The Great American Lie: Work Earns Living Wage

[Machismo]

The idea of a society where everyone has everyone they need to survive promotes laziness and complacency. We should build society to be as ruthless as possible, because that will promote innovation; the kind of mass innovation you see in Utopias like Mexico, India and China. Because people having social mobility based on merit is a filthy liberal ideal; society based on generational wealth is a much better system.

As evidence by our super-efficient government. Slowly it's gained more and more wealth, you can see how efficient it has become as the dynasties have progressed. Individuals, however should scrape to survive.

Now you are trying to put words into my mouth. If you give people everything they need, then they have no incentive to excel. Besides, that stuff has to come from somewhere, are you going to provide it all? Nope, you want to take it from others.

I think people should be responsible for their own actions. And yes, almost everyone who is poor is in that state because of their actions, or in the case of children, their parents' actions.

[Fugus]

Get a job, and demand to be paid what you think you are worth. If you agree to a lower sum, then that is what you are worth. Unfortunately, many people base their earnings decisions on emotion, and not on logic.

You are ignoring the whole situation. You aren't the one able to negotiate that wage at that level, that requires collective bargaining which has been near demolished in the US to the level needed for that.

This isn't emotion, this is math and logic that you are ignoring for your mindset.

Again,

Ok, you have to pay for a roof over your head, transportation, and clothing for you and your child. How do you do that without a job or doing something illegal?
And as an extension of this, how do you negotiate a livable wage when the job market is so screwed up that they can literally fire you and replace you at a moments notice at any wage.

You are making a mistake thinking a job is only worth whatever is the cheapest amount they can get some duped or desperate rube to do it for when in actuality the job is worth the money it brings in or save a company and the compensation for that job should be a compromise between that wage and some lower number that allows both sides to profit and the absolute lowest any wage should be set is the cost of supporting the person doing the work to a decent level.

If the job is only worth what you can get someone to do it for, then building tires and skyscrapers is only worth about 75 cents an hour because I can scavenge the world and find plenty desperate enough to do it same with our military while stripping all benefits from them beyond healthcare and living arrangements such that they contribute to performing their duties. You see just how messed up that line of logic gets you?

[alexkeren]

It doesn't take much to figure how that Living Wage is more then you'll ever make.

It is very simple math.


Step 1: Remember that a "Full Time Work WeeK" is five days at 8 hours a shift.. So someone working five days a week is considered to be working "Full Time"

Step 2: Ask how much that person is making each shift.

Step 3: Take that number and multiply it by 2 (2 weeks = payday)

Now try to pay bills, Rent, Groceries, Life Utilities, Personal Spending Etc...


Considering that someone who works full time spends more time at work then in his apartment, one would THINK that they would be able to buy themselves all the necessities of life on a week to week basis.

Key word: "THINK"

The idea is that through frugal living and careful spending (living in poverty pretty much) you'll make JUST enough to live a shitty life with more time spent at work then at home. That apparently is the standard these days.

I KNOW you failed math.

8 x 5 = 40 ... 7 x 24 = 168 ... The amount worked is less than 25% of the hours available in a week. A person who lives frugally, but only works 40 hours a week, is NOT going to spend LESS THAN 40 hours at home a week.

[Machismo]

The idea of a society where everyone has everyone they need to survive promotes laziness and complacency. We should build society to be as ruthless as possible, because that will promote innovation; the kind of mass innovation you see in Utopias like Mexico, India and China. Because people having social mobility based on merit is a filthy liberal ideal; society based on generational wealth is a much better system.

As evidence by our super-efficient government. Slowly it's gained more and more wealth, you can see how efficient it has become as the dynasties have progressed. Individuals, however should scrape to survive.

- - - Updated - - -



Once again, I'm glad we have your anecdote here to outweigh the mounds of statistical data that shows what a crashed economy is like.

