Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What amount of money is a “livable wage”?
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
It comes from the top instead of the bottom
. Less profits.
Although as cwolfman13 mentioned there is often saving found in other areas like - like training costs for high turnover and increased productivity for workers who are better compensated.
That is beautiful in theory, but then what is the incentive for a business owner to work hard and build a business to become successful?
Sounds like we are talking about socialism. Lets ask, lets see, just about every other socialist country how that has worked out for them.
But I am sure we will do it better, right?
Fair market value for labour is not socialism.
That is a straw man - and once the logical fallacies come out to play I know that further discussion is generally futile.
Artificial wage minimums are not fair market value.
Artificially low prices are also not fair market value. This whole conversation is centered around the concept that goods and services must be sold at a price that is below what it costs to produce them with fairly paid labour. That is where fair market value comes into the equation.
The price consumers are willing to pay for goods/services is not artificial.0 -
bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
If you can't stay in business unless you don't pay your workers enough to live, then you have a failed business. It's really that simple.
"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. " - FDR
And that brings us back to the question....what is a living wage? And who gets to decide what it is? Some places in this country (and I am talking about these United States of America), people might not be able to live on 20.00 an hour, and some places they may be able to live on 10. I don't think you can just set an arbitrary figure and say that it is effective everywhere. Average price of regular gasoline in California is 4.70 a gallon, but in Alabama and Missouri and Texas it is under 3.20. Same for most other commodities...so while a living wage may be higher in California and some other areas, it is not equal everywhere. So, before judging someone regarding their hiring and salary practices, it may do well to do some research and see what condition the people in the area are living in regarding cost of living.
I don't think that anyone is asserting that a living wage is consistent in all areas? I don't even live in the US.
Also not judging you - you are the one who seemed to be saying that you don't pay your employees a living wage - and if you did you would go out of business. That is what I was responding to. I have no idea what a livable wage is where you are. I mean I have cousins that live in the mountains of West Virginia and I'm sure they can live on a whole lot less that I need where I live - the housing costs are like 10% of what they are here.3 -
I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
It comes from the top instead of the bottom . Less profits.
Although as cwolfman13 mentioned there is often saving found in other areas like - like training costs for high turnover and increased productivity for workers who are better compensated.
That is beautiful in theory, but then what is the incentive for a business owner to work hard and build a business to become successful?
Sounds like we are talking about socialism. Lets ask, lets see, just about every other socialist country how that has worked out for them.
But I am sure we will do it better, right?
Fair market value for labour is not socialism.
That is a straw man - and once the logical fallacies come out to play I know that further discussion is generally futile.
Artificial wage minimums are not fair market value.
Artificially low prices are also not fair market value. This whole conversation is centered around the concept that goods and services must be sold at a price that is below what it costs to produce them with fairly paid labour. That is where fair market value comes into the equation.
The price consumers are willing to pay for goods/services is not artificial.
Selling something at a price lower than it costs to produce it is.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
It comes from the top instead of the bottom . Less profits.
Although as cwolfman13 mentioned there is often saving found in other areas like - like training costs for high turnover and increased productivity for workers who are better compensated.
That is beautiful in theory, but then what is the incentive for a business owner to work hard and build a business to become successful?
Sounds like we are talking about socialism. Lets ask, lets see, just about every other socialist country how that has worked out for them.
But I am sure we will do it better, right?
Fair market value for labour is not socialism.
That is a straw man - and once the logical fallacies come out to play I know that further discussion is generally futile.
Artificial wage minimums are not fair market value.
Artificially low prices are also not fair market value. This whole conversation is centered around the concept that goods and services must be sold at a price that is below what it costs to produce them with fairly paid labour. That is where fair market value comes into the equation.
The price consumers are willing to pay for goods/services is not artificial.
Selling something at a price lower than it costs to produce it is.
A business cannot sell something at a price lower than the cost to produce it in the long term. An exception would be complementary products where a low price point of one (even selling at a loss) produces sales of another, profitable item. Example would be selling razors at a loss to encourage purchase of profitable razor blades.0 -
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.6 -
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.
If people are incapable of supporting themselves for some reason, I am all for helping them in any way I can. I am 100% against handouts to people who are physically capable of working, but choose not to. If they starve, they starve, and good riddance.2 -
bellababy9031 wrote: »
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.
If people are incapable of supporting themselves for some reason, I am all for helping them in any way I can. I am 100% against handouts to people who are physically capable of working, but choose not to. If they starve, they starve, and good riddance.
