This is why we need a living wage

[HereWeGoAgain]

And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

False,

About 500,000 low wage jobs were lost under Clinton, short term. After 2 years, it declined to about 100,000 jobs lost.

President Clinton: Raising the Minimum Wage -- An Overdue Pay Raise for America’s Working Families

The biggest issue was the demographic shift, about 1 million American's under 25 lost employment due to the rate increase, to be replaced by illegal aliens. Ultimately, the jobs needed to be done, but who did them changed dramatically. Black teens were virtually removed from the job market.

Yep..I remember the days when you drove past a construction sight and it was whites and blacks working them. Now it's nothing but mexicans. Yet liberals cant seem to put two and two together.
Yeah...lets bring in more immigrants,that'll help..

 

[GHook93]

Every person I have known to work at Kmart started off at MW, so Walmart is not some horrible offender for starting people off at the bottom, but people do not hate on Kmart.

Walmart's profits are primarily the result of two things:

1) The people they don't have to hire because of their insanely efficient inventory & deliver network; and
2) Even beyond the savings they would get in buying in huge bulk, they exert pressure on suppliers to provide goods at or near production costs.

If they are suppressing wages, it is in the supplier chain and not their stores. Someone who works for such a supplier told me that their employer probably lost money on most shipments to Walmart, but they were afraid that not being on the shelves there could damage their brand in that if people couldn't get it at walmart, they might also not buy it at Kroger or wherever.

Target, Home Depot, Menards and all the other groceries do the same. Walmart is the largest and most profitable, therefore they are the face of the industry.

 

[sameech]

Target, Home Depot, Menards and all the other groceries do the same. Walmart is the largest and most profitable, therefore they are the face of the industry.

They may be the face of the industry, but they get the lion's share of the blame when they are not the only Kitty Kat. They are the ones that get protested and boycotted and the like. The only difference between them and the others is in their profits, not in their labor practices.

 

[alan1]

I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc. $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income. Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year. Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job. It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.

 

[beagle9]

I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc. $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income. Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year. Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job. It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

 

[SAYIT]

I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc. $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income. Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year. Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job. It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.

Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?

Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"

I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".

 

[SAYIT]

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees. Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods. One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.

Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?

Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"

I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".

A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?

Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"

I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".

A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

 

[SAYIT]

I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".

A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

 

[beagle9]

Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc. $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income. Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year. Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job. It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.

I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have, to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ? I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ? I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.

 

[beagle9]

A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ? I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?

 

[SAYIT]

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.

Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.

I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have, to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ? I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ? I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.

Your posts read like typical socialist whining.
For those who have $15 skills that is what they should earn and if they want more they can seek a better paying job, get a 2nd job, start their own biz from which they can then pay their employees whatever they deem suitable (at or above min wage) or whine about the unfairness of life on this message board.
The choices in our economic system (education, training, lifestyle, etc.) are yours and mine and we are relatively free to enjoy the fruit of those choices.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.

Let's have a fair discussion.

It is true that many high school children work in minimum wage jobs, however child labor laws prevent them from working fulltime thus precluding children from the category of fulltime employees.

A supplemental job is, as far as I understand the term, also not fulltime though why a pensioner should be compensated below the poverty line for their labor escapes me.

That leaves us with entry level. Should an entry level American working fulltime be paid a wage below the poverty line, that being a wage of $5.52/hr, regardless of the supply of let's say "fungible" entry level Americans?

I am obviously attempting to establish the necessity of a minimum wage. If your concern is that high school children have no need to earn a wage above the poverty line, I can understand that. Child labor laws already create a special category for high school children in their low paying jobs. Reforming minimum wage to take that fact into consideration is not out of the question.

 

[SAYIT]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ? I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?

What a concept! In fact, the labor market does pay more as workers progress and learn. If the company does not we are free to find one that does. Turnover issues are not your concern unless you own the company. This is not a socialist economy. It is the company's choice to set their wage scale - other than min wage which is set by law - and if they lose biz because their workers are dissatisfied, that is the company's prob. If you want higher pay, start your own company and set you own pay scale. Simple enough?

 

[SAYIT]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
Let's have a fair discussion.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.

 

[SAYIT]

No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

It is true that many high school children work in minimum wage jobs, however child labor laws prevent them from working fulltime thus precluding children from the category of fulltime employees.

A supplemental job is, as far as I understand the term, also not fulltime though why a pensioner should be compensated below the poverty line for their labor escapes me.

That leaves us with entry level. Should an entry level American working fulltime be paid a wage below the poverty line, that being a wage of $5.52/hr, regardless of the supply of let's say "fungible" entry level Americans?

I am obviously attempting to establish the necessity of a minimum wage. If your concern is that high school children have no need to earn a wage above the poverty line, I can understand that. Child labor laws already create a special category for high school children in their low paying jobs. Reforming minimum wage to take that fact into consideration is not out of the question.

So among the 1.6 mil min wagers is a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is). Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q

An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
Let's have a fair discussion.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.

I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source. I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line. That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.

 

[SAYIT]

An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
Let's have a fair discussion.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.

I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source. I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line. That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.

OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it.
Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.

I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage. Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum. That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP. The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr. We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry. That's what will happen. How hungry is hungry? You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.