of their being on welfare.

You don't get the implication of that, do you, Brain?

I get the Walton's are making billions with help from corporate welfare. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to billionaires. You don't get that do you? How about we just start gov run stores that pay better and close walmart? Would be about the same thing, just cutting out the billionaires.

The logical fallacy you just committed is begging the question.

So let's say wal-mart raises wages to $15 an hour or whatever you want. So then they fire all their current employees and hire better ones. Then their current employees are back entirely on welfare.

How did this help you exactly?

 

[Brain357]

Let's examine the logic of that statement.

You say you are subsidizing Wal-mart. For that to be true, that would mean that the people who get jobs at Walmart could get jobs somewhere else supporting themselves, and they aren't taking those jobs.

Let's say you're FOS and they aren't turning down jobs that would support themselves, that would mean that they can't, which means Wal-mart is helping taxpayers by partially deferring the cost of their being on welfare.

You don't get the implication of that, do you, Brain?

I get the Walton's are making billions with help from corporate welfare. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to billionaires. You don't get that do you? How about we just start gov run stores that pay better and close walmart? Would be about the same thing, just cutting out the billionaires.

The logical fallacy you just committed is begging the question.

So let's say wal-mart raises wages to $15 an hour or whatever you want. So then they fire all their current employees and hire better ones. Then their current employees are back entirely on welfare.

How did this help you exactly?

What makes you think the current employees wouldn't earn the higher wage? Now they would have more incentive to do a good job. Now they might get my business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider

 

[Brain357]

Walmart Employs 1% Of America. Should It Be Forced To Pay Its Employees More? - Business Insider

So if they pay $7 bil in taxes maybe they need to be taxed more. Last I checked they have over 8000 stores which cost tax payers over a million each.

After reading the whole article it seems to really support my plan to change corp taxes.