Exactly.0 -
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.
Why if they are able to work?1 -
Why not? Survival, as in basic food, shelter and clothing, is cheap enough in first-world countries that the government providing it wouldn't mean a huge increase on my taxes.Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.
Why if they are able to work?
ETA: and beyond the extra tax burden, it's none of my business.
3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
Realistically in many businesses owners get salaries. It is common for law firms (for example) to pay partners salaries plus a bonus based on profits (which is also shared with other employees or in some cases rolled over, although that has tax implications). I'm sure there are other businesses in which the owners are also paid a salary.1 -
sheahughes wrote: »I proudly live in "socialist" Australia, pay my taxes (30% from gross wage) and have benefitted from other peoples taxes just as others have benefitted from my tax payments.
Arguments against "socialism" do not have the value or credibility people believe they do.
I know our government could certainly do things a lot better, for instance they could spend less on nuclear submarines and more on Medicare and pensions for people with disabilities/Aged Care, but we as a population in general are doing fairly well otherwise.
Call me a Red Ragger is you wish, but socialism is not scary or evil.
Not sure if AU would count as more socialist as the US or socialist at all in any reasonable definition.0 -
bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
If you can't stay in business unless you don't pay your workers enough to live, then you have a failed business. It's really that simple.
"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. " - FDR
And that brings us back to the question....what is a living wage? And who gets to decide what it is? Some places in this country (and I am talking about these United States of America), people might not be able to live on 20.00 an hour, and some places they may be able to live on 10. I don't think you can just set an arbitrary figure and say that it is effective everywhere. Average price of regular gasoline in California is 4.70 a gallon, but in Alabama and Missouri and Texas it is under 3.20. Same for most other commodities...so while a living wage may be higher in California and some other areas, it is not equal everywhere. So, before judging someone regarding their hiring and salary practices, it may do well to do some research and see what condition the people in the area are living in regarding cost of living.
If you pay employees so little that they make ends meet with tax-payer supplied benefits like food stamps or subsidized housing, that's not a living wage. If they make enough that they don't qualify for gov support, I'd say it is a living wage. But if you are only able to pay so little bc tax payers subsidize your employee salaries, that's not really a sustainable business.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
As someone who does a lot of payroll at the end of the year, this is completely untrue. Owners can take draws over the course of the year and declare it as salary. At least if they're incorporated. It doesn't depend on the actual work done.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Ask an average family in Haiti, then decide if you really need more.
livable is different than mere survival, and the US is one of the wealthiest countries in the world GDP per capita. The USA is not a third world country so there really isn't a comparison to be made between a family in Haiti and a family living in the US. A livable wage in Haiti would be completely different than livable wage in the US.
Depends on how you live.
So you think people should just be impoverished to the point of mere survival in a first world country because people in other countries are impoverished? Gotcha...don't forget to tip your waiter making $2.13/hr.
Again, a survival wage is different than a livable wage. Average rent here is $1,117 for a small apartment. Go much lower than that and you're looking in the ghetto and bound to get killed.
I don't understand the offense taken. When you talk about livable, you are talking about just that, living. That does not include internet, or lipstick, or cable tv, or beef tenderloin or even an automobile or a television set. I never said people should be impoverished. I believe people should use every opportunity to do the very best that they can for themselves, and if they get rich, based on their efforts, then good for them. And neither did I say that the livable wage in Haiti would be the livable wage in the US. I just can't get over the number of people who think that if they can't afford their smartphone and internet, they can't live.
Families with children in school during the pandemic, not in-person but virtual school, were pretty much SOL if they didn't have phone or internet. The fallbacks for computer use, libraries, were closed.
That's not my definition of livable.
To be fair, I think that more so illustrates that pandemic conditions are not liveable in the long term.
Of course, in a broad sense, that's true.
Since a pandemic (of some sort) has been predicted for a while, and near-misses have been perking, we might consider whether some level of crisis resilience is part of defining a living wage.
There's also a question of how much difficulty we want to our ought to impose on working people, as we define a living wage.
I was responding to a contention that a smart phone and internet service are not something that should be covered by a living wage.
I'm a skeptic about that, as a generality, because of the quite-common assumption among employers that employees have a phone (to call them in for extra shifts or whatever). It can even be difficult to apply for and get a job, without at least a phone number. A cell phone is not more expensive than a landline. A basic smart phone doesn't add much to the cost. (I still have a basic landline, because my house is in a mystery dead zone; and I also have a pretty spiffy smart phone/cell plan, so I'm in a position to compare costs here.)
