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: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I'm surprised this thread is still up...
If anyone's curious as to my particular brand of crackpottery, I rather like the idea of having no minimum wage at all but the government providing welfare that is sufficient to survive on for people with low or no income. It effectively accomplishes the same thing while reducing government interference in private business and allowing for more flexibility.
Well then come to Italy. That's what they're doing here and guess what? People take advantage of the generosity of the government---Surprise!
PS: And our taxes are very high.
And everyone who works and has to pay Italy's high taxes doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor fully due to the leaches.
Pathetic.
What's really sad here is that businesses work up to a certain point, because after that the tax burden is too heavy. Also, businesses hire as little as possible because once hired, you cannot fire an employee for any reason. They are yours for life. The benefits for every employee are very costly and then you are caught in a trap as the government raises those benefits constantly. I, myself, really need help cleaning but will never hire anyone again. I do what I can myself. What I had to pay (with benefits) for 4 hours of work a week was ridiculous. When cleaning days fell on Christmas and New Years I had to pay for those days and clean myself. Workers here also get what is called "the 13th month" where at the end of the year you must pay them an extra months wages--some also get a "14th month" in the summer. Vacation time is also very generous here. It's a month to start and then lots of holidays.
I work for an international company, it's impossible to contact anyone in Europe during "European Vacation".2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
As someone who does a lot of payroll at the end of the year, this is completely untrue. Owners can take draws over the course of the year and declare it as salary. At least if they're incorporated. It doesn't depend on the actual work done.
Oooookay, normally I give disagreers the benefit of the doubt but I vehemently disagree with your disagree.
Vehemently. 😁2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
As a business owner, he certainly deserves to make a profit.1 -
I'm a skeptic about that, as a generality, because of the quite-common assumption among employers that employees have a phone (to call them in for extra shifts or whatever). It can even be difficult to apply for and get a job, without at least a phone number. A cell phone is not more expensive than a landline. A basic smart phone doesn't add much to the cost. (I still have a basic landline, because my house is in a mystery dead zone; and I also have a pretty spiffy smart phone/cell plan, so I'm in a position to compare costs here.)
On the school front, the main ways some school systems here involve parents is via online "parent portals" or email contact with the teacher. Can one call? Sure, with access to a phone - I guess the parent could borrow one? And they could use the library computer to email (when there's not a pandemic, if there's one reasonably close, etc.). Can one visit the school? Sure. Need to take time off work? Yeah, one could do that if necessary, but for some that's risky in terms of employment.
For medical care, even government subsidized, how does that get scheduled, how do you get your medical records like test results, etc.? Same kind of complications.
Interesting the differences between nations in reliance on technology.
Although schools went virtual early in the pandemic, there was accommodation for people who didn't have internet access, or reliable internet access. The physical school buildings did remain open and there were a limited number of people in them, I'm guessing so few that distancing wasn't an issue. I did hear of more teachers who went into the school than students so I suspect most parents found a way to make it work, probably by shipping the kids off to a family member or friend for the day. A coworker lives in a rural area with very unstable internet so her daughter went to the dad's home during the day.
A bottom-end basic cell package here costs about $15/month more than a landline. And if you don't have the cash upfront to purchase the phone outright you need to sign onto a contract for two or three years to get one of the "free" models, which requires some kind of credit check and a steady source of income. The landline is just billed monthly and if you don't pay eventually you lose the service.
I schedule my doctor appointments today the same way I've always done, I phone the clinic and talk to the receptionist. I'm usually notified of medical tests by mail (probably because I need a couple pages of instructions to go along with them) after my doctor sends the requisition to the testing facility. A few have been booked by phone (them calling my house and leaving a message, me returning the call the next day) but could probably have been done by mail if necessary. I don't get test results per se. They go to my doctor and she (or the receptionist) phones me if there's something noteworthy in there. Otherwise, no news is good news. Usually at my next appointment I get a brief verbal synopsis of the results. In theory I should have online access to bloodwork results because supposedly that service is available through the lab chain I go to, but it doesn't seem to be a thing locally because they've never given me the unique code I need to sign on an get them.
TLDR You can survive just fine here without a cell phone or the internet.1 -
I'm a skeptic about that, as a generality, because of the quite-common assumption among employers that employees have a phone (to call them in for extra shifts or whatever). It can even be difficult to apply for and get a job, without at least a phone number. A cell phone is not more expensive than a landline. A basic smart phone doesn't add much to the cost. (I still have a basic landline, because my house is in a mystery dead zone; and I also have a pretty spiffy smart phone/cell plan, so I'm in a position to compare costs here.)
On the school front, the main ways some school systems here involve parents is via online "parent portals" or email contact with the teacher. Can one call? Sure, with access to a phone - I guess the parent could borrow one? And they could use the library computer to email (when there's not a pandemic, if there's one reasonably close, etc.). Can one visit the school? Sure. Need to take time off work? Yeah, one could do that if necessary, but for some that's risky in terms of employment.
For medical care, even government subsidized, how does that get scheduled, how do you get your medical records like test results, etc.? Same kind of complications.
Interesting the differences between nations in reliance on technology.
Although schools went virtual early in the pandemic, there was accommodation for people who didn't have internet access, or reliable internet access. The physical school buildings did remain open and there were a limited number of people in them, I'm guessing so few that distancing wasn't an issue. I did hear of more teachers who went into the school than students so I suspect most parents found a way to make it work, probably by shipping the kids off to a family member or friend for the day. A coworker lives in a rural area with very unstable internet so her daughter went to the dad's home during the day.
A bottom-end basic cell package here costs about $15/month more than a landline. And if you don't have the cash upfront to purchase the phone outright you need to sign onto a contract for two or three years to get one of the "free" models, which requires some kind of credit check and a steady source of income. The landline is just billed monthly and if you don't pay eventually you lose the service.
I schedule my doctor appointments today the same way I've always done, I phone the clinic and talk to the receptionist. I'm usually notified of medical tests by mail (probably because I need a couple pages of instructions to go along with them) after my doctor sends the requisition to the testing facility. A few have been booked by phone (them calling my house and leaving a message, me returning the call the next day) but could probably have been done by mail if necessary. I don't get test results per se. They go to my doctor and she (or the receptionist) phones me if there's something noteworthy in there. Otherwise, no news is good news. Usually at my next appointment I get a brief verbal synopsis of the results. In theory I should have online access to bloodwork results because supposedly that service is available through the lab chain I go to, but it doesn't seem to be a thing locally because they've never given me the unique code I need to sign on an get them.
TLDR You can survive just fine here without a cell phone or the internet.
Some of that will work in some places here, but there's additional difficulty. That was more my point, in the part of my post you didn't quote: How much non-average/mainstream inconvenience, or how much should people give up, and still be considered to have a livable wage?
There are guys here who have a backpack, carry a tarp and sleeping bag, sleep in the woods down near the river even in Winter, probably don't have a phone, presumably scrounge for food or eat at the rescue mission, spend some time during the day at places like coffee shops or libraries where it's a more comfortable temperature. They don't starve or freeze to death . . . mostly. If someone earns enough working full time to have that lifestyle, is that "livable wage"? I don't think most people would think so.
Where's the line? That was the question. I include having enough money for *some* kind of phone service, and internet for someone who needs it to maintain employment or adequately support their kids in school, as being part of how "a livable wage" should be defined. That's what I'm getting at.
That a person doesn't literally die right away without having a phone or internet, seem like a pretty extreme way to define "livable".6 -
bellababy9031 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
I used "salary" because @33gail33 used "salary" in her post. I was responding to her. I believe that an owner of a business or businesses has the expectation to end up profiting personally at the end of the day, just as the employees expect to be paid. If I am running a business that I am not personally getting a return from, that business will not be running long, because there is no incentive for me to continue to keep it open. Again, this puts a group of people out of work, and causes a loss of goods and services to the community the business serves.
But thanks for your "correction" of my comment, and for the self righteous indignation.
You're entirely welcome.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Ask an average family in Haiti, then decide if you really need more.
livable is different than mere survival, and the US is one of the wealthiest countries in the world GDP per capita. The USA is not a third world country so there really isn't a comparison to be made between a family in Haiti and a family living in the US. A livable wage in Haiti would be completely different than livable wage in the US.
Depends on how you live.
So you think people should just be impoverished to the point of mere survival in a first world country because people in other countries are impoverished? Gotcha...don't forget to tip your waiter making $2.13/hr.
Again, a survival wage is different than a livable wage. Average rent here is $1,117 for a small apartment. Go much lower than that and you're looking in the ghetto and bound to get killed.
I don't understand the offense taken. When you talk about livable, you are talking about just that, living. That does not include internet, or lipstick, or cable tv, or beef tenderloin or even an automobile or a television set. I never said people should be impoverished. I believe people should use every opportunity to do the very best that they can for themselves, and if they get rich, based on their efforts, then good for them. And neither did I say that the livable wage in Haiti would be the livable wage in the US. I just can't get over the number of people who think that if they can't afford their smartphone and internet, they can't live.
Families with children in school during the pandemic, not in-person but virtual school, were pretty much SOL if they didn't have phone or internet. The fallbacks for computer use, libraries, were closed.
That's not my definition of livable.
To be fair, I think that more so illustrates that pandemic conditions are not liveable in the long term.
Before the pandemic, families with children trying to do their homework in the evening were pretty much SOL if they didn't have phone or internet. The fallbacks for computer use, libraries, were closed. Kids were sitting in the parking lots of fast-food restaurants trying to do their homework using insecure Wi-Fi access.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
It comes from the top instead of the bottom
. Less profits.
Although as cwolfman13 mentioned there is often saving found in other areas like - like training costs for high turnover and increased productivity for workers who are better compensated.
That is beautiful in theory, but then what is the incentive for a business owner to work hard and build a business to become successful?
Sounds like we are talking about socialism. Lets ask, lets see, just about every other socialist country how that has worked out for them.
But I am sure we will do it better, right?
Fair market value for labour is not socialism.
That is a straw man - and once the logical fallacies come out to play I know that further discussion is generally futile.
Artificial wage minimums are not fair market value.
Artificially low wages supported by Medicaid, Affordable Care Act insurance, SNAP, WIC, food pantries, government-mandated affordable housing, EIC tax "refunds," child tax refunds, etc., are not fair market value. They're corporate welfare.5 -
As a Canadian living in a smallish city of about 500k people, if you make over 28k USD that is a livable income for a single person. For a couple of years I was making this salary and it was alright, none of my co-workers were in debt. They were doing just fine.
It may have to do with the progressive tax system, my net income tax rate was just 6% when I was making 28k a year. 6% of income tax, plus no money that has to be spent on health care directly, it makes it ok for low income people.
But i'm not American, can't really comment on the American system.1 -
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.3 -
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.6 -
I'm an accountant. I think everyone should know how much it costs them to just live: rent/mortgage, auto/transportation, insurance, medical, food, utilities, toiletries. Anything extra is disposable income even if you couldn't imagine living without say, wine or pets. For me it's about 24K a year. I have a very comfortable life. I try not to buy anything I won't use. I camp and hike and have a lot a gear but it's still way cheaper than golf.5
-
How much non-average/mainstream inconvenience, or how much should people give up, and still be considered to have a livable wage?
And that was my point, that (here at least, can't speak to daily life in other parts of the world), there isn't a whole lot of inconvenience to not having mobile phone or internet service because there's always another way of doing business.
My father has both cell and internet and just renewed his health card [proof of government health insurance] by mail (his choice). I had to renew both my driver's license and my health card and tried to accomplish this online but only the license worked, for the health card I had to renew in person. I might as well have done both in person at the same place and saved myself the typing.There are guys here who have a backpack, carry a tarp and sleeping bag, sleep in the woods down near the river even in Winter, probably don't have a phone, presumably scrounge for food or eat at the rescue mission, spend some time during the day at places like coffee shops or libraries where it's a more comfortable temperature. They don't starve or freeze to death . . . mostly. If someone earns enough working full time to have that lifestyle, is that "livable wage"? I don't think most people would think so.
We have those folks too and I can guarantee you that none of them are working anywhere for any sort of wage, unless panhandling counts as employment, and probably have not had any significant labour force attachment for quite some time.Where's the line? That was the question. I include having enough money for *some* kind of phone service, and internet for someone who needs it to maintain employment or adequately support their kids in school, as being part of how "a livable wage" should be defined. That's what I'm getting at.
That a person doesn't literally die right away without having a phone or internet, seem like a pretty extreme way to define "livable".
There's quite a continuum between "not dying right away" and "mainstream inconvenience".
I have friends who don't have cell phones and function just fine (maintain housing and employment, have kids, obtain medical care). They could well afford to but don't feel the need to own one. That tells me a cell is definitely not a necessity where I live.0 -
I'm an accountant. I think everyone should know how much it costs them to just live: rent/mortgage, auto/transportation, insurance, medical, food, utilities, toiletries. Anything extra is disposable income even if you couldn't imagine living without say, wine or pets. For me it's about 24K a year. I have a very comfortable life. I try not to buy anything I won't use. I camp and hike and have a lot a gear but it's still way cheaper than golf.
The cost of living varies so widely. I can’t even rent a one bedroom apartment in a safe area for less than $2000 a month. Health insurance, dental, and out of pocket costs run me about $750 a month, and I’m pretty healthy.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
It comes from the top instead of the bottom . Less profits.
Although as cwolfman13 mentioned there is often saving found in other areas like - like training costs for high turnover and increased productivity for workers who are better compensated.
That is beautiful in theory, but then what is the incentive for a business owner to work hard and build a business to become successful?
Sounds like we are talking about socialism. Lets ask, lets see, just about every other socialist country how that has worked out for them.
But I am sure we will do it better, right?
Fair market value for labour is not socialism.
That is a straw man - and once the logical fallacies come out to play I know that further discussion is generally futile.
Artificial wage minimums are not fair market value.
Artificially low wages supported by Medicaid, Affordable Care Act insurance, SNAP, WIC, food pantries, government-mandated affordable housing, EIC tax "refunds," child tax refunds, etc., are not fair market value. They're corporate welfare.
I think that's the question: If something is *so important* that we collectively behave in a way that says we need to subsidize it so every working person can have it, who do we subsidize, and how?
If a person is working full time (or close), getting assistance of the type Lynn mentions in the US, then yes, we're subsidizing corporations (and profit takers big and small, like me these days), as I see it. We're not really subsidizing those workers except completely superficially.
It's the profit-takers who benefit pretty painlessly. They've essentially allocated the costs associated with their profits to society at large, i.e., taxpayers and charitable donors. The workers, the ones who *look* directly subsidized, are working hard, but essential being socially defined as semi-failures, and jumping through bureaucratic hoops to get those basic benefits. (Right now, "society" is saying those benefits are "necessary". I'm not even getting into the argument now about whether "society" is correct.)
There's potentially a global-competition issue here, but it's somewhat industry-specific. In one sense, raising the minimum wage in the US would potentially help employers in industries where global competition is mostly irrelevant (loosely, service industries). It makes a more level playing field, in a way.
All the service-industry players - restaurants, say - have the same cost and price impact from an increased minimum wage, but variable results based on their particular business model and business acumen to some extent. Yes, that minimum wage increase can possibly increase the cost of eating out for consumers, because it's getting rid of some of the negative externalities of subsidized profits via sub-livable wages. Yes, that will bring the retail price of eating out closer to the total societal cost of eating out, and some businesses may become non-viable if consumers at the margin will eat out less often (but maybe low-paid workers will eat out more often?).
With labor costs increased, yes, automation becomes more likely, perhaps resulting in fewer low-end job opportunities. You've been at those Micky D's where you have to order on a kiosk, or grocery stores with few/no cashier lanes, lots of self check-out? More of that, eventually the self-driving long-haul trucks and self-driving Ubers/Lyfts/Doordash/etc., more warehouse and factory automation, more AI "service bots", etc., too.
With fewer low-end jobs, there's a premium on education for employability, education being another thing we don't always like to spend money on in the US. Too many people completely unemployed or grievously underemployed . . . well, eventually, I think that leads to unrest, maybe. Or to rule by clever, manipulative, corrupt authoritarians? Or both? Universal basic income maybe mitigates discontent, but creates negative incentives, probably.
In businesses with global competition, increased minimum wage probably more directly makes them non-competitive. That's a bad thing locally, of course, because they go out of business, and people lose jobs, but I'm personally not a nationalist: Humans in other countries need to eat, too. There's still a local employment problem to be dealt with, though.
Again, these are simplified cartoons: This stuff is complicated, interactive, dynamic, nuanced, multi-dimensional.
"Livable wage" is localized, culture adapted, somewhat subjective, and more.4 -
How much non-average/mainstream inconvenience, or how much should people give up, and still be considered to have a livable wage?
And that was my point, that (here at least, can't speak to daily life in other parts of the world), there isn't a whole lot of inconvenience to not having mobile phone or internet service because there's always another way of doing business.
My father has both cell and internet and just renewed his health card [proof of government health insurance] by mail (his choice). I had to renew both my driver's license and my health card and tried to accomplish this online but only the license worked, for the health card I had to renew in person. I might as well have done both in person at the same place and saved myself the typing.There are guys here who have a backpack, carry a tarp and sleeping bag, sleep in the woods down near the river even in Winter, probably don't have a phone, presumably scrounge for food or eat at the rescue mission, spend some time during the day at places like coffee shops or libraries where it's a more comfortable temperature. They don't starve or freeze to death . . . mostly. If someone earns enough working full time to have that lifestyle, is that "livable wage"? I don't think most people would think so.
We have those folks too and I can guarantee you that none of them are working anywhere for any sort of wage, unless panhandling counts as employment, and probably have not had any significant labour force attachment for quite some time.Where's the line? That was the question. I include having enough money for *some* kind of phone service, and internet for someone who needs it to maintain employment or adequately support their kids in school, as being part of how "a livable wage" should be defined. That's what I'm getting at.
That a person doesn't literally die right away without having a phone or internet, seem like a pretty extreme way to define "livable".
There's quite a continuum between "not dying right away" and "mainstream inconvenience".
I have friends who don't have cell phones and function just fine (maintain housing and employment, have kids, obtain medical care). They could well afford to but don't feel the need to own one. That tells me a cell is definitely not a necessity where I live.
I'm not saying people need a cell phone here. What I said was that most employed/employable people are very likely going to need *some* kind of phone; and that here, cell phones may be the less expensive option in some areas. (There are credit options, prepaid options, non-contract options, etc.)
My point in bringing up the homeless guys was to say that "just staying alive" is not my metric for "a livable wage". Those guys don't have regular jobs, make next to no wages (some do day labor), and they're alive. That doesn't mean near-zero income would be reasonable as a definition for "livable wage".
To me, *some* amount of day to day convenience, some amount of ability to participate in mainstream, common default modes of life (like the common parent and patient portals), is part of my metric for "a livable wage". How much convenience? It's complicated. But some. Something beyond the degree of "livable" being demonstrated by the folks who sleep under tarps in homeless encampments, who have essentially no income at all.
Yes, of course the details will differ in different parts of the world, even different parts of the same country, to some extent. (I'd said that several times, in posts above.) And it absolutely is interesting to compare.
4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
As someone who does a lot of payroll at the end of the year, this is completely untrue. Owners can take draws over the course of the year and declare it as salary. At least if they're incorporated. It doesn't depend on the actual work done.
This seems like a very odd choice, given the tax advantages of investment income over earned income. Do they just like giving extra money to the government, or do they take really small draws so their earned income is low and then leech off the rest of us by claiming EIC?0 -
How much non-average/mainstream inconvenience, or how much should people give up, and still be considered to have a livable wage?
And that was my point, that (here at least, can't speak to daily life in other parts of the world), there isn't a whole lot of inconvenience to not having mobile phone or internet service because there's always another way of doing business.
Depends on job. During the pandemic, without internet I couldn't have done my job from home. And even in normal conditions I am expected to get emails and sometimes respond when not technically at work. So either smart phone or internet is needed.
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).1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bellababy9031 wrote: »Those families without internet lived. They may not have thrived, but they lived. I am not trying to be argumentative, really I am not. I just wish people would step back and realize that MOST of the stuff we think we need to live, we really do not. People are so conditioned to think that they NEED so much...they feel that they are entitled to certain things because they were born. They are not. You are entitled to what you decide to go out and work for and make happen for yourself.
Sometimes people need help, and that is fine. Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical care. I got that. But people don't need free government phones, internet, television, prime rib, alcohol or cigarettes. Those things, people need to earn and pay for on their own, by their own hard work.
Happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers. There are plenty of people who have very little and yet are living productive, happy lives.
Dude...we're talking about people making a livable wage and not having to decide whether to pay their rent or pay their utilities or pay for food or pay for rent or pay for clothes for their children or pay for food. We're not talking about people wanting prime rib and *kitten*. We're not talking about government assistance either...we're talking about an earned wage to live. Literally the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr and hasn't changed in 12 years. You really think $7.25/hr is a livable wage for a family in the US? A single person can barley survive on that in the US.
And the whole comparison to families in Haiti is ludicrous. They live in squallier...that's not livable, that's mere survival.
Not sure if 7.25 is livable or not, but I can say this. I took business and economics in school, and I KNOW that if you raise the minimum wage, the price of goods and services automatically goes up, so where are you then? In exactly the same place. You can't just print money and expect prices to stay the same.
So many businesses around here raised their minimum starting pay, then prices went through the roof. Then they laid off workers and put in automatic checkouts. Grocery stores for example...used to be 8-10 registers open with cashiers making minimum wage. Now they make 12.50 an hour, but there are only 1 or two, and 8-12 self checkouts. So, those 1-2 cashiers make more, but what about the 8 that got laid off because the store could not afford to hire them?
I don't know what the answer is, but just raising minimum wage is not it. It has never worked in any society, and its not going to work today.
Weird, because it's worked ever since the minimum wage was instituted. I'm sure Bezos could pay better and not raise prices on goods and still be a billionaire a billion times over.
We've had local businesses here raise their wages and there hasn't been any price increase. It's actually benefited them because they're actually able to attract workers and retain them. Cycling through employees is far more costly than paying a good wage and retaining employees; I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in your classes. I'm a business finance major and have worked in accounting and finance for 17 years and increasing wages doesn't automatically increase prices.
So where does the extra money come from?
Sure, Bezos could do it, but what about Doc down the street at the Quick Stop? What about most small business owners who are still just barely living (as we define living here). If I have a good employee, and I want to raise his wages $2.00 an hour, or 80.00 a week, I have to raise prices enough to cover that 80.00 to make ends meet. If I have 10 employees, that is 800 a week. It does not fall out of the sky.
That is why every single thing I buy costs significantly more now than it did two years ago, and why I do not buy a lot of the things I used to buy. That loss of my business, times however other people are in the same boat, then cause the retailers to again raise prices to cover the increased wages, and then I will adjust my spending again.
You're seriously blaming inflation on minimum wage increases? Seriously? Wow...
Many of these companies that pay minimum wage are huge, multinational companies that keep making record profits year after year after year and there is nothing in place to incentivize them to invest in their employees and pay higher wages. This is why they're having a problem hiring and there are help wanted signs everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart to anywhere else that pays *kitten* wages. Ultimately not having productive employees hurts the bottom line.
As for mom and pops...like I said, we've had several around here that have increased wages and not increased prices. They are experiencing cost savings from not having to deal with high turnover and they turn out more product because they can actually stay fully staffed to meet the actual demand of customers. When business can't meet demand because they can't maintain staffing levels because they don't pay their employees, that hurts the bottom line because customers will go elsewhere.
I am addressing the last, bolded part of the above statement.
I have a business that I own. I have 8 full time hourly employees, and 15 part time hourly employees. Most of my employees are long term employees who are good workers and seem happy. No issues to speak of. After a fairly good year last year, my net profit after all expenses was between 95,000 and 100,000 dollars.
So if I take my hours from last year:
8 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 16640 hours
15 x 15 (low estimate) hours x 52 weeks = 11,700 hours
Total hours for year = 28,340 hours
Average part time hours is probably closer to 20 per week, but I am being conservative.
So, if I increase my hourly wage by say....$3.00 an hour, that is an additional $85,020 dollars in payroll expenses for the year, not to mention additional social security and medicare taxes. At that point, I am not even breaking even. How do I do this and keep my business open and employees working without drastically raising my prices?
This is not a troll question....I really want to know.
I wouldn't consider 23 employees a "mom and pop" operation.
Do you employ 23 people making what is considered a less than livable wage? Because that is the discussion here. If they are already making a decent wage then not sure where the $3 per hour increase came from.
If they are not making a livable wage and you can't pay fair wages and break even, then yes you would need to either raise your prices in order to pay them a wage that is livable, or close your business. If whatever product you produce (or service you provide) can not be produced or provided in a way that provides a living wage for those that produce/provide it, and at a price the market can support, then how is that a workable business model?
So my choices are :
Raise my wages, while keeping prices stable and make nothing for myself
Raise my wages and my prices, losing customers and revenue, and having to lay off staff
Close my business and put 23 people out of work, and deprive the community of the goods/services that I currently provide at a fair price.
Continue status quo, and if my employee feel that they are not making a living wage, force them to find a second job to make ends meet.
Which is the best option, and which is the worst?
"Deprive the community of the good/services that I currently provide at a fair price" - on the backs of people that can't live on the wages they make? You make it sound like you are doing the community a favor by exploiting workers. Like I don't get how you can't wrap your head around the fact that providing something at a "fair price" that is made by people who aren't making a fair wage is just not a sustainable.
By "make nothing for myself" - do you mean the $100,000 net profit you are making AFTER expenses? By expenses do you include your salary?
Your scenario is too vague to give an informed response. You seem to be implying that you don't pay your workers a living wage now, and if you did then your business wouldn't be feasible. If that's the case then, again, that isn't what I would consider a workable business model.
You claim to have 23 people who are happily employed by you, but IMPLY that you need to give them $3 an hour more each to constitute a fair wage. Those two assertions seem incongruent to me - so I believe that the scenario you are presenting is a red herring.
The 95-100 a year does not include a salary for me. Whatever I choose to pay myself as owner reduces this amount.
Can they live on the wages they make now? Well, they come into work every day and appear to be clean and healthy and seem to be happy enough with their situation. Not one of these employees makes the 12-14 dollars an hour that seems to be the minimum acceptable rate that I am hearing, but then again, the work they do is not extremely skilled, does not take much formal training, and does not require specialized education. If I decided do close my doors because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, I would wager that they would be devastated by the loss, and would probably not be able to find a similar paying job with the benefits we offer with their skills anywhere in the area.
I think it goes back to what is "fair". I believe that without exception, every one of my employees would like to make more money. I also believe that if you ask them if they are treated fairly, and paid fairly for their services, they would say that they are. If you told them that you were telling me that I have to close my business down because I cannot afford to pay them 13.00 an hour, you would have a riot on your hands, and they would tell you that you are a fool.
But I could be wrong.
I think I will poll them and see how they feel.
"Owners" don't get salaries. Owners get profits paid as dividends or increased equity when profits are reinvested. If you perform managerial or other work for the business that you would have to hire someone to do if you didn't do it yourself, then you get a salary. If you are paying salaries to people who don't perform work, including yourself, that may why you can't afford to pay the actual workers a living wage.
As someone who does a lot of payroll at the end of the year, this is completely untrue. Owners can take draws over the course of the year and declare it as salary. At least if they're incorporated. It doesn't depend on the actual work done.
This seems like a very odd choice, given the tax advantages of investment income over earned income. Do they just like giving extra money to the government, or do they take really small draws so their earned income is low and then leech off the rest of us by claiming EIC?
I'm neither an accountant nor a tax lawyer, so maybe someone else can explain this better, but I am a shareholder in a PC, and this is how I understand it:
People need income over the course of the year, so it's typical for shareholders (analogous to equity partners) to have a salary and sometimes draws as well.
This is not disadvantageous from a tax perspective, since profits would be taxed before being paid out (and taxed again) anyway. Therefore, it is seen as better financially to pay out everything rather than incur the PC tax plus additional tax.
This is typically done (in addition to the salary) as bonus, and bonus in this case is taxed as income.
The PC can treat salary+bonus as an expense.2 -
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.
0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions