Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[alan1]

The term "substandard" is purely subjective and idiosyncratic. There is no such thing as a "standard wage" in economics. There is only the market wage. You are claiming that employers have some obligation to pay more than the market wage. So far, I haven't seen a smidgeon of justification for such a claim. Can you explain it?

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

fixed it for you

A person either supports himself or dies trying.

My only responsibility to support another person is if they are my child and under 18 years of age.
It's not my responsibility to support another person simply because the masses think I should.

 

[Brain357]

Irrelevant.

Stuffing shit into bags is not a job that will support a family. It never was and it never will be and it should never be.

You put together a good argument against capitalism. I mean the waltons make billions, the execs make millions, and a huge number of the workers do not and should not make a living wage. And this is our countries largest employer.

I didn't say they should not make whatever they want I am saying that it is not the employer's responsibility to pay someone enough to afford their lifestyle.

If you want to support a family then make yourself more valuable to an employer than a monkey who can put shit in a bag.

Given how many people are employed in these sorts of jobs we really are in trouble. Here I thought capitalism worked for everyone, but now you make it clear it's only for a few.

 

[alan1]

Then lets talk numbers. What is the cut off point for food stamps?

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service

So $958 for an individual per month? You are going to tell me that is not poor? That might be rent alone depending where you live. Rent will certainly be a huge percent of it. That doesn't leave much for health, clothing, food...

For most of the world, that is rich. Just ask this fellow,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...irobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html

 

[alan1]

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

 

[alan1]

Simple enough...

The employer either supports his employees or the taxpayer does

Any amount we taxpayers have to pay represents what is substandard

Still wrong. Either the employee earns enough money from one employer or he gets another employer.

If you don't earn enough to support a family, you have 2 choices
#1: Don't start a family.
#2: Earn more money.

What is so hard to understand?

We have over 30 million workers needing government aid. Many started families before the economic downturn. They still deserve the right to have families. It is what humans do.
There is not enough overtime, part time work or begging that will support 30 million people

Either the taxpayer pays or the employer does.....I say the employer

I believe the correct term is "wanting".
They deserve the right to have families. They don't deserve the right to force me to support their family. I'm not responsible for their choices or their unfortunate circumstances. You can feel free to support them all you want, I won't stand in your way.

 

[alan1]

Yes the people who are making the walmart billions.

Irrelevant.

Stuffing shit into bags is not a job that will support a family. It never was and it never will be and it should never be.

So your saying the largest employer in our country shouldn't pay enough for people to live on? Wow we have quite a problem then. Waltons make billions and the people who help them make it get nothing. That makes a real strong economy.

There is nothing stopping you from creating a better company than Walmart, paying better wages than WalMart, and making your employees rich. Go out and become the largest employer, pay your employees well and drive WalMart out of business. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.

 

[Brain357]

No, a person either supports himself or the taxpayers do.

Where has it ever been written that one job should be enough to support anyone?

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

Sure just anyone has the money to start super stores. Right.

 

[alan1]

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?

Answering your questions in order: Yes, yes, any level, any size, and yes.

Pay should directly reflect the need of the employee, not the stinginess of the employer. Deal with it, corporate shills.

In that scenario, a single person with no family should be paid less than a mother with two children for doing the exact same job. Guess who employers are going to hire under your foolish guidelines?
Hint: It isn't the person with children.

 

[alan1]

In reality, the employer does or the government does. You can argue if that is right or not, but it is a fact right now so that can't be argued. Walmart employees that are paid very little are supported by the government. So walmart uses the labor to make billions while the government subsidizes that labor. My tax dollars are making the waltons richer. They should be paying the full price for this labor.

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

Sure just anyone has the money to start super stores. Right.

Walmart started with a single store. Sears started as a part time job for for Richard Sears. Family Dollar started as a single store. Target started as a single store. Whole Foods started as a single store.
So yeah, anyone has the money to start a super store.

 

[Chris]

“The Republicans believe in the minimum wage — the more the minimum, the better.” - Harry Truman

 

[Brain357]

What is stopping you from creating your own company that pays people better than WalMart and takes over WalMart's market share?
You got a problem with WalMart wages, feel free to drive them out of business with your better business model.

Sure just anyone has the money to start super stores. Right.

Walmart started with a single store. Sears started as a part time job for for Richard Sears. Family Dollar started as a single store. Target started as a single store. Whole Foods started as a single store.
So yeah, anyone has the money to start a super store.

And after than I'll get into fast food. Then maybe this mess with be fixed in a few generations. No I think some policy changes will work a bit faster.

 

[LiberalMedia]

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?

Answering your questions in order: Yes, yes, any level, any size, and yes.

Pay should directly reflect the need of the employee, not the stinginess of the employer. Deal with it, corporate shills.

In that scenario, a single person with no family should be paid less than a mother with two children for doing the exact same job. Guess who employers are going to hire under your foolish guidelines?
Hint: It isn't the person with children.

Yes it is, because under the government's existing guidelines, employers are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of gender or parental status. In fact, an employer would feel pressured into hiring the mothyr over the single person to get political brownie points with the government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You put together a good argument against capitalism. I mean the waltons make billions, the execs make millions, and a huge number of the workers do not and should not make a living wage. And this is our countries largest employer.

I didn't say they should not make whatever they want I am saying that it is not the employer's responsibility to pay someone enough to afford their lifestyle.

If you want to support a family then make yourself more valuable to an employer than a monkey who can put shit in a bag.

Given how many people are employed in these sorts of jobs we really are in trouble. Here I thought capitalism worked for everyone, but now you make it clear it's only for a few.

Less than 3% of all workers make the federal minimum wage.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Here in the United States employers do have an obligation to pay a minimum wage that may be higher than the market wage if the market wage could be determined in those low wage cases.
The law is the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. You might want to google that.

In terms of justification, well, I shall appeal to the authority of SCOTUS.

"...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937

That quote is from a SCOTUS decision upholding the constitutionality of a minimum wage. The reasoning is quite clear. You are, of course, free to disagree with SCOTUS and attempt to raise the issue with the court again.

You resorted to a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority..

You obviously don't know what that fallacy is or how to identify it.

The justices on the court are nothing but a gang political hacks chosen specifically to make the decisions the politicians want them to make. Their decisions have nothing to do with the objective facts.

Now, this argument employs a great many fallacies.

The bottom line is that nothing in the Constitution mandates a minimum wage. The idea that it does is utterly laughable.

The Constitution does not mandate Capitalism.
The Constitution does not mandate the creation and maintenance of an Air Force. The Constitution does not mandate Paper Money. The Constitution does not mandate Public Schools.

There's lots of things the Constitution does not mandate, but are not found to be unconstitutional.

As for the Supreme Court, the existence Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution! You do understand that the SCOTUS is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, don't you?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

What does it matter ?

You get what the market will bear. I used to turn down lawn mowing jobs because I was in demand and had all the business I wanted at better prices than some offered.

A good friend made good money washing cars for people at their houses.

You take what's available and grow on it.

You're right, none of these stories about how well people did mowing lawns when they were kids matters in this discussion. It is all just anecdotal evidence trying to prove... what exactly I'm not sure. That some people found a good market for lawn mowing and did well when they were children?

More germane to this thread is the question:
Is anyone arguing that the minimum wage should be abolished?

What happens when the income that the market will bear is below the income level necessary for subsistence?

Given that there is a minimum wage and there is inflation, does it make sense to increase the minimum wage purely for the purpose of matching inflation?

Interesting phrase "what the market will bear"....
Does it really mean "The minimum an employer needs to pay to get a job done", while keeping the economy healthy?
Is our economy all that healthy?
Don't u need a sufficiently large number of consumers as well as producers to make it healthy?
What happens when large numbers of people are paid so little that, while they may survive to produce while subsidized by government (thru food stamps, etc.) they cannot afford to be active consumers beyond sustenance?
What happens to the ALMIGHTY MARKETS then?

I hear you. Do we all know that this debate was settled in 1938 with the introduction of the FLSA?

I do not understand why some continue to argue that the minimum wage should be abolished. Given the precedent, they have a significant burden of proof and have offered none.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Clearly, arguendo, if it was worth while to have a minimum wage then it should be indexed to either inflation, or some other measure selected based on whatever was used to support creation of minimum wage in the first place. One could and should say the same about AMT. It makes no sense for AMT not to be indexed. So yes, it makes no sense for minimum wage not to be indexed.