On the school front, the main ways some school systems here involve parents is via online "parent portals" or email contact with the teacher. Can one call? Sure, with access to a phone - I guess the parent could borrow one? And they could use the library computer to email (when there's not a pandemic, if there's one reasonably close, etc.). Can one visit the school? Sure. Need to take time off work? Yeah, one could do that if necessary, but for some that's risky in terms of employment.
For medical care, even government subsidized, how does that get scheduled, how do you get your medical records like test results, etc.? Same kind of complications.
So, repeating: How much difficulty is acceptable before something would be considered part of a living wage, in a developed-world situation?
(Rhetorical question, obviously. I'm not proposing any particular answer, either, just suggesting that a facile "smart phone and internet are not needed to live", in a developed country, is easy to assert, and I think it gets a little more complicated on a nuanced think-through.)
I rarely talk about politics or public policy issues online. The mainstream social networks facilitate slogan-slinging, not thoughtful conversation. (Anything longer than a sentence or two is TL;DR, in common perception, it seems.) That's part of the dumbing down of mainstream public-policy discourse. People get dug into their slogans, and even real life discourse becomes impossible.
I'm willing to get into it a bit here because folks are more willing to read, consider, reply with useful information and insights, not just slogans (mostly).
Any real-world public policy problem is complex, nuanced, IMO. They're "systems problems" (I don't mean computer systems, I mean the whole interaction of all the pieces, including human behavior, incentive structures, issues of tradeoffs of benefits between subgroups, more.) I have huge respect for those few people who are still taking a public-servant perspective who're still willing to engage in their professional roles in public policy, amidst the slogans (and increasingly doxing and death threats!).
I don't have a handy ideology or abstract philosophy to tell me how to answer these questions. ("Every pot on its own bottom" or "basic living necessities are a human right", as examples.) I believe humans get one shot at life, other humans are pretty much all we have, and from a moral perspective it would be a really good thing if systems were such that most people didn't lead very difficult lives, unless they pretty specifically and individually have done things that consistently put them in those circumstances.
Developed countries, or at least the one I live in? Phone seems like part of a living wage. Increasingly, convenient internet access is at least close, if not there already. Again, we're talking *wage*, and I think implicitly meaning full-time wage or at least close, so we're talking about people willing and able to work.1 -
I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
Well then come to Italy. That's what they're doing here and guess what? People take advantage of the generosity of the government---Surprise!
PS: And our taxes are very high.1 -
Why not? Survival, as in basic food, shelter and clothing, is cheap enough in first-world countries that the government providing it wouldn't mean a huge increase on my taxes.Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Well, personally, I'm quite cool with giving everyone a free ride on surviving.Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
NO!!!
Nobody deserves a free ride (assuming they are physically/mentally able to work/care for a family).
Different strokes for different folks.
Why if they are able to work?
ETA: and beyond the extra tax burden, it's none of my business.
Well crap have the government send me enough for a new Tesla or whatever, it won't be a huge increase in your taxes.
Man has had to work since the beginning of time for food and shelter or go without and suffer the consequences. Just because "we can" doesn't mean we should let able body/mind people leach off society long term.
What is a good reason for the government to pay an able bodied/mind person to sit around long term as opposed to them funding their existence? Please note I already mentioned care of children/relatives would be a valid reason.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
Well then come to Italy. That's what they're doing here and guess what? People take advantage of the generosity of the government---Surprise!
PS: And our taxes are very high.
And everyone who works and has to pay Italy's high taxes doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor fully due to the leaches.
Pathetic.1 -
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
Well then come to Italy. That's what they're doing here and guess what? People take advantage of the generosity of the government---Surprise!
PS: And our taxes are very high.
And everyone who works and has to pay Italy's high taxes doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor fully due to the leaches.
Pathetic.
What's really sad here is that businesses work up to a certain point, because after that the tax burden is too heavy. Also, businesses hire as little as possible because once hired, you cannot fire an employee for any reason. They are yours for life. The benefits for every employee are very costly and then you are caught in a trap as the government raises those benefits constantly. I, myself, really need help cleaning but will never hire anyone again. I do what I can myself. What I had to pay (with benefits) for 4 hours of work a week was ridiculous. When cleaning days fell on Christmas and New Years I had to pay for those days and clean myself. Workers here also get what is called "the 13th month" where at the end of the year you must pay them an extra months wages--some also get a "14th month" in the summer. Vacation time is also very generous here. It's a month to start and then lots of holidays.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions