Living Wage
5stringjeff
Posts: 790 Member
PROPOSITION: Governments should guarantee their citizens a living wage.
Yes? No? Thoughts?
Yes? No? Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
How about people should be willing to work to earn their wages? If someone is willing to work and work hard, fine, they should get a living wage. If someone is unable to work, they should be supported as well. People who are unwilling to work and are able, should not be guaranteed a living wage.0
-
How about people should be willing to work to earn their wages? If someone is willing to work and work hard, fine, they should get a living wage. If someone is unable to work, they should be supported as well. People who are unwilling to work and are able, should not be guaranteed a living wage.
The word "wage" implies that they are working. Nobody calls welfare "wages."0 -
Define "Living Wage". Is it a wage where you can afford the basic necessities of the area? As in food, shelter, clothing, transportation, basic health care (what I am considering basic healthcare is being able to walk in and afford going into places like urgent care or minute clinic type places when sick or getting a check up)? Or is it all the aforementioned and then more (ie, cars, tv's, vacations)? How one answers your question is dependent on how one defines it.0
-
How about people should be willing to work to earn their wages? If someone is willing to work and work hard, fine, they should get a living wage. If someone is unable to work, they should be supported as well. People who are unwilling to work and are able, should not be guaranteed a living wage.
The word "wage" implies that they are working. Nobody calls welfare "wages."
Some people would argue that... Who determines what a living wage is though? Should the wage change from city to city, county to county? For example, the town I live in in Northern Michigan is pretty reasonable. One could live here, not well, but could live off of minimum wage. You take that same person and drop them in some of the Southern counties in the state and they wouldn't be able to afford shelter, much less anything else.0 -
That's a great point... living wages are also dependent on the local economies. I live around Fort Worth, we have decent cost of living... but if we were to live in Plano. Southlake or McKinney (each of these is usually in the top 3-5 ranked cities on where people should live) we would have to make more money to live there or do with less.0
-
PROPOSITION: Governments should guarantee their citizens a living wage.
Yes? No? Thoughts?
If only it were a yes or no question...
What is a living wage? When you say guarantee their citizens a living wage do you really mean guarantee them a job? Or a living wage for just existing? Or a base rate when they are employed? Which government? Federal? State? Local?0 -
Always remember, the more a company pays the people to work there, the more they must charge for their products. Are you willing to pay more, so others can make more?0
-
Yes. A living wage will be paid out by either corporations or by taxpayers in the form of food stamps, public housing, and healthcare. Or people will be denied these things and will riot and therefore it will be paid out in the form of prison space and more police in the streets.
Why should any company benefit from a full time worker's labor and not even pay enough for that worker to have a place to live, enough food to eat, and medical care, much less have a few small joys in life, and save a bit of money so their kids can go to college? How is that not slavery?
Before someone says let them go to college and get a better job, if everyone did that there would be even less good jobs to go around and of course who would scrub the public toilets and sell you your nasty fast food? Hypocrites. Someone has to work these jobs. Society should not treat them with contempt by allowing them to be abused. And workers being abused should not tolerate it.0 -
Always remember, the more a company pays the people to work there, the more they must charge for their products. Are you willing to pay more, so others can make more?
isn't this an argument for shipping all of our manufacturing overseas and out of country?0 -
Always remember, the more a company pays the people to work there, the more they must charge for their products. Are you willing to pay more, so others can make more?
isn't this an argument for shipping all of our manufacturing overseas and out of country?
Yeah, you'd think Nikes wouldn't cost over 100 bucks given they're made in Indonesian sweatshops.
The truth is, if a company can sell something for far more than it costs to make they will and they'll pocket the profit. So low wages doesn't necessarily mean higher prices. It might just mean some people who have more than enough already can't afford that third Summer home this year.0 -
An artificial wage floor will cause job losses. I'm not against a minimum wage, but there is a balance to be struck with this issue.0
-
Always remember, the more a company pays the people to work there, the more they must charge for their products. Are you willing to pay more, so others can make more?
The problem is that products don't just go up for some people. They go up for everyone. Suddenly that "living wage" is no longer enough because everything costs more. So you have to increase wages again but this causes prices to go up again. Looks to me like an ugly never ending cycle of inflation.0 -
No.
American government is supposed to stay out of our way, guaranteeing our freedom to pursue happiness. We are all free to go achieve as much as we can given the free K-12 education that is provided to us all, our talents and willingness to work.
As we ask more and more of our government, we strip away our freedoms. We can't guarantee the outcome of people's lives ,and we shouldn't be trying.
America is great because of the possibility of shining stars, outstanding people. We all need to quit being so mad and jealous of others' success and go get some of our own. Asking the government to level the playing field is harmful to us all, and it is keeping an entire segment of the population dependent on the government instead of allowing them to locate their bootstraps.0 -
if everyone did that there would be even less good jobs to go around and of course who would scrub the public toilets and sell you your nasty fast food?
IMHO, scrubbing toilets and selling fast food should not be lifelong careers. There is rightly a distinction between careers and part-time jobs.
I started in the work force by working for minimum wage at Wendy's. I noticed really fast how hard I was working for a small check. I decided I didn't want to struggle and scrimp all my lfe long. So I went to college. Now I am a teacher. earning a wage I can live on, and enjoying the career I selected. If Wendy's paid me enough to satisfy my 19-year old self, I woul not have been motivated financially to get my *kitten* back into school.0 -
Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be jobs that supported families. These jobs are unskilled jobs that the expectation is that it is kids doing them, people going to school, people looking for something extra, not what supports a family of four. These jobs aren't supposed to be lifelong careers.0
-
To respond to the question I posted, I do not believe it's the government's responsibility to provide any minimum level of wages to any worker. What a person makes at his/her job should be tied to the benefit he gives to his/her employer.0
-
No.
American government is supposed to stay out of our way, guaranteeing our freedom to pursue happiness. We are all free to go achieve as much as we can given the free K-12 education that is provided to us all, our talents and willingness to work.
As we ask more and more of our government, we strip away our freedoms. We can't guarantee the outcome of people's lives ,and we shouldn't be trying.
America is great because of the possibility of shining stars, outstanding people. We all need to quit being so mad and jealous of others' success and go get some of our own. Asking the government to level the playing field is harmful to us all, and it is keeping an entire segment of the population dependent on the government instead of allowing them to locate their bootstraps.
Agreed... it's like JFK stated "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country." While I get that minimum wages are unsustainable, like everyone else here I never for once thought they were supposed to sustain a family... is it necessary sometimes, yeah... but if a couple of blogs I have read have even an ounce of truth to them... it can be done without the Government "helping out".0 -
if everyone did that there would be even less good jobs to go around and of course who would scrub the public toilets and sell you your nasty fast food?
IMHO, scrubbing toilets and selling fast food should not be lifelong careers. There is rightly a distinction between careers and part-time jobs.
I started in the work force by working for minimum wage at Wendy's. I noticed really fast how hard I was working for a small check. I decided I didn't want to struggle and scrimp all my lfe long. So I went to college. Now I am a teacher. earning a wage I can live on, and enjoying the career I selected. If Wendy's paid me enough to satisfy my 19-year old self, I woul not have been motivated financially to get my *kitten* back into school.
Notice I clarified my first post with 'full time'. I was not speaking of part time workers. Many do work full time in minimum wage jobs and those are the only jobs they can get.
Not everyone can go to college or will do well in college.
If everyone could go and did go there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around and again, no clean toilets, no one to serve your burger.
I don't care if someone works minimum wage for a year and moves on, they still need a living wage. If they aren't paid one they end up on food stamps and in the ER when sick and often in public housing which means you're getting ripped off. Your tax dollars make up the difference so some corporation can profit more. It isn't in your best interest for the minimum wage to be below a living wage. It costs you money.0 -
if everyone did that there would be even less good jobs to go around and of course who would scrub the public toilets and sell you your nasty fast food?
IMHO, scrubbing toilets and selling fast food should not be lifelong careers. There is rightly a distinction between careers and part-time jobs.
I started in the work force by working for minimum wage at Wendy's. I noticed really fast how hard I was working for a small check. I decided I didn't want to struggle and scrimp all my lfe long. So I went to college. Now I am a teacher. earning a wage I can live on, and enjoying the career I selected. If Wendy's paid me enough to satisfy my 19-year old self, I woul not have been motivated financially to get my *kitten* back into school.
Notice I clarified my first post with 'full time'. I was not speaking of part time workers. Many do work full time in minimum wage jobs and those are the only jobs they can get.
Not everyone can go to college or will do well in college.
If everyone could go and did go there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around and again, no clean toilets, no one to serve your burger.
I don't care if someone works minimum wage for a year and moves on, they still need a living wage. If they aren't paid one they end up on food stamps and in the ER when sick and often in public housing which means you're getting ripped off. Your tax dollars make up the difference so some corporation can profit more. It isn't in your best interest for the minimum wage to be below a living wage. It costs you money.
I find it humorous you think a corporation is going to cover higher wages by cutting into their profit..0 -
if everyone did that there would be even less good jobs to go around and of course who would scrub the public toilets and sell you your nasty fast food?
IMHO, scrubbing toilets and selling fast food should not be lifelong careers. There is rightly a distinction between careers and part-time jobs.
I started in the work force by working for minimum wage at Wendy's. I noticed really fast how hard I was working for a small check. I decided I didn't want to struggle and scrimp all my lfe long. So I went to college. Now I am a teacher. earning a wage I can live on, and enjoying the career I selected. If Wendy's paid me enough to satisfy my 19-year old self, I woul not have been motivated financially to get my *kitten* back into school.
Notice I clarified my first post with 'full time'. I was not speaking of part time workers. Many do work full time in minimum wage jobs and those are the only jobs they can get.
Not everyone can go to college or will do well in college.
If everyone could go and did go there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around and again, no clean toilets, no one to serve your burger.
I don't care if someone works minimum wage for a year and moves on, they still need a living wage. If they aren't paid one they end up on food stamps and in the ER when sick and often in public housing which means you're getting ripped off. Your tax dollars make up the difference so some corporation can profit more. It isn't in your best interest for the minimum wage to be below a living wage. It costs you money.
I find it humorous you think a corporation is going to cover higher wages by cutting into their profit..
If not they can be forced to.
It's time we all told corporations if they want to do business in our societies they will have to contribute, or at least not cause harm.0 -
Minimum wage, part-time workers would still be available to scrub the toilets and serve burgers. I just pointed out that if someone thinks that they will make a career, or a "living wage" off that job, even at 40 hrs, they're sadly mistaken. Ad increasing the minimum wage would affect so many other parts of our economy, the increased purchasing power would be temporary at best. Companies would adjust prices to maintain their profit margins immediately.
It's a cop-out and a shabby excuse to say that "not everyone can get a better job". Of course they can. They just have to want to expend the effort. Is it easy? Nope. Just like weight loss. It's worth it, however.
I find it sad that you think corporations (who provide the jobs in the first place) need to be admonished to "contribute". The irony in that sentence is choking me.0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Or much of Europe, where economies are more controlled and the standard of living is much better than that of the US? Although lately they're starting to see the results of allowing outsourcing as well, and those results are bad for their citizens.
But I'm incredibly entertained as well, by all the people in this thread arguing vehemently against their own interests. Man, if you guys want to keep paying for food stamps for full time workers so CEOs and trust fund kiddies can have more money, be my guest. Whatever makes you happy.0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Or much of Europe, where economies are more controlled and the standard of living is much better than that of the US? Although lately they're starting to see the results of allowing outsourcing as well, and those results are bad for their citizens.
But I'm incredibly entertained as well, by all the people in this thread arguing vehemently against their own interests. Man, if you guys want to keep paying for food stamps for full time workers so CEOs and trust fund kiddies can have more money, be my guest. Whatever makes you happy.
The UN disagrees with you. What do they know?!!
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Tables.pdf0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Or much of Europe, where economies are more controlled and the standard of living is much better than that of the US? Although lately they're starting to see the results of allowing outsourcing as well, and those results are bad for their citizens.
But I'm incredibly entertained as well, by all the people in this thread arguing vehemently against their own interests. Man, if you guys want to keep paying for food stamps for full time workers so CEOs and trust fund kiddies can have more money, be my guest. Whatever makes you happy.
The UN disagrees with you. What do they know?!!
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Tables.pdf
What are you talking about? Norway and the Netherlands in particular are socialist and they rank higher than the US. I'm a bit puzzled about Australia, though. Never seen it ranked so high. Come to think of it, never seen the US ranked so high before either, and I check these standard of living type stats regularly.
1 Norway 0.943 81.1 12.6 17.3 47,557 6 0.975
2 Australia 0.929 81.9 12.0 18.0 34,431 16 0.979
3 Netherlands 0.910 80.7 11.6 b 16.8 36,402 9 0.944
4 United States 0.910 78.5 12.4 16.0 43,017 6 0.931
Edit: To be fair, Norway doesn't have a minimum wage. Their unions don't want one because they're still strong enough to negotiate even better pay without one.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/31/europe-minimum-wage-lifestyle-wages.html
The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark don't don't have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. "The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down," says Chater.
Also from the article:
If you factored in the United States, where the minimum wage stands at approximately $1,380 (or 961 euros) a month, Americans would rank in seventh place among European nations after Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the U.K. and Ireland, according to data from the European Commission's statistical office, Eurostat, which adjusts and equalizes wages based on their purchasing power.0 -
What are you talking about? Norway and the Netherlands in particular are socialist and they rank higher than the US. I'm a bit puzzled about Australia, though. Never seen it ranked so high. Come to think of it, never seen the US ranked so high before either, and I check these standard of living type stats regularly.
1 Norway 0.943 81.1 12.6 17.3 47,557 6 0.975
2 Australia 0.929 81.9 12.0 18.0 34,431 16 0.979
3 Netherlands 0.910 80.7 11.6 b 16.8 36,402 9 0.944
4 United States 0.910 78.5 12.4 16.0 43,017 6 0.931
You said much of Europe ranks higher then the US and I linked that document to prove otherwise. In fact, only Norway ranks higher then the US from Europe. Netherlands has the same ranking as the US but it starts with an N so it appears first in the list. There is this little thing called the European debt crisis... You know that thing where European nations thought they could pay for everything for their citizens on credit and got called on it (which may eventually happen here ;p)
Norway has a population of 5 million people. The US has a population of 320 million people. Apples and Oranges...0 -
What are you talking about? Norway and the Netherlands in particular are socialist and they rank higher than the US. I'm a bit puzzled about Australia, though. Never seen it ranked so high. Come to think of it, never seen the US ranked so high before either, and I check these standard of living type stats regularly.
1 Norway 0.943 81.1 12.6 17.3 47,557 6 0.975
2 Australia 0.929 81.9 12.0 18.0 34,431 16 0.979
3 Netherlands 0.910 80.7 11.6 b 16.8 36,402 9 0.944
4 United States 0.910 78.5 12.4 16.0 43,017 6 0.931
You said much of Europe ranks higher then the US and I linked that document to prove otherwise. In fact, only Norway ranks higher then the US from Europe. Netherlands has the same ranking as the US but it starts with an N so it appears first in the list. There is this little thing called the European debt crisis... You know that thing where European nations thought they could pay for everything for their citizens on credit and got called on it (which may eventually happen here ;p)
Norway has a population of 5 million people. The US has a population of 320 million people. Apples and Oranges...
Like I said, it took me by surprise. I have never seen the US ranked so high. It's usually down in the teens.
What does population have to do with it again? The US is huge with many natural resources and last I heard we're the most productive nation on Earth. We should have it better than Norway, not worse.
And again, back on the real topic:
Please explain why you want your tax dollars to go to food stamps for full time workers so that employers can pay less than a living wage?0 -
What are you talking about? Norway and the Netherlands in particular are socialist and they rank higher than the US. I'm a bit puzzled about Australia, though. Never seen it ranked so high. Come to think of it, never seen the US ranked so high before either, and I check these standard of living type stats regularly.
1 Norway 0.943 81.1 12.6 17.3 47,557 6 0.975
2 Australia 0.929 81.9 12.0 18.0 34,431 16 0.979
3 Netherlands 0.910 80.7 11.6 b 16.8 36,402 9 0.944
4 United States 0.910 78.5 12.4 16.0 43,017 6 0.931
You said much of Europe ranks higher then the US and I linked that document to prove otherwise. In fact, only Norway ranks higher then the US from Europe. Netherlands has the same ranking as the US but it starts with an N so it appears first in the list. There is this little thing called the European debt crisis... You know that thing where European nations thought they could pay for everything for their citizens on credit and got called on it (which may eventually happen here ;p)
Norway has a population of 5 million people. The US has a population of 320 million people. Apples and Oranges...
Like I said, it took me by surprise. I have never seen the US ranked so high. It's usually down in the teens.
What does population have to do with it again? The US is huge with many natural resources and last I heard we're the most productive nation on Earth. We should have it better than Norway, not worse.
And again, back on the real topic:
Please explain why you want your tax dollars to go to food stamps for full time workers so that employers can pay less than a living wage?
Population has everything to do with it. Problems become harder to manage when they become larger. I think we can agree that poverty exists everywhere. Lets assume both countries have 10% poverty. Norway has to take care of 500k people whereas the US would have to take care of 30 million people. In addition to the basic needs both countries have to provide for they also have to deal with administration and corruption. By those number the US will have 60 times the administrative costs and 60 times the cost due to corruption.
Your second question is loaded. You are basing it on your assumption that the money will come out of the greedy corporation's coffers. The reality is the cost will be passed to the consumer in higher prices. So what you are really asking me is do I want current taxes with current prices or do I want current taxes (because the money saved on food stamps will get reappropriated for something else) with higher prices. It's a pretty easy choice.0