That said, I'd prefer our government spend it's time breaking up monopolies that monopolize labor rates, vs. setting a supposed minimum bar for the worth of supposed minimum value labor in this country. It seems to me minimum wages are an excuse for government to forgo their job of breaking up labor rate monopolies.

I agree, and thank you for granting that for the sake of argument at least.

When you say "monopolies that monopolize labor rates" to which entities are you referring? I apologize if you have explained this already. This thread is massive.

Couple examples at two extremes:
1) Corporate executives that set their own salaries based on the salaries of other corporate executives, and do so using a board of directors selected from said other corporate executives. This all to the exclusion of input from the owners of said companies (the stock holders).

2) Labor rates for everything from farm pickers to software engineers are manipulated by the largest corporate employers, said employers exchange pay rates, discuss pay strategies and collude to achieve lower average pay rates and set scales across their various industries.

Granted these are oligopolies. But the same applies in situations where a company like walmart comes into a town runs all the small businesses out of business and thus monopolizes the wage rate for that town by being the only store in town still in business.

Really it's hard to find a single profession where there are no monopolies & oligopolies fighting behind the scenes to reduce labor rates.

I think that's exactly why collective bargaining was born. The minimum wage was introduced at least in part, as you have suggested, to temper the unions because strikes back in the early twentieth century weren't the hippie sort involving sit-ins and flowers.

Due to the disparity between the working poor and those who set the wage rate, several state governments set a minimum wage. Upon the success of those minimum wage laws in terms of keeping wages reasonable and preventing strikes, the federal government adopted the federal minimum wage.

 

[kaz]

Right so you could cut the government out and lower taxes and increase pay, but you don't support that. You also seem to support there being really rich and really poor with no middle class. And you say you're not a communist?

What a dumb ass. Is this supposed to be serious?

I think communism will give you the results you want.

You've sent more than one kid home from the playground crying, haven't you? Are you actually eight, or do you just have the mind of an eight year old?

 

[Listening]

No the politicians that have changed the rules so as to make getting on the dole easier than ever before and people like you who think they did the right thing by doing so are the ones who like big government

I am against regulating Walmart's wages and I'm against government forced redistribution of wealth, so I see how "brain" (LOL) blames me for big government...

What about giving business tax incentives to pay better and offer better benefits? Certainly it benefits the government to not be giving out lots of welfare. Also would be great for the economy.

What about not subsidizing workers so that they won't take jobs that won't pay the bills ?

If nobody shows up, then Wal-Mart can either raise wages or they can do without.

 

[kaz]

I am against regulating Walmart's wages and I'm against government forced redistribution of wealth, so I see how "brain" (LOL) blames me for big government...

What about giving business tax incentives to pay better and offer better benefits? Certainly it benefits the government to not be giving out lots of welfare. Also would be great for the economy.

What about not subsidizing workers so that they won't take jobs that won't pay the bills ?

If nobody shows up, then Wal-Mart can either raise wages or they can do without.

Government NOT give people welfare? I don't get it, how would that work exactly?

 

[Listening]

What about giving business tax incentives to pay better and offer better benefits? Certainly it benefits the government to not be giving out lots of welfare. Also would be great for the economy.

What about not subsidizing workers so that they won't take jobs that won't pay the bills ?

If nobody shows up, then Wal-Mart can either raise wages or they can do without.

Government NOT give people welfare? I don't get it, how would that work exactly?

It would work great.

Walmart, in my estimation, has figured out how much their employees get in terms of total compensation including all the government goodies. They then adjust wages downward to the point that they can keep their employees and pay the least.

That is business.

Well, if you take away the goodies, people will now be below where they need to be and will look for work elsewhere to make up the difference. If nobody works at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart will have to pay higher wages.

Of course the same can be said for other companies.

The off-set would be that our tax burden should, in theory, be reduced. However, prices will go up to some extent.

I'd rather we let the market handle it than allow the government.

What will happen is that Lizzy Warren will raise the min wage and still allow these people to draw on government benefits all in the name of screwing the 1% (of which she is one).