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”?
Replies
-
snowflake954 wrote: »
Off the top of my head:Theoldguy1 wrote: »(snip)
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.
- evening out the balance of power between employees and employers without infringing on the rights of either
- promoting healthier, fairer competition in society by not forcing anyone to take ''a job, any job'' on account of an unlucky roll to starting wealth during character creation
- sanctity of human life and all that jazzTheoldguy1 wrote: »The number of entitled slackers/leaches around makes me sad for this country and the world.
This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Unfortunately, it seems like in the places with very inadequate jobs/pay, where they don't or can't pay people to sit around, eventually you have civil unrest, upheaval, maybe humanitarian crises, and/or a class of citizens who use their time/education to reach out into other countries, hack computer systems, run romance or "Nigerian prince" scams, extort gift cards or money transfers under threats, or locally establish organized crime such as drug cartels, a rep for letting tourists sexually exploit vulnerable people, and other fun stuff.
I'm not saying I think the right answer is to pay people to sit around, or that the right answer is not to pay people to sit around. I think neither of those is great, as an extreme.
Obviously, reasonably safe work at a livable wage, for anyone capable of working, is a better idea . . . perhaps kind of a balance point between extremes.
Also, not always easy to achieve.
What is really interesting to me is that " helping the poor" has become a business (at least here, in Italy). There is big money available supported by decent people who want to help--however the biggest chunk goes to the non profits and organizers, not the poor. It used to be, in the olden days, that you saw or knew a poor person and directly gave them help. No more.1 -
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
2 -
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.2 -
In the Canadian province I live in, welfare for the “able-bodied” is the equivalent of 515 USD a month. Not many people are on that program, we're talking about 3-4% of the active population. And if this program didn't exist I don't think these people would work anyway.
1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.
The Canadian system, or the system in the province of Quebec is somewhat similar, we have “free” daycare, parental leave and so on...0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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).
Wow, surprised the disagree-ers are jumping on this opinion.
The number of entitled slackers/leaches around makes me sad for this country and the world.
Living is not entitlement. People who work full time should be able to live.
And if you don't want to increase wages for whatever reason, you're more than welcome to make up the difference with your tax dollars.
I was responding to a comment supporting a universal payment, no work required.
I personally believe that life has value, we're all in this together, and we shouldn't let each other die in the street of hunger, exposure, and disease if we can easily avoid it. We're not wild animals.
Some people would rather blame than help. Words like "entitlement" are useful for that end.
So you think someone who is capable to work should be given a guaranteed income long that would support them for sitting on their *kitten*?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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).
Wow, surprised the disagree-ers are jumping on this opinion.
The number of entitled slackers/leaches around makes me sad for this country and the world.
Living is not entitlement. People who work full time should be able to live.
And if you don't want to increase wages for whatever reason, you're more than welcome to make up the difference with your tax dollars.
I was responding to a comment supporting a universal payment, no work required.
I personally believe that life has value, we're all in this together, and we shouldn't let each other die in the street of hunger, exposure, and disease if we can easily avoid it. We're not wild animals.
Some people would rather blame than help. Words like "entitlement" are useful for that end.
So you think someone who is capable to work should be given a guaranteed income long that would support them for sitting on their *kitten*?
Honestly, I've worked with some people that I think society would be better off paying to stay at home, and not get in others' way . . . but that's an expression of irritation, not a well-thought-out public policy position. (It also has zero to do with defining a "livable wage". *If* we were to collectively decide there should be universal basic income, how much that should be is not exactly the same question as how much a livable wage should be. I agree that incentives to work productively should be present, one way or another.)
The whole issue would be more pure, IMO, if we were just talking about adults, and not their dependent children: Raising a bunch of children in poverty just perpetuates the same stupid problems into future generations. Yes, some of those parents are not a good character or behavior influence. Under-nourishing and under-educating the kids doesn't improve the outcome. I don't know how we unwind that stuff.
Again, though, paying people to stay at home is not the topic of the thread. "What is a livable wage" is the topic of the thread.
A few posts in, OP mentioned ". . . a family member that . . . owns a 250k condo and spends more on food than anyone I know. I can’t ask her for risk of making things weird, so I’m trying to understand what she is complaining about." (my elisions). It's interesting that the thread has gone more in the other direction, toward those without jobs at all; and toward details like whether a smart phone is necessary. I'd speculate that there are people at many income levels who feel like they're short on money.
