Remember that $70K salary experiment? Here's what happened over a year later

[Orange Joe]

there's always an option, your conditions of employment are consensual, you CHOSE to work for someone, no one forces you.

A option, yes. An option to get a better job with better wages. No, not always.

[Theinquisition]

A option, yes. An option to get a better job with better wages. No, not always.

that's not the fault of the employer. So, once again, you're not compelled to work for anyone by force.

[Orange Joe]

that's not the fault of the employer. So, once again, you're not compelled to work for anyone by force.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.... So what is the point of mentioning it.


We are talking about peoples options to advance in a career. Not every option they can make in their lifetime.

[kneehidude]

Aww. Happy endings It likely was a publicity stunt and I don't think we can extrapolate findings from this experiment to mean that it is feasible for the majority of companies to pay their employees $70k a year, but I do think that all or most companies can afford to pay a living wage. And those that can't, probably shouldn't be in business.

So a new company that is just getting started, or a little mom and pop company shouldn't be in business?

[Theinquisition]

Which has nothing to do with what I said.... So what is the point of mentioning it.


We are talking about peoples options to advance in a career. Not every option they can make in their lifetime.

If you are working for a dead end company, it is YOUR responsibility to either find a new employer that will value your education and experience, or find a way to succeed in your job. It shouldn't be your employers job to hold your hand to success.

- - - Updated - - -

So a new company that is just getting started, or a little mom and pop company shouldn't be in business?

Pretty much, that's what some of these "15 an hour or bust" advocates don't understand, that they will be pricing small business out of the labor market. The only employers that will be left will be the mega corporations that can absorb the costs because of economies of scale, after which they can manipulate things like work hours to make up the difference.

Than we get the argument of "well gee golly Tony, they will just spend those new dollars at those mom and pops and keep them in business".

No, just no.

I mean seriously, lets look at how Wal-Mart got so big.....by selling products for a lower cost that what mom and pops could. Even if lil johnny working at Celistras Electronics gets that large wage, what is going to compel them to spend that money at those small businesses. If I can go to wally world and buy a new Sony 70inch TV for 1k or Celestras for 1200, guess where im going.

[Orange Joe]

If you are working for a dead end company, it is YOUR responsibility to either find a new employer that will value your education and experience, or find a way to succeed in your job. It shouldn't be your employers job to hold your hand to success.

Again... what does this have to do with not having that option?

Also. Where did I assign blame? Does someone have to be at fault to make an improvement across the board?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Where do you see me defending anything? I am explaining the lack of logic of those that oppose fair wages and taxes that are more fair to decrease income inequality as that leads to a better economy.

I see there's plenty left to improve, especially regarding wages and tax evasion by big multinationals. I don't see the benefit in protecting a class that doesn't seem to be all the much concerned with my well being and those near me and i dismiss the myths that suddenly growth would disappear if we would tax these people more. As the argument would be they would move their money elsewhere and we wouldn't benefit from it, but that's already happening so i don't see why the richer class who benefits more should end up paying less in comparison.

Greed is a constant growth, that's why government control is important and why liberalism on an economical level cannot work. We see what that does when the housing bubble bursted allowing banks to sell loans to each other over and over creating toxic products. So i am all in favor for more conservative economy with a healthy needed dose of social elements in there as seen in most of western europe.

- - - Updated - - -



You cannot change the way people act, you can't suddenly demand people to life on the bare minimum and honestly most of them don't even get that in terms of support looking here not just at the US but also at Europe.

Also reducing the consumption in a consumption based economy such as the west, with the US depending somewhat upwards of 80% on consumption within their economy is a bad idea, it causes the economy to slow down. While your idea has novelty it essentially requires a time machine, it requires the economy to shrink again and people to be satisfied with less. This is never going to happen, at most what this will do is increase crime waves, social unrest will rise up to very high levels what is bad for stability in general.

And if that happens we are even further away from a stable future, since we know the last times what happened when this occurred either a bloody revolution or wars.

Then we can continue hurtling towards entropy. We're trying to grasp at ever-lasting life and it simply doesn't work that way, everything falls apart at some point, nothing last forever, etc. The best system is the one that understands this and adapts to it rather than FORCING it to go exactly as we want because lord forbid our high-standards get shattered.

Not to mention, the very control of government you're advocating for, is why we're facing this uphill battle to begin with. As it grows and intermingles with market forces it'll become that much more corrupt and a greater extension of the market's strongest rather than an inhibitor. That's why I'd like to see it relegated to a mitigator versus a regulator. Where its sole purpose(when we're not discussing the court system) within the market is to prevent power from centralizing too much. An agile steward of sorts for fairness rather than some micro-manipulating behemoth that gets lost within its own sheer mass.

I just don't get how we honestly came to believe that we could forever maintain a grossly bloated, materially based system forever. I always thought of the American people as more sensible than that. Things ebb-and-flow. Sometimes they're rough, other times they're good. The best economy is the one that can go with the flow and make the most of any situation. Otherwise you end up with HUGE crescendos and backbreaking descents and that's why we get so terrified of any decline, ironically only setting the table for it to occur in the first place with our immense appetites.

That's probably why we can't address the centralization of wealth within this country in the first place. We're too greedy ourselves to take chances and really shake up the system.

[Celista]

So a new company that is just getting started, or a little mom and pop company shouldn't be in business?

If you can't afford to pay a living wage then do the work yourself.

[kneehidude]

If you can't afford to pay a living wage then do the work yourself.

After a while, the workload is too much. Yet maybe the company is not big enough to pay out the nose. I mean, I'm not suggesting they should be able to pay slave wages. But demanding $15/hour or something along those lines from a company trying to get started is a little unreasonable.

[Celista]

After a while, the workload is too much. Yet maybe the company is not big enough to pay out the nose. I mean, I'm not suggesting they should be able to pay slave wages. But demanding $15/hour or something along those lines from a company trying to get started is a little unreasonable.

$15/hour in some cities isn't even a living wage. Minimum wage is basically a slave wage depending on the state/area...

Paid employment is not a charity. It's not the employee's job to give their employer a break by taking a low pay; employers running a business should know better than to ask employees to subsidize their pay because they can't manage overhead, sales, marketing correctly. Do you think these companies necessarily compensate their employees when cash flow is positive and they're generating profits? Nah.

[Anevers]

If I remember correctly, most McDonalds are franchises with profit margins in the single digits. So yeah, a massive hike in wages would equal a massive hike in prices.

Depends on what you mean by massive.

If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rele...3-percent.html
https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-ho...273#.7onue3ig8

[Nihilist74]

I would like to see two tax penalties and breaks created. A tax penalty for property owners who rent homes at high rates based on the average salary of a given area. I would like to see business receive a tax penalty based on their wages compared with the average rental costs of the given area. Property owners and businesses would receive tax breaks for renting their property at lower rates based on the salary average of the area. Business would receive a tax break for paying wages that were higher based on the average cost to rent of an area.

[Endus]

After a while, the workload is too much. Yet maybe the company is not big enough to pay out the nose. I mean, I'm not suggesting they should be able to pay slave wages. But demanding $15/hour or something along those lines from a company trying to get started is a little unreasonable.

$15/hour is a pretty poor wage. That's just over $30k/year. That's working-class, not even into lower-middle-class. Can we stop pretending that $15/hour is tons of money?

Hell, when I get a TA position at my university, based on the expected 10 hours/week, it works out to something like $26/hour.

[Jinpachi]

I just read the article. Pretty much the owner "gets by", in renting out his home and I think he was living with other people. His workers seem happy and he got a bump from all the good publicity.

Now his company is more profitable and he may again take his million dollar salary. Which he said he always intended if his company did well. Again, for all those that think us liberals rail against capitalism. I am fine with him making his money and paying his employees a very good salary.

The bad. All those people are now having kids. I am one who thinks the world is overpopulated now.

Edit: Also there was stuff about his wife and fight with his brother. Embezzlement charges that were cleared. Basically small stuff to show he is not an angel.

The world isn't overpopulated. Cities maybe, but the world? Hardly. Plenty of land not being utilized that people could live quite comfortably on. Who needs population density? People are too close together imho.

- - - Updated - - -

$15/hour is a pretty poor wage. That's just over $30k/year. That's working-class, not even into lower-middle-class. Can we stop pretending that $15/hour is tons of money?

Hell, when I get a TA position at my university, based on the expected 10 hours/week, it works out to something like $26/hour.

15$ an hour where i live is enough to raise a family on.

- - - Updated - - -

A option, yes. An option to get a better job with better wages. No, not always.

You ALWAYS have the option to improve your lot in life. If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way. If not, you'll find an excuse.

[Endus]

15$ an hour where i live is enough to raise a family on.

Most estimates of how much your rent should be is around 30% of your net income, after taxes. Going with this calculator; http://www.rentlingo.com/how-much-rent-can-i-afford

That's about $850/mo for rent.

To "raise a family" on that, you're paying for at least two adults and a child, so you're going to need at least a 2-bedroom apartment below that price range. A quick check of some local listings here (well outside Toronto), and I can't see any under $950. Heck, there's ads on Kijiji for people looking for roomates in a 2br, askigng $700+.

Maybe you live in an unusually cheap area, but that's not a realistic expectation for most people.

[Orange Joe]

You ALWAYS have the option to improve your lot in life. If you want something bad enough, you'll find a way. If not, you'll find an excuse.

Ok, so tell me. What options does a person have that has no money to move and no higher paying job available in the area they live.

[Deathcries]

After a while, the workload is too much. Yet maybe the company is not big enough to pay out the nose. I mean, I'm not suggesting they should be able to pay slave wages. But demanding $15/hour or something along those lines from a company trying to get started is a little unreasonable.

I think this is a good thing for companies like Walmart who can easily afford the 15 dollar minimum wage while other competitors fold because they cannot. Walmart does thank you. They want the minimum wage raised.

- - - Updated - - -

Most estimates of how much your rent should be is around 30% of your net income, after taxes. Going with this calculator; http://www.rentlingo.com/how-much-rent-can-i-afford

That's about $850/mo for rent.

To "raise a family" on that, you're paying for at least two adults and a child, so you're going to need at least a 2-bedroom apartment below that price range. A quick check of some local listings here (well outside Toronto), and I can't see any under $950. Heck, there's ads on Kijiji for people looking for roomates in a 2br, askigng $700+.

Maybe you live in an unusually cheap area, but that's not a realistic expectation for most people.

Maybe don't be a dumb ass and have a family on a minimum wage income? Nah, that's too much common sense. Let's put it on the backs of the middle class. We need to make it harder on them.

[Endus]

Maybe don't be a dumb ass and have a family on a minimum wage income? Nah, that's too much common sense. Let's put it on the backs of the middle class. We need to make it harder on them.

Nothing here would make anything "harder for the middle class". Also, I don't see how it's equitable to argue that working-class people shouldn't have families. That's just misanthropic, particularly when the alternative is "pay them a reasonable salary in the first place".

[Deathcries]

Nothing here would make anything "harder for the middle class". Also, I don't see how it's equitable to argue that working-class people shouldn't have families. That's just misanthropic, particularly when the alternative is "pay them a reasonable salary in the first place".

I have a blue collared job. I realized working at minimum wage wasn't going to work if I wanted a family so I started learning a trade. I worked my ass off in order to do so. Then again I have the mentality If you do not work you do not eat. You have the mentality if you do not work, pilfer it from someone who does, and is successful. Your mentality is why Jamestown in the early 1600's in America occurred.

[Captain N]

I have a blue collared job. I realized working at minimum wage wasn't going to work if I wanted a family so I started learning a trade. I worked my ass off in order to do so. Then again I have the mentality If you do not work you do not eat. You have the mentality if you do not work, pilfer it from someone who does, and is successful. Your mentality is why Jamestown in the early 1600's in America occurred.

And your mentality is why people in 2008 went from good jobs to the welfare lines. Congratulations you became a tradesman. Do you think that somehow makes you immune from job loss? Do you think that you could continue to do the same work if you sustained an injury? Perhaps your argument is people in low wage work are there because they chose to be in all cases? Or is it more likely that your trade wages are barely above that $15/hour that you feel threatened that someone else will be making more money and you believe yourself incapable of negotiating higher wages for yourself?