21 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayA minimum wage should be set by the federal government based on the cost of living in specific states or even specific areas of states. People who work full time should be guaranteed a wage that will allow them to afford decent shelter, food, clothing, a phone and a means of transport to and from work. A two parent working family should be able to afford to care for their children's needs as well including safe child care while they are at work. Companies should be given some sort of tax break for providing on site child care. If we have to pay more for goods and services, so be it. Or perhaps the uber rich will just bring in a bit less money. They will still be uber rich.
Just let the states and cities set their own.
If the jobs stay they stay, if the people stay they stay.
If the jobs leave they leave, if the people leave they leave.
It will work itself out one way or another.
Kelly
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarWhat do you base the belief that the number of jobs will decrease significantly on?
Everyone can move, it is just that most don't want to move. Decreasing the number of jobs available because you have increased the cost of having an employee really doesn't help the situation.
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarNo, everyone cannot move. Get a grip! It takes money to transport yourself. It takes money to rent lodging. To move to another place without having a job already there for you is not realistic. A strong middle class with money to spend on goods and services creates jobs. Businesses do not create jobs unless they have buyers for their goods and services. A minimum wage based on the cost of living in various areas will help grow a middle class which will then grow jobs by the demand for goods and services. It's rather like our infrastructure of roads. It is not realistic to expect businesses on their own to independently create a highway system that enables goods to be shipped across the nation. In the same way, it is not realistic to expect businesses to pay a living wage. Right now my tax dollars are subsidizing businesses, large and small, that pay their workers so little the workers need government assistance. That is an entitlement I resent.
Everyone can move, it is just that most don't want to move. Decreasing the number of jobs available because you have increased the cost of having an employee really doesn't help the situation.
21 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by PhrannyYour standards presume that everyone has similar household situations, and that differing ones ought to conform to some standard that some unknown person or persons sets.
A minimum wage should be set by the federal government based on the cost of living in specific states or even specific areas of states. People who work full time should be guaranteed a wage that will allow them to afford decent shelter, food, clothing, a phone and a means of transport to and from work. A two parent working family should be able to afford t ...[text shortened]... t. Or perhaps the uber rich will just bring in a bit less money. They will still be uber rich.
It remains difficult for a young single parent to either equal the income potential, or the ability to manage money of more mature married couple.
Wages are not based on the needs of the wage earner, but on what the wage earner can do. If you hire a contractor to put a roof on your home, do you ask him about his bills or finances? No, you ask what he'll do to repair your roof, how long it will take, and what type of materials he'll use, and the terms of his guarantee. You simply don't care if he makes enough to afford the stuff you say everyone ought to have. What you are interested in is what he will do for you. That's what you pay for, and it is no different for someone employing people for a business. It isn't what the employee needs, but what they can do for you.
In the 90s I was working three jobs totalling 90 hours plus a week, and at times missed out on a couple of your prescribed items.
Originally posted by normbenignThe purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that everyone working makes at least a basic subsistence income. It is also recognization that the bargaining position of someone with no income is inferior to a potential employer (I know you deny this, but few people are so dogmatically insistent on denying reality as you are). The People by enacting and supporting a minimum wage accept those two premises even if a fringe does not.
Your standards presume that everyone has similar household situations, and that differing ones ought to conform to some standard that some unknown person or persons sets.
It remains difficult for a young single parent to either equal the income potential, or the ability to manage money of more mature married couple.
Wages are not based on the needs ...[text shortened]... bs totalling 90 hours plus a week, and at times missed out on a couple of your prescribed items.
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignWe have very good data on the cost of living throughout the US. Without a minimum wage that provides income for the essentials of shelter, food, clothing, a phone and transport to and from work, people will either be starving and homeless or the rest of us will subsidize the businesses by providing for a social safety net. The fact that many in the US work full time yet qualify for welfare is nothing short of subsidizing businesses. If you worked 90 hours in the past and could not afford the basics for survival, you should be supporting a minimum wage based on your experience.
Your standards presume that everyone has similar household situations, and that differing ones ought to conform to some standard that some unknown person or persons sets.
It remains difficult for a young single parent to either equal the income potential, or the ability to manage money of more mature married couple.
Wages are not based on the needs ...[text shortened]... bs totalling 90 hours plus a week, and at times missed out on a couple of your prescribed items.
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by EladarYou are wrong. I am divorced with 2 kids. I cannot move.
Everyone can move, it is just that most don't want to move. Decreasing the number of jobs available because you have increased the cost of having an employee really doesn't help the situation.
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by PhrannyThe states can set it to suit the states needs, they know them better than
A minimum wage should be set by the federal government based on the cost of living in specific states or even specific areas of states. People who work full time should be guaranteed a wage that will allow them to afford decent shelter, food, clothing, a phone and a means of transport to and from work. A two parent working family should be able to afford t ...[text shortened]... t. Or perhaps the uber rich will just bring in a bit less money. They will still be uber rich.
the Federal government. It still boils down to making jobs and workers get
what they needed! The needs of the state maybe that more is required or
less, so let those closer to them in their state set it.
Kelly
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt isn't about rich poor getting over it is about a system that fits the area
Not everyone is in a position to move to another state to seek a higher paying job. Prices need to increase equally in all states to avoid complications. The Federal Minimum wage should be increased close to $11.00 per hour. Anything less will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
that each state in charge of. The rich and poor have to both be successful
for a healthy system.
Kelly
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by PhrannyThe COL varies wildly even in the same region. Most people who accept minimum wage jobs do so for temporary reasons, or as initial jobs, entry level to get working experience, not for subsistence living.
We have very good data on the cost of living throughout the US. Without a minimum wage that provides income for the essentials of shelter, food, clothing, a phone and transport to and from work, people will either be starving and homeless or the rest of us will subsidize the businesses by providing for a social safety net. The fact that many in the US work ...[text shortened]... fford the basics for survival, you should be supporting a minimum wage based on your experience.
Thing is, I never expected anyone but me to provide the necessities of life. If it took 90 hours a week, and three jobs, I was glad at the time to have them, one of them at minimum wage.
Two years later I was making six figures in a lot less hours, based on what I could do for people, not on sympathy. Nobody wants to work for minimum wage on a permanent basis, not full time, not part time.
Starving and homeless happens when people don't adjust to circumstances. When they wait till the last moment and depend on others. Based on my experience, those who get comfortable with minimum wage end up trapped there, instead of searching for a better way.
21 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that everyone working makes at least a basic subsistence income."
The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that everyone working makes at least a basic subsistence income. It is also recognization that the bargaining position of someone with no income is inferior to a potential employer (I know you deny this, but few people are so dogmatically insistent on denying reality as you are). The People by enacting and supporting a minimum wage accept those two premises even if a fringe does not.
And it basically fails at that.
"It is also recognization that the bargaining position of someone with no income is inferior to a potential employer"
You go on to say I would disagree with this and I don't. Employers most often prefer to hire people already working. That is a function of minimum wage, or low wage jobs. A starting point where people develop good work habits, punctuality, social skills dealing with coworkers, etc.
Doing well for a while at a bad job, or two bad jobs can propel a worker into better work.
21 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignIt fails at it because the minimum wage amount is too low. That would be a good reason to increase it.
"The purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure that everyone working makes at least a basic subsistence income."
And it basically fails at that.
"It is also recognization that the bargaining position of someone with no income is inferior to a potential employer"
You go on to say I would disagree with this and I don't. Employers most often prefer to ...[text shortened]... c.
Doing well for a while at a bad job, or two bad jobs can propel a worker into better work.
The claim that the minimum wage causes unemployment has been extensively discussed on this forum; the weight of recent economic research does not support such an assertion.