*IF* we were defining a low-end livable wage, really, it seems like it would be some range of annual income, not so much whether people need a cell phone or a TV or whatever. Different low-wage workers need different things, so would spend their "livable wage" in different ways. Modern gig worker like an Uber driver? Pretty sure they're going to need that smart phone. Some other jobs, maybe not the smart phone, but they need something the Uber driver doesn't. People have different needs, without even getting into wants.
If someone can actually afford their $250k condo (in a place where that isn't a literal shack), and if they spend lots of money on food, but they're complaining about not having a livable wage, I have to admit, I think they probably have some kind of individual personal problem.
Quite a few people are just not very good at managing money, and not all of them are earning what I'd call a sub-livable wage. Good and bad money management happens at all income levels. Being bad at handling money doesn't necessarily imply being bad at any and all types of productive labor, either. (Some of my IT colleagues, decent earners, were not very good at handling their money . . . .).0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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).
Wow, surprised the disagree-ers are jumping on this opinion.
The number of entitled slackers/leaches around makes me sad for this country and the world.
Living is not entitlement. People who work full time should be able to live.
And if you don't want to increase wages for whatever reason, you're more than welcome to make up the difference with your tax dollars.
I was responding to a comment supporting a universal payment, no work required.
I personally believe that life has value, we're all in this together, and we shouldn't let each other die in the street of hunger, exposure, and disease if we can easily avoid it. We're not wild animals.
Some people would rather blame than help. Words like "entitlement" are useful for that end.
So you think someone who is capable to work should be given a guaranteed income long that would support them for sitting on their *kitten*?
I know a lady who's physically capable of working, but unable to because the school where she lives isn't able to properly care for her autistic son, and she can't make enough working in a small town to pay for the child care that would enable her to go to work.
Again, I think society should look good opportunities rather than excuses to blame. I know this is a problem for a lot of people, it's holding back labor force participation, educational attainment, and has a lot of costs and an obvious solution. 🙂3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.
The Canadian system, or the system in the province of Quebec is somewhat similar, we have “free” daycare, parental leave and so on...
We have "free" no day care. Instead of that lady I mentioned going to work like she wants to, and paying taxes, she is a financial cost on society. Tax payers are funding two humans through welfare programs.
Isaac Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, there are costs of doing things but there are also costs of not doing things, and to make wise decisions you have to weigh them both. Not having affordable day care forces parents to put their time and effort into working only for the good of their own children in a way that doesn't contribute to GDP.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
NorthCascades wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.
The Canadian system, or the system in the province of Quebec is somewhat similar, we have “free” daycare, parental leave and so on...
We have "free" no day care. Instead of that lady I mentioned going to work like she wants to, and paying taxes, she is a financial cost on society. Tax payers are funding two humans through welfare programs.
Isaac Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, there are costs of doing things but there are also costs of not doing things, and to make wise decisions you have to weigh them both. Not having affordable day care forces parents to put their time and effort into working only for the good of their own children in a way that doesn't contribute to GDP.
I never said anything about the merit of that system, i'm simply saying we are very similar to nordic countries.
And if we bring this logic to its logical conclusion , why don't we abolish the government or any form of taxation?
You want taxation, you just don't agree on where it should be spent.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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).
Wow, surprised the disagree-ers are jumping on this opinion.
The number of entitled slackers/leaches around makes me sad for this country and the world.
Living is not entitlement. People who work full time should be able to live.
And if you don't want to increase wages for whatever reason, you're more than welcome to make up the difference with your tax dollars.
I was responding to a comment supporting a universal payment, no work required.
I personally believe that life has value, we're all in this together, and we shouldn't let each other die in the street of hunger, exposure, and disease if we can easily avoid it. We're not wild animals.
Some people would rather blame than help. Words like "entitlement" are useful for that end.
So you think someone who is capable to work should be given a guaranteed income long that would support them for sitting on their *kitten*?
I know a lady who's physically capable of working, but unable to because the school where she lives isn't able to properly care for her autistic son, and she can't make enough working in a small town to pay for the child care that would enable her to go to work.
Again, I think society should look good opportunities rather than excuses to blame. I know this is a problem for a lot of people, it's holding back labor force participation, educational attainment, and has a lot of costs and an obvious solution. 🙂
If you look back a my comments I specifically said care of children/relatives would be a valid reason for government income assistance. Paying people long term to sit home on one's *kitten* would not be IMO.
Copy of my earlier comment:
"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 -
I'm ready to just get a motorhome, live on the "streets", and just pay for it, food, etc. I can shower at the gym, and eat just enough to stay fit. I could do all of this at under $2000 a month. My biggest cost would probably be just gas for the vehicle.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Dees_Apples_ wrote: »I feel like 50k annually after taxes is enough to where a person may feel comfortable and not like they're up to their neck in water. As a single person with no children to support, that is.
You can certainly survive on less but notice the vocab. 'Survive' is not 'thrive'.
If I wanted to have children I'd be inclined to first seek a way to earn even more than 50k after taxes, annually.
Buuuut.. as snowflake954 pointed out, a lot of variables which could change things are at play. Location with their respective living expenses, whether you already have children, etc etc
In the Midwest, a family of four can live quite comfortably (not just surviving) on that amount if they're smart with their money.1 -
Dees_Apples_ wrote: »Because there are so many variables at play, I'd like to answer this topic once more but without throwing out currency amounts
I consider a "livable wage," or "good life," is when you earn enough to have shelter, transportation, and be able to buy just about whatever food you want without worrying about its cost. Plus having enough to buy something nice (within reason) once in a while. Anything above these things are luxury.
I grew up in poverty and going back to a point of living just to work gives me anxiety. I'd recommend saving at least 3 months of living expenses, preferably even 6+, if you're in a position to be able to do so. It really takes an immense amount of financial worry off of you, to know an emergency car repair or whatever, won't break you. If you can manage all this while living the aforementioned "good life," I'd say you're doing pretty good.
You lost me at "whatever food you want without worrying about its cost."
I think if you have so much income that you no longer have to manage how much you spend on food, you've well surpassed a liveable wage.
I'd have to be pretty wealthy in order to allow myself the privilege of having ribeye as often as I'd like to have it (which is every day).
Doing with pork and chicken most days but still eating well despite not having all the steak is certainly liveable in my opinion.
There's a huge financial difference between "I can afford to eat well" and "I can afford to eat whatever I want."1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dees_Apples_ wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Dees_Apples_ wrote: »I feel like 50k annually after taxes is enough to where a person may feel comfortable and not like they're up to their neck in water. As a single person with no children to support, that is.
You can certainly survive on less but notice the vocab. 'Survive' is not 'thrive'.
If I wanted to have children I'd be inclined to first seek a way to earn even more than 50k after taxes, annually.
Buuuut.. as snowflake954 pointed out, a lot of variables which could change things are at play. Location with their respective living expenses, whether you already have children, etc etc
In the Midwest, a family of four can live quite comfortably (not just surviving) on that amount if they're smart with their money.
Again, it does depend a lot on location. For me, having a family of my own (I've never been married and have no children) with an income of 50k after taxes sounds like something I'd probably want no part of. Always tightly budgeting my money does not sound like the life for me 😕. It's a personal choice, but unless I found a way to earn more than ~50k after taxes, annually, then I'd want no kids of my own or at most just 1 kid. I'd rather stay childless and have the freedom to be loose with my money than to have a family and pinch pennies everywhere I can just to get by.Carlos_421 wrote: »Dees_Apples_ wrote: »
You lost me at "whatever food you want without worrying about its cost."
I think if you have so much income that you no longer have to manage how much you spend on food, you've well surpassed a liveable wage.
I'd have to be pretty wealthy in order to allow myself the privilege of having ribeye as often as I'd like to have it (which is every day).
Doing with pork and chicken most days but still eating well despite not having all the steak is certainly liveable in my opinion.
There's a huge financial difference between "I can afford to eat well" and "I can afford to eat whatever I want."
Touche. Maybe I should've added "within reason" to "whatever food you want without worrying about its cost." One could want fine dining once per week, and that bill alone can easily be $500+, lol. Lucky for me, I don't crave steak all that often, and although I've never tried fine dining, I have a sneaking suspicion a hearty meal at an all-you-can-eat country style or Chinese buffet would be more satisfying to me.
Having preferences is fine but the topic is "what is liveable."
I think we can all agree that an income level that allows for us to have all of our "wants" without having to budget or manage our money wisely is far more than just "liveable."
I'd even argue it far surpasses "comfortable."
There's a big difference between "I can live on this income" and "I can afford to live how I want without regard to my finances."0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Dees_Apples_ wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Dees_Apples_ wrote: »I feel like 50k annually after taxes is enough to where a person may feel comfortable and not like they're up to their neck in water. As a single person with no children to support, that is.
You can certainly survive on less but notice the vocab. 'Survive' is not 'thrive'.
If I wanted to have children I'd be inclined to first seek a way to earn even more than 50k after taxes, annually.
Buuuut.. as snowflake954 pointed out, a lot of variables which could change things are at play. Location with their respective living expenses, whether you already have children, etc etc
In the Midwest, a family of four can live quite comfortably (not just surviving) on that amount if they're smart with their money.
Again, it does depend a lot on location. For me, having a family of my own (I've never been married and have no children) with an income of 50k after taxes sounds like something I'd probably want no part of. Always tightly budgeting my money does not sound like the life for me 😕. It's a personal choice, but unless I found a way to earn more than ~50k after taxes, annually, then I'd want no kids of my own or at most just 1 kid. I'd rather stay childless and have the freedom to be loose with my money than to have a family and pinch pennies everywhere I can just to get by.Carlos_421 wrote: »Dees_Apples_ wrote: »
You lost me at "whatever food you want without worrying about its cost."
I think if you have so much income that you no longer have to manage how much you spend on food, you've well surpassed a liveable wage.
I'd have to be pretty wealthy in order to allow myself the privilege of having ribeye as often as I'd like to have it (which is every day).
Doing with pork and chicken most days but still eating well despite not having all the steak is certainly liveable in my opinion.
There's a huge financial difference between "I can afford to eat well" and "I can afford to eat whatever I want."
Touche. Maybe I should've added "within reason" to "whatever food you want without worrying about its cost." One could want fine dining once per week, and that bill alone can easily be $500+, lol. Lucky for me, I don't crave steak all that often, and although I've never tried fine dining, I have a sneaking suspicion a hearty meal at an all-you-can-eat country style or Chinese buffet would be more satisfying to me.
Having preferences is fine but the topic is "what is liveable."
I think we can all agree that an income level that allows for us to have all of our "wants" without having to budget or manage our money wisely is far more than just "liveable."
I'd even argue it far surpasses "comfortable."
There's a big difference between "I can live on this income" and "I can afford to live how I want without regard to my finances."
Totally agree and this is what I'm contemplating knowing I'm eventually going to be out of a job.0 -
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 have no idea how much you pay your employees or if it's livable? That is the topic, not "everyone needs to increase wages across the board?
If full time workers need government assistance for the basics, the wage isn't livable and you are essentially being subsidized by taxpayers for paying low wages.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dees_Apples_ wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.
The Canadian system, or the system in the province of Quebec is somewhat similar, we have “free” daycare, parental leave and so on...
We have "free" no day care. Instead of that lady I mentioned going to work like she wants to, and paying taxes, she is a financial cost on society. Tax payers are funding two humans through welfare programs.
Isaac Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, there are costs of doing things but there are also costs of not doing things, and to make wise decisions you have to weigh them both. Not having affordable day care forces parents to put their time and effort into working only for the good of their own children in a way that doesn't contribute to GDP.
Speaking of childcare.. the idea of both parents working and one of them giving their entire or nearly their entire pay to support childcare, is mind boggling to me. At that point why not just have one parent stay home so a stranger isn't raising their child?
A former coworker of mine with three kids paid more than she earned for in-home childcare (cheaper than paying for each of them to attend a daycare facility). A lot of people asked her the same question.
Her answer was that she wouldn't be able to leave the labour force for the number of years required for all three kids to attain school age and re-enter it again at the same salary, she'd end up back down closer to entry level wage. She was preserving her earning power (also her union seniority and vacation allotment, in this case). Because she had full health benefits, it also gave her husband the freedom to leave his employment and start his own business.7 -
Dees_Apples_ wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »
I mean... the country I live in does have social assistance programs open to single, able-bodied adults (though not liveable ones) and the system I outlined is more or less inspired by that of nordic countries (who generally have their kitten together)...snowflake954 wrote: »This sounds so wonderful unless you live in a place that does it and see what happens. Slowly you have more and more getting government supplements and fewer working. Not pretty.
Not really. Nordic countries are beginning to close their doors to immigrants because people are flooding there to take advantage of generous benefits. The cost of living there is very high.
It's too bad that we don't have someone from a Nordic country to weigh in on what they need as a "livable wage". Nothing is free--someone has to pay.
The Canadian system, or the system in the province of Quebec is somewhat similar, we have “free” daycare, parental leave and so on...
We have "free" no day care. Instead of that lady I mentioned going to work like she wants to, and paying taxes, she is a financial cost on society. Tax payers are funding two humans through welfare programs.
Isaac Newton told us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Similarly, there are costs of doing things but there are also costs of not doing things, and to make wise decisions you have to weigh them both. Not having affordable day care forces parents to put their time and effort into working only for the good of their own children in a way that doesn't contribute to GDP.
Speaking of childcare.. the idea of both parents working and one of them giving their entire or nearly their entire pay to support childcare, is mind boggling to me. At that point why not just have one parent stay home so a stranger isn't raising their child?
My wife considered this, though daycare for both of our kids was about half of her take home...so her leaving would have made a pretty big impact on our finances. There were a couple of reasons she declined. For one, being out of the workforce until they were actually in school would have substantially impacted her earning power and put her back to entry level after years of building her career in a field that is already hard to advance. She also thought she would probably go nuts with me being her only adult interaction day in and day out for five years +.
Ultimately, it was also a good thing for the kids. They enjoyed going and being able to play and interact with other kids everyday. They are 9 and 11 and they both still have friends they talk to and hang out with regularly from their daycare years. It was also a daycare/pre-school and each year up meant more learning time to playing time ratio in preparation for school. The daycare workers were also great and only strangers initially (which can feel kinda weird at first)...after five years you get to know them pretty good though and we still keep in touch with a couple of them. Many of them are still there as they have very low turnover and are rated one of the top daycare/pre-schools in the state.1 -
cwolfman13 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 have no idea how much you pay your employees or if it's livable? That is the topic, not "everyone needs to increase wages across the board?
If full time workers need government assistance for the basics, the wage isn't livable and you are essentially being subsidized by taxpayers for paying low wages.
In some cities, you can barely get a 1 bedroom apartment in a safe area for $2000 and in some it is higher (San Francisco, New York, LA). In these same cities gas is high too. Most business owners wouldn’t be able to afford to pay low skill workers like a fast food worker or cashier a “liveable wage” in these places. It is not that their business model sucks, just that in some places the cost of living is very high. I’m not sure what the solution is in these places.
1 -
£60-65k between the two of us. Renting not owning a property, no kids.0
-
@cwolfman13
I stayed home with my children before they became school age and paid a huge financial price. When I tried to find a job the interviewer's eyes would glaze over when I gave the reason for being out of the work force. I would have been more employable had I been incarcerated, in a coma or in a convent. I was finally hired as a seasonal clerk for the government even though I have a master's degree. It took 10 more years to finally get a professional position but by then any career prospects had stalled. I know there are woman out there who were more successful in re-entering the work force but my experience is far from unique.4 -
@cwolfman13
I stayed home with my children before they became school age and paid a huge financial price. When I tried to find a job the interviewer's eyes would glaze over when I gave the reason for being out of the work force. I would have been more employable had I been incarcerated, in a coma or in a convent. I was finally hired as a seasonal clerk for the government even though I have a master's degree. It took 10 more years to finally get a professional position but by then any career prospects had stalled. I know there are woman out there who were more successful in re-entering the work force but my experience is far from unique.
Yes, this was my wife's major concern. She is a Sociocultural Anthropologist and had been building her career for 10 years prior to us having children. It's not an easy career to make and even harder to get back if you leave for an extended period of time as opportunities are far more limited than for say...accounting which is my field.
I truly do think she would have gone mad as a full time stay at home mom until school age. We had children later in life relative to most of our friends and acquaintances (both 36 with our first)...most of our friends and acquaintances either have adult children or teenagers so it would have been difficult to organize any kind of social interactions for our kids and for her. She also has a passion for her career; it's not just a "job" and it would have killed her soul I think to walk away. We ultimately decided some compromise was needed and she eventually decided to reduce her work hours and pay to 3/4 time which has and continues to work out really well.0 -
Well, if you took away all the luxuries such as travel, eating out, etc. I could live on 20K a year. Maybe .
I have 2 dogs that can cost me 1K in a month of vet visits(side note: need to speak up more and just say no to my vet who wants to sell me this, that and everything else 
). House and car is paid for, TG.
For over 20 years I've had a policy of not getting any shots at the vet that were not required by law.
When my husky had cancer, the vet was charging $75 for a medication available at Walmart for $4 and they tried to make it sound more exotic by saying it had something to do with white blood cells when in fact it was just an antibiotic >.<
I told my now-ex to get a prescription for anything over $10 and we'd get it filled elsewhere. An independent pharmacy next to a hospital turned out to be cheaper than chains like CVS and had most things. I also sent away to Canada for some meds.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions