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
-
In theory, there is nothing else I could not do without internet/cell phone, but it's not that easy to find the numbers for things these days without one or the other. Yeah, I could go to the library (although they were closed for a while during the pandemic).
I always find it so much quicker to just look it up in the phone book. There's one at work and one at home. Although, much to my chagrin, I need reading glasses for the white pages now... they must have decreased the font, it can't be my eyes.
Here (by which I mean where I am specifically, not necessarily the whole US), we don't get paper white pages anymore (at least not automatically - I don't know if they exist on request, but not that I'm aware of). AFAIK they only covered landlines anyway: A large fraction of people don't have landlines anymore, just cell phones, so they'd be unlisted.5 -
So much confusion surrounding taxes. S-corporations must pay corporate officers a salary, C-Corp pays all employees salaries (including owners), partnerships don't pay taxes but the partners do (including social security and medicare if the partner actively participates), and the self-employed pay taxes (including social security and medicare) on the net profit. There are exceptions to all of the above. Any questions? Go to irs.gov.
If you have employees and are not paying a living wage, how much are the employees getting in subsidies? If they are getting subsidies and/or refundable tax credits the rest of the tax paying public is subsidizing the business.
Where I live large areas have no cell service so you get a landline and a phone book and very strange solicitation calls.5 -
In theory, there is nothing else I could not do without internet/cell phone, but it's not that easy to find the numbers for things these days without one or the other. Yeah, I could go to the library (although they were closed for a while during the pandemic).
I always find it so much quicker to just look it up in the phone book. There's one at work and one at home. Although, much to my chagrin, I need reading glasses for the white pages now... they must have decreased the font, it can't be my eyes.
Dang, can't imagine looking in the phone book vs looking on a phone/computer would be faster if someone sat me down with both in front of me.
Each to his/her own.
2 -
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.
Being able to pay their rent, having food on their table, being insured, being able to pay into their retirement and having a bit left at the end for personal use. At the bare minimum.4 -
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.2 -
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.3 -
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.
3 -
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.5 -
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.2 -
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.6 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions