Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

[JohnA]

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

whats a LIVING WAGE ??
To pay for food and shelter, if you dont earn enough to fed and cloth a bus load of children you should npt have them

why dont i have a boat cus i cant afford one

id like one thou can you pay me more so i can buy one ?? and so it goes on and on

 

[JohnA]

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

why should a person flipping hamburgers get more for that task than somebody in another state
do you pay more for a macdonalds in new york than you do in texas ?

define a **LIVING WAGE *** there is no real answer .
depends on what you class as *living *

 

[ReallyMeow]

I "hate America" because my economic solutions are based in reality while yours are based strictly on ideology? People like you would be amusing if you weren't so dangerous. You're so worried that some wealthy person is going to be able to keep some of the money that they earned that you're willing to push fiscal policy that will keep millions of people who are not wealthy on unemployment. You're the person who hates America...because your "solution" would be a disaster for the country but you're so naive about economic policy that you can't see it.

If taking all of the income of wealthy Americans would fix the problem of our deficits then I'd reluctantly consider it but since it wouldn't even put a small dent in those deficits and would without question bring our economy to a grinding halt, why would ANYONE want to do something so asinine? That's reality and that's what you want to ignore.

Here we are in the reality that tax cuts for the rich dont produce additional revenue, that basic multiplication still applies. Conservatives have produced a 16 trillion dollar national debt in pursuit of this failed social experiment.

600 billion is hardly anything?
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes

I would rather have a deficit of half a trillion than a trillion. As the economy recovers revenues will recover, and we get the double benefit of no longer needing to prop it up; not only does the budget become balanced but we are paying down the debt.

 

[Noomi]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

 

[daveman]

cram it deadbeat, your social experiment failed.

Deadbeat? I have a job. You're not entitled to the money I make, no matter how much whining you do.

If you want something, get off your ass and work for it. Nobody owes you anything.

You're using the services America provides you with to get rich running your business? Pay up, deadbeat. You were extended the courtosy of not needing to pay for it up front to give you a chance to get rich, now that you are: you owe us. Im not asking for some sort of radical utopia, I want a balanced budget; pay up freeloader.

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.

They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

Stupid prog. You're not entitled to that which you didn't earn.

You cannot grasp this.

 

[daveman]

I "hate America" because my economic solutions are based in reality while yours are based strictly on ideology? People like you would be amusing if you weren't so dangerous. You're so worried that some wealthy person is going to be able to keep some of the money that they earned that you're willing to push fiscal policy that will keep millions of people who are not wealthy on unemployment. You're the person who hates America...because your "solution" would be a disaster for the country but you're so naive about economic policy that you can't see it.

If taking all of the income of wealthy Americans would fix the problem of our deficits then I'd reluctantly consider it but since it wouldn't even put a small dent in those deficits and would without question bring our economy to a grinding halt, why would ANYONE want to do something so asinine? That's reality and that's what you want to ignore.

Here we are in the reality that tax cuts for the rich dont produce additional revenue, that basic multiplication still applies. Conservatives have produced a 16 trillion dollar national debt in pursuit of this failed social experiment.

600 billion is hardly anything?
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes

I would rather have a deficit of half a trillion than a trillion. As the economy recovers revenues will recover, and we get the double benefit of no longer needing to prop it up; not only does the budget become balanced but we are paying down the debt.

Obama's a conservative?

Well, he might appear that way to a radical Marxist like you.

 

[daveman]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

In this thread it's been repeatedly explained why that's not a good idea.

Yet you still cling to it.

Why?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, they are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...equality7.svg/600px-IncomeInequality7.svg.png

a four point one percent increase is THIRTY times a point three percent increase. FLAAAAAT

The only thing flat is the scan of your brain activity. You've shown you can't read a chart. You've shown you can't argue a point. All you can do is regurgitate incorrect information like it bolsters your case.

 

[The Rabbi]

I "hate America" because my economic solutions are based in reality while yours are based strictly on ideology? People like you would be amusing if you weren't so dangerous. You're so worried that some wealthy person is going to be able to keep some of the money that they earned that you're willing to push fiscal policy that will keep millions of people who are not wealthy on unemployment. You're the person who hates America...because your "solution" would be a disaster for the country but you're so naive about economic policy that you can't see it.

If taking all of the income of wealthy Americans would fix the problem of our deficits then I'd reluctantly consider it but since it wouldn't even put a small dent in those deficits and would without question bring our economy to a grinding halt, why would ANYONE want to do something so asinine? That's reality and that's what you want to ignore.

Here we are in the reality that tax cuts for the rich dont produce additional revenue, that basic multiplication still applies. Conservatives have produced a 16 trillion dollar national debt in pursuit of this failed social experiment.

600 billion is hardly anything?
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes

I would rather have a deficit of half a trillion than a trillion. As the economy recovers revenues will recover, and we get the double benefit of no longer needing to prop it up; not only does the budget become balanced but we are paying down the debt.

16 billion? WHo has been president for the last 4 years? WHich party has held Congress for the last 6 years? What was our debt rating when Obama took office? What is it now?
Revenues have already recovered, dunce. They are at the highest level since 2007 and the deficit is higher than ever. It's the SPENDING, stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

The obvious answer would be that employers should pay as small a wage as they can get away with

But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough to support their families? The taxpayer ends up subsidizing their food and rent. When an employer won't provide health insurance, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

So who really benefits from the taxpayer subsidizing low wages? The employer

He gets to pay barebone wages, keep the profit and stiff the taxpayer to make up the difference

 

[The Rabbi]

The obvious answer would be that employers should pay as small a wage as they can get away with

But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough to support their families? The taxpayer ends up subsidizing their food and rent. When an employer won't provide health insurance, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

So who really benefits from the taxpayer subsidizing low wages? The employer

He gets to pay barebone wages, keep the profit and stiff the taxpayer to make up the difference

Because most people are happy toiling away at minimum wage getting gov't handouts?

Another fail, Nutwinger.

 

[rightwinger]

The obvious answer would be that employers should pay as small a wage as they can get away with

But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough to support their families? The taxpayer ends up subsidizing their food and rent. When an employer won't provide health insurance, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

So who really benefits from the taxpayer subsidizing low wages? The employer

He gets to pay barebone wages, keep the profit and stiff the taxpayer to make up the difference

Because most people are happy toiling away at minimum wage getting gov't handouts?

Another fail, Nutwinger.

Employers in high cost of living areas get away with paying wages that do not allow their employees to live in that area. The taxpayer makes up the difference by paying for housing and food while the employer pockets the profit he makes from low wages

Welfare is a benefit for low paying employers

 

[gallantwarrior]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

Cover the cost of shelter and feed themselves, sure. There is the question what you think you should be putting down your gullet, too. Sorry, but if mac-n-cheese is what you can afford, that's what you buy. Can't afford steak, buy chicken. And before you get your panties in a bunch about someone like me telling someone else what they can/can't eat, guess again. If I'm paying for it, I should be able to tell them.
The bills are all their own. You understand that 'bills' can include the car payment and lots of credit card debt? Sorry, but a so-called living wage does not include all the bennies and goodies. BIG part of the problem in this country is how easy credit has become the bane of sensible spending. If you don't have the money, you might consider postponing as purchase. There's no reason why anyone else should have their earnings stripped away by government to underwrite someone else's profligacy.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The obvious answer would be that employers should pay as small a wage as they can get away with

But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough to support their families? The taxpayer ends up subsidizing their food and rent. When an employer won't provide health insurance, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

So who really benefits from the taxpayer subsidizing low wages? The employer

He gets to pay barebone wages, keep the profit and stiff the taxpayer to make up the difference

Because most people are happy toiling away at minimum wage getting gov't handouts?

Another fail, Nutwinger.

In his argument, RW does clearly illustrate some of those spending cuts that could easily be made. Why in hell is the taxpayer dunned to subsidize anyone (or any corporation, for that matter) who makes poor choices and fails to provide services or products attractive enough to garner better wages (or earnings). Employers are not charitable institutions, neither is the government. When employers are forced by government mandate to pay more than an employee is worth, prices go up for all of us, including that employee. An intelligent person might even consider that employers who have been forced to pay more to their employees would result in LESS government spending to subsidize those workers. That is not what has happened, is it? Every time wages are forced up, even more "poor" go on the public dole.

 

[rightwinger]

The obvious answer would be that employers should pay as small a wage as they can get away with

But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough to support their families? The taxpayer ends up subsidizing their food and rent. When an employer won't provide health insurance, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

So who really benefits from the taxpayer subsidizing low wages? The employer

He gets to pay barebone wages, keep the profit and stiff the taxpayer to make up the difference

Because most people are happy toiling away at minimum wage getting gov't handouts?

Another fail, Nutwinger.

In his argument, RW does clearly illustrate some of those spending cuts that could easily be made. Why in hell is the taxpayer dunned to subsidize anyone (or any corporation, for that matter) who makes poor choices and fails to provide services or products attractive enough to garner better wages (or earnings). Employers are not charitable institutions, neither is the government. When employers are forced by government mandate to pay more than an employee is worth, prices go up for all of us, including that employee. An intelligent person might even consider that employers who have been forced to pay more to their employees would result in LESS government spending to subsidize those workers. That is not what has happened, is it? Every time wages are forced up, even more "poor" go on the public dole.

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." ":Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it." "Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?" "Nothing!" Scrooge replied. "You wish to be anonymous?" "I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him

 

[tjvh]

Some idiots seem to forget that when the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of everything else... How does that help poor people on Welfare who don't have jobs? Hint: It doesn't.

 

[rightwinger]

Some idiots seem to forget that when the minimum wage rises, so does the cost of everything else... How does that help poor people on Welfare who don't have jobs? Hint: It doesn't.

Can you provide a link for that so we can discuss?

 

[asterism]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

What about the opportunities for people who don't need that much money? Should those just be outlawed?

 

[dblack]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

What about the opportunities for people who don't need that much money? Should those just be outlawed?

Shhh! They don't like to talk about that.

 

[pinqy]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

So when I was 17, living at home while going to high school, fully supported by my parents with no rent, no bills, and didn't pay for food, my living wage would have been what?

The simple fact is that very very few people live off of minimum wage. The majority of min wage earners are young, part time workers, or spouses earning a secondary income. They work for minimum wage because they don't need more.

And "what a job is worth" is the amount someone is willing to accept for their labor.