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

[asterism]

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

Perhaps the entitlements should be geared towards temporary assistance instead of lifetime supplements. Entry-level minimum wage jobs were never meant for permanent employment to support a family, they were meant as "entry level." If the subsidies were cut out there would be more incentive to move beyond minimum wage skills.

Do you know anyone who only works minimum wage so they don't lose their medicaid? I do. I had one that worked for me and she wanted me to pay half her salary to her live-in fiance (they'll never get married) so she could keep her working poor single mom subsidies.

 

[asterism]

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

Exclusively? I can understand some situations where the system is gamed but not much. Mostly it's just that the jobs don't bring in that much value.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Not only should that be a calculation decided by agreement between employer and employee, but the minimum wage laws, e.g., Davis-Bacon, should be repealed.

To be clear, minimum wage requirements, such as Davis-Bacon requirements make it unfeasible for non-union shops to hire and train unskilled workers, as they would have to pay wages that exceed the workers’ productivity.

a. After the enactment of Davis-Bacon, black unemployment rose relative to that of whites.
Vedder and Galloway, “Racial Dimensions of the Davis-Bacon Act.”

 

[asterism]

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

Equally as truthful as some dialogue about John Galt. Something tells me you dismiss that fiction.

 

[asterism]

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?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/306735/aib74703_1_.pdf

Output Prices and the Minimum Wage | EPI Study

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?
Williams, "Race & Economics," chapter three.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter 32.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"But what happens to hardworking employees that do not make enough..."

He goes to school, retrains, moves to a different area, changes jobs, takes a second job.
Why would you believe that people are stupid?

One thing he doesn't do is knock on the door of a Liberal, 'cause everyone knows that Liberals do not believe in personal charity.

 

[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

Perhaps the entitlements should be geared towards temporary assistance instead of lifetime supplements. Entry-level minimum wage jobs were never meant for permanent employment to support a family, they were meant as "entry level." If the subsidies were cut out there would be more incentive to move beyond minimum wage skills.

Do you know anyone who only works minimum wage so they don't lose their medicaid? I do. I had one that worked for me and she wanted me to pay half her salary to her live-in fiance (they'll never get married) so she could keep her working poor single mom subsidies.

The problem goes beyond minimum wage

There are many manufacturing jobs that top out at $10- $12 an hour. Well above minimum wage. These manufacturing jobs used to pay a wage that a worker could support a family on. They no longer do.

Medical care is a major concern. Especially if you have a family member with a serious medical condition. Working the system to ensure coverage is all some people have

 

[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

Perhaps the entitlements should be geared towards temporary assistance instead of lifetime supplements. Entry-level minimum wage jobs were never meant for permanent employment to support a family, they were meant as "entry level." If the subsidies were cut out there would be more incentive to move beyond minimum wage skills.

Do you know anyone who only works minimum wage so they don't lose their medicaid? I do. I had one that worked for me and she wanted me to pay half her salary to her live-in fiance (they'll never get married) so she could keep her working poor single mom subsidies.

The problem goes beyond minimum wage

There are many manufacturing jobs that top out at $10- $12 an hour. Well above minimum wage. These manufacturing jobs used to pay a wage that a worker could support a family on. They no longer do.

Medical care is a major concern. Especially if you have a family member with a serious medical condition. Working the system to ensure coverage is all some people have

Mainly because of inflation.
But yet another irrelevant point from Buttwinger.

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps the entitlements should be geared towards temporary assistance instead of lifetime supplements. Entry-level minimum wage jobs were never meant for permanent employment to support a family, they were meant as "entry level." If the subsidies were cut out there would be more incentive to move beyond minimum wage skills.

Do you know anyone who only works minimum wage so they don't lose their medicaid? I do. I had one that worked for me and she wanted me to pay half her salary to her live-in fiance (they'll never get married) so she could keep her working poor single mom subsidies.

The problem goes beyond minimum wage

There are many manufacturing jobs that top out at $10- $12 an hour. Well above minimum wage. These manufacturing jobs used to pay a wage that a worker could support a family on. They no longer do.

Medical care is a major concern. Especially if you have a family member with a serious medical condition. Working the system to ensure coverage is all some people have

Mainly because of inflation.
But yet another irrelevant point from Buttwinger.

Wages and benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

Like John Kennedy said about the economy..A rising tide lifts all boats

Today, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

 

[Meathead]

Should there be a minimum charge for whores as well? I mean should an ugly skanky crack whores who gives bad blow jobs be able to charge whatever she can get, or should the john be required to pay a minimum? Should that be legislated too where ever prostitution is legal?

I'm just concerned about some poster's sex lives.

 

[Wiseacre]

The problem goes beyond minimum wage

There are many manufacturing jobs that top out at $10- $12 an hour. Well above minimum wage. These manufacturing jobs used to pay a wage that a worker could support a family on. They no longer do.

Medical care is a major concern. Especially if you have a family member with a serious medical condition. Working the system to ensure coverage is all some people have

Mainly because of inflation.
But yet another irrelevant point from Buttwinger.

Wages and benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

Like John Kennedy said about the economy..A rising tide lifts all boats

Today, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

We don't have a rising tide these days, IMHO.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Mainly because of inflation.
But yet another irrelevant point from Buttwinger.

Wages and benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

Like John Kennedy said about the economy..A rising tide lifts all boats

Today, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

We don't have a rising tide these days, IMHO.

how could we with a liberal communist president who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders??

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem goes beyond minimum wage

There are many manufacturing jobs that top out at $10- $12 an hour. Well above minimum wage. These manufacturing jobs used to pay a wage that a worker could support a family on. They no longer do.

Medical care is a major concern. Especially if you have a family member with a serious medical condition. Working the system to ensure coverage is all some people have

Mainly because of inflation.
But yet another irrelevant point from Buttwinger.

Wages and benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

Like John Kennedy said about the economy..A rising tide lifts all boats

Today, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

Yes, the inflation of the 1970s destroyed a lot of purchasing power.
Was there a point you were trying to make?

 

[rightwinger]

Wages and benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

Like John Kennedy said about the economy..A rising tide lifts all boats

Today, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

We don't have a rising tide these days, IMHO.

how could we with a liberal communist president who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders??

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Should there be a minimum charge for whores as well? I mean should an ugly skanky crack whores who gives bad blow jobs be able to charge whatever she can get, or should the john be required to pay a minimum? Should that be legislated too where ever prostitution is legal?

I'm just concerned about some poster's sex lives.

it is true that if liberals want to set the price for labor they will soon enough want to set it for everything.

There is never an end to the new magic a liberal imagines the government can perform. They are essentially brain dead soviets and lack the IQ to know it!!

It is perhaps the greatest tragedy in human history that the greatest country in human history is now being taken over by thinking that is considered perfectly stupid!!

If you doubt it just ask a liberal to say something intelligent in defense of liberalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We don't have a rising tide these days, IMHO.

how could we with a liberal communist president who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders??

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

perhaps because we have a liberal communist president who is raising taxes and driving jobs off shore?? Capitalism works only when you have capitalism.

We have 15% unemployment thanks to idiotic liberalism and you're trying to blame it on capitalism!

See why we are positive a liberal will be 100% slow???

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Any wage is a living wage. If you budget you can get by on the minimum. If you want more, you have to earn more by either getting another job, doing OT, or getting training in something that earns a higher pay.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

Any wage is a living wage. If you budget you can get by on the minimum. If you want more, you have to earn more by either getting another job, doing OT, or getting training in something that earns a higher pay.

ah but that conflicts with the Marxist notion of a permanent under class of workers. Why would the workers or the world unite to start a civil war if they could get ahead with a little peaceful hard work??