I never said the economy was great. You seem to want to be outraged over nothing. People's actions are the major determing factor in their lives. If you get a liberal arts degree, you are not likely to make much money. If oyu get an engineering degree, your odds improve dramatically.

[Daerio]

Now you are trying to put words into my mouth. If you give people everything they need, then they have no incentive to excel. Besides, that stuff has to come from somewhere, are you going to provide it all? Nope, you want to take it from others.

I think people should be responsible for their own actions. And yes, almost everyone who is poor is in that state because of their actions, or in the case of children, their parents' actions.

Generational wealth: The American Dream.

Being born rich, or hoping to win the lottery.

But I'm not going to back and forth with you all day; I know you have nothing better to do.

[Machismo]

You are ignoring the whole situation. You aren't the one able to negotiate that wage at that level, that requires collective bargaining which has been near demolished in the US to the level needed for that.

This isn't emotion, this is math and logic that you are ignoring for your mindset.

Again,

Ok, you have to pay for a roof over your head, transportation, and clothing for you and your child. How do you do that without a job or doing something illegal?
And as an extension of this, how do you negotiate a livable wage when the job market is so screwed up that they can literally fire you and replace you at a moments notice at any wage.

You are making a mistake thinking a job is only worth whatever is the cheapest amount they can get some duped or desperate rube to do it for when in actuality the job is worth the money it brings in or save a company and the compensation for that job should be a compromise between that wage and some lower number that allows both sides to profit and the absolute lowest any wage should be set is the cost of supporting the person doing the work to a decent level.

If the job is only worth what you can get someone to do it for, then building tires and skyscrapers is only worth about 75 cents an hour because I can scavenge the world and find plenty desperate enough to do it same with our military while stripping all benefits from them beyond healthcare and living arrangements such that they contribute to performing their duties. You see just how messed up that line of logic gets you?

If you cannot bargain by yourself (which you can), then collectively bargain. That's why unions were formed. If you agree to work for a price, that is exactly what you are worth. That's the fundamental basis of economics.

If you are so easily replaced, then your value decreases. Once again, that is not the fault of your employer, that falls on the shoulders of the employee. Make yourself more marketable, and increse your value. Most empoloyers would be willing to pay their employees more, but they won't, unless the employee demads it. Of course, most employees would also be willing to work for less.

- - - Updated - - -

Generational wealth: The American Dream.

Being born rich, or hoping to win the lottery.

But I'm not going to back and forth with you all day; I know you have nothing better to do.

And how many people are born rich? Very fucking few.

Almost everyone is in their position in life due to the choices they've made.

[Daerio]

And how many people are born rich? Very fucking few.

Almost everyone is in their position in life due to the choices they've made.

Statistics show almost everyone is in their position due to what income bracket they were born in. That's what social mobility measures. Rich people die rich, poor people die poor; decisions end up being irrelevant. Laws written by the rich for the rich entrench this economic reality to the severe detriment of innovation and progression.

I think we're in the corporate dark age right now. Technological progression is slowed as much as possible by corporate monopoly and regulation written to their favor.

[Machismo]

Statistics show almost everyone is in their position due to what income bracket they were born in. That's what social mobility measures. Rich people die rich, poor people die poor; decisions end up being irrelevant. Laws written by the rich for the rich entrench this economic reality.

People base decisions on what they know. If someone sees their parent wasting money on cigarettes and lotery tickets, they are very likely to make the same idiotic choices. People act like thier parents, because it's the path of least resistance. It's not destiny, it's a rut built by complacency.

[Fugus]

If you cannot bargain by yourself (which you can), then collectively bargain. That's why unions were formed. If you agree to work for a price, that is exactly what you are worth. That's the fundamental basis of economics.

If you are so easily replaced, then your value decreases. Once again, that is not the fault of your employer, that falls on the shoulders of the employee. Make yourself more marketable, and increse your value. Most empoloyers would be willing to pay their employees more, but they won't, unless the employee demads it. Of course, most employees would also be willing to work for less.

Either you have no clue of the overall situation or you are being disingenuous about it. That is not how things work in the US currently.

When it comes to entry level jobs, you can't bargain for yourself in the current market without either 100% employment or universal income, neither of which we have, otherwise you are stuck at the will of your employer without collective bargaining. And collective bargaining is something that has been hamstrung in the US for decades with many places doing whatever they can to cut unions off at the knees.

And sorry, but "If you agree to a price that is what you are worth" holds no water when you are under duress at the time you were forced to make that agreement which is the exact situation you are in in what you are describing when you are talking about refusing a job unless it is at a wage you accept when you have no job and bills coming in.

That is basic economics of the situation which you are ignoring.

And even if your value decreases due to demand for your labor, the absolute lowest any job is worth, no matter what the job, is the cost of supporting the person doing it. That is effectively the bottom floor and to pay less than that is to require the government subsidize the difference which is corporate welfare disguised as public welfare at that point.

Almost everything you are saying ignores the economics of the situation, you are putting rhetoric before reality on this man. Think critically about it.

[Deleted]

So I'm clear.....American businesses giving low paying jobs to illegal immigrants

Which is what is happening.

(which is against the law)

And if we made it illegal, that means no one does it...
But fine, whatever way you want, building a wall, or sticking gigantic control on business - whatever works - But you get that is diametrically opposed to the lefts 'no borders' policy?

[Machismo]

Either you have no clue of the overall situation or you are being disingenuous about it. That is not how things work in the US currently.

When it comes to entry level jobs, you can't bargain for yourself in the current market without either 100% employment or universal income, neither of which we have, otherwise you are stuck at the will of your employer without collective bargaining. And collective bargaining is something that has been hamstrung in the US for decades with many places doing whatever they can to cut unions off at the knees.

And sorry, but "If you agree to a price that is what you are worth" holds no water when you are under duress at the time you were forced to make that agreement which is the exact situation you are in in what you are describing when you are talking about refusing a job unless it is at a wage you accept when you have no job and bills coming in.

That is basic economics of the situation which you are ignoring.

And even if your value decreases due to demand for your labor, the absolute lowest any job is worth, no matter what the job, is the cost of supporting the person doing it. That is effectively the bottom floor and to pay less than that is to require the government subsidize the difference which is corporate welfare disguised as public welfare at that point.

Almost everything you are saying ignores the economics of the situation, you are putting rhetoric before reality on this man. Think critically about it.

That's how economics works. In times of higher unemployment, you have a "buyer's" market. You also have it with high divorce trates, single parents, and two-income families. You can't fault employers for negotiating their hand better than the employees. If you don't like it, refuse to patronize any business that does it. People are just too lazy and complacent to negotiate on their own behalf.

I have a great job, and I love my employer. I work hard, and I show my value to my company. I have no plans to leave. However, I make a point to continue to look for new employment. If someone offers me a higher-paying job, I take their offer to my employer, and see if they will match it. They match it (or beat it) every time. If they don't, then I may have a new employer.

[Zafire]

I work in a factory job that is union, and it barely pays over minimum wage starting out. I've been there four years and have a higher labor grade position that there is a limited number of and I only make $12.20/hr.

While that's not completely terrible, it's certainly well below average.

[Gamdwelf]

Then people shouldn't work for less than they feel they are worth.

If it's a choice between eating and have a place to sleep or not working for less than you're worth you make a choice.

[Machismo]

If it's a choice between eating and have a place to sleep or not working for less than you're worth you make a choice.

Like I said, most people are in their position in life due to the choices they've made. Most people who have a job, never bother to continue looking for a better one.

[Daerio]

I have a great job, and I love my employer. I work hard, and I show my value to my company.

Perspective is everything. The problem is the system has to work for everybody, not just you.

[McFuu]

That's how economics works. In times of higher unemployment, you have a "buyer's" market. You also have it with high divorce trates, single parents, and two-income families. You can't fault employers for negotiating their hand better than the employees. If you don't like it, refuse to patronize any business that does it. People are just too lazy and complacent to negotiate on their own behalf.

I have a great job, and I love my employer. I work hard, and I show my value to my company. I have no plans to leave. However, I make a point to continue to look for new employment. If someone offers me a higher-paying job, I take their offer to my employer, and see if they will match it. They match it (or beat it) every time. If they don't, then I may have a new employer.

While I 100% agree that it's for the employee to negotiate the terms of their employment. It's a stickier subject when speaking about entry level. Unless every person who works in unskilled/uneducated work sector got together and demanded better pay or xyz, employers simply won't hire them. There is always another person to pick up the job at more reasonable terms for the employer.

It's a give or take, the employee should suffer lesser work/income because they are the unskilled/uneducated worker, they are the ones bringing nothing to the table other than a body. On the other side, should we allow companies to take as big of an advantage of these workers that we currently do.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I have a great job, and I love my employer. I work hard, and I show my value to my company.

Congrats, you're 100% disconnected from the problems of the rest of the work force. Jobs like that are the exception these days. You say companies negotiate better these days. The reality is they legislated it as such, and you apparently see nothing wrong using government to take away collective bargaining.

"Just negotiate a better wage" is something you'd tell an individual. What most conservatives fail to see is that their "advice" is for individuals, and does not address the problems of the economy as a whole.

[Kapadons]

Doesn't the majority of federal income come from corporate and income taxes in the top 5%? I think it's something like the top 20% pay 84% of taxes. So it seems to me saying that we are subsidizing companies with taxpayers money through welfare is misleading seeing as the rich are the ones paying the taxes anyway. Seems we are simply adding a middle man to the equation. A company keeps wages low and workers use government assistance, funded primarily by big business and rich people, to make it by. They could cut out the middle man and just pay a higher wage, but the government would also need to lower the amount taxed to keep all things "equal" I can't see the government doing that currently. So it seems it would be a bad decision on the part of a business to increase wages and keep paying same amount into "welfare"

[McFuu]

Congrats, you're 100% disconnected from the problems of the rest of the work force. Jobs like that are the exception these days. You say companies negotiate better these days. The reality is they legislated it as such, and you apparently see nothing wrong using government to take away collective bargaining.

"Just negotiate a better wage" is something you'd tell an individual. What most conservatives fail to see is that their "advice" is for individuals, and does not address the problems of the economy as a whole.

This isn't a conservative or liberal problem, leave that false rhetoric out of the discussion.

[Fugus]

That's how economics works. In times of higher unemployment, you have a "buyer's" market. You also have it with high divorce trates, single parents, and two-income families. You can't fault employers for negotiating their hand better than the employees. If you don't like it, refuse to patronize any business that does it. People are just too lazy and complacent to negotiate on their own behalf.

I have a great job, and I love my employer. I work hard, and I show my value to my company. I have no plans to leave. However, I make a point to continue to look for new employment. If someone offers me a higher-paying job, I take their offer to my employer, and see if they will match it. They match it (or beat it) every time. If they don't, then I may have a new employer.

I understand how the market works. I also understand that it does not self regulate and left to it's own devices it goes off the rails. And the wage debate is a shining example of the failure of the market forces where it forces wages below sustainable levels without intervention to prevent it.

It is one of those issues where it may not directly be contributed directly to any single companies fault but that doesn't change the fact that it is a problem regardless of who's fault it is and one that government pretty will is required to fix as the companies will not do so of their own free will.

It isn't a case of lazy people many times, it is a case of options. A good example locally, if I wanted to only shop at grocery stores that paid their employees a livable wage and refuse shopping elsewhere. My ONLY option that does so is a full hour and 45 minute drive away to get there. Outside of them, all my options all pay at or near minimum wage locally and they are forced to in order to compete otherwise they put themselves at a disadvantage to anyone else who is.

And great anecdote on your part, but that is all it is, an anecdote and on that goes against the overall trend.