Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[beanman12345]

$20 should be lowest minimum wage, $22 imo would be optimal. That's to start with. People making 7 and a quarter in large swaths of this country, that's depressing, and these make up the bulk of what are considered the essential jobs, and they're the ones getting covid coming home spreading it to family.

UBI would be even better, but I think that has even less of a chance of happening.

[PC2]

$20 should be lowest minimum wage, $22 imo would be optimal. That's to start with. People making 7 and a quarter in large swaths of this country, that's depressing, and these make up the bulk of what are considered the essential jobs, and they're the ones getting covid coming home spreading it to family.

UBI would be even better, but I think that has even less of a chance of happening.

By what means are you determining that a $20 or $22 wage is "optimal"? Without a need to justify anything you could simply say $24 or $26 and it wouldn't make any difference.

[Elegiac]

By what means are you determining that a $20 or $22 wage is "optimal"? Without a need to justify anything you could simply say $24 or $26 and it wouldn't make any difference.

Based on gains that should have been made in accordance with productivity, minimum wage should be in the realm of 20 to 22 dollars an hour.



Whether or not that is a living wage and what constitutes a living wage is the vague part. The current wage being far, far too low is a basic fact.

[PC2]

Based on gains that should have been made in accordance with productivity, minimum wage should be in the realm of 20 to 22 dollars an hour.



Whether or not that is a living wage and what constitutes a living wage is the vague part. The current wage being far, far too low is a basic fact.

Except that's fundamentally meaningless because it's based on the assumption that if something existed in the past then it's correct and in order for things to be correct now they must be a continuation of historical trends. You should absolutely never expect that to be the case.

If an idea or numerical value is correct then what you want is to give a justification for 'why' as well as 'how' you determined they are correct, which historical data cannot answer those two questions.

[Elegiac]

Except that's fundamentally meaningless because it's based on the assumption that if something existed in the past then it's correct and in order for things to be correct now they must be a continuation of historical trends. You should absolutely never expect that to be the case.

If an idea or numerical value is correct then what you want is to give a justification for 'why' as well as 'how' you determined they are correct, which historical data cannot answer those two questions.

Kay.

I determine it is correct because people should be paid fairly for their labor, and if they are producing more they should be paid more.

Prove me wrong.

[Dezerte]

I'm with you.

It's very bizarre to me the idea that working shouldn't be rewarding, meaning it not only should be a liveable wage (housing, food, utilities) but also leave you with some spare cash that can be spent however you like (i.e. the reward) even if it's not a new TV or car, it can be a new game or some new furniture.

[FatGandalf]

I´m not sure where I stand on UBI..

However anyone working a full time job (40 hour weeks) should make a livable wage. The minimum wage in the US is a joke. A really bad one.

[kamuimac]

I know this was a hot topic a couple weeks ago with everything that's going on at Blizzard, however with that specifically set aside for a moment, this is about a more broader issue that has been a problem for a long time now. This idea that if you don't want to be in poverty you need to go to college to insure a better future which in my opinion is just an ancient and asinine way of thinking that is killing our country and future generations to come.

Every single person in the United States of America should be paid a living wage based on their location regardless of their job or status.
- A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs.

I find it unsettling to say the least that blue collar workers who are the backbone of society and the ones who even make our economy run in the first place, shouldn't be paid more money because of the type of work they do. Workers who stock store shelves, drive trucks, deliver packages, work in warehouses, deal with rude costumers all day in restaurants and retail stores, the people who make it possible so you can take a shower every morning or deal with your human waste when you flush the toilet etc. Why do these people not deserve to be paid a wage that allows them to eat, pay their bills and save a little extra? Millions of Americans (and people all over the world really) are living paycheck to paycheck meanwhile greedy business owners are sitting on millions and billions without a care in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying someone delivering groceries or working the cash register at your favorite restaurant deserves to be making 100k a year but at the same time shouldn't have to be begging for tips to barely pay their $1400/month rent on a minimum wage that hasn't been adjusted to meet the standards of inflation since 2009. Now for those who want a little extra to buy their Mercedes Benz then by all mean go to school and get into those fields with a lot higher paying salaries to meet the standard of the way you want to live. However this does not mean everyone else that we depend on should be starving.

Look at it this way. For everyone who wanted to be a software engineer or a doctor or a pilot etc...that's amazing but at the end of the day there still people NEEDED to do all those "meaningless" jobs no one else wants to do; you can't expect 14 and 15 year olds to run all those businesses which is an argument that I often see. What about our education system where teachers are paid the bare minimum on college degrees to help shape our future?

I think it's about time we come together and take a stance this.

im gonna post like in every single thread of this type

living wage doesnt mean wage that lets you live comfotably only wage that puts roof over your head , some clothes on your back and minimal amount of food needed for nutrition .

where :

roof over your head means that you are able to rent a room/bed in someone elses apartement

some clothes - may mean used clothes sold in 2nd hand shops

minimal nutritions - 1500-2000 calories a day

this is what living wage means.

want more ? work . save . educate yourself . work better job - earn more

only lazy people cant afford decent living nowadays.

- - - Updated - - -

It's only fair that labor gets compensated equally for the value it brings to the economy. Without labor there is no capital or capitalism, ergo labor deserves to be compensated fairly for it's productivity.

Labor is the mother of capitalism... right now capitalism is acting like a leech and abusing it's own mother.

well it is compensated fairly

if you only live skill is stocking shelves in shop then ofc you should barely scrap the bottom

i always give the same advice - learn how to paint walls - its very easy a nicely paid job in all western markets.

if you cant learn that you dont dervers anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on gains that should have been made in accordance with productivity, minimum wage should be in the realm of 20 to 22 dollars an hour.



Whether or not that is a living wage and what constitutes a living wage is the vague part. The current wage being far, far too low is a basic fact.

oh can i destroy this ? let me let me

you know why you had such nice years between 1947 - 79 ? ask italians, people from ireland , afro-americans and mexicans how was their life back then in 1947-1979 - then you may have a clue what build your "wealth" in that years.

[Elegiac]

oh can i destroy this ? let me let me

you know why you had such nice years between 1947 - 79 ? ask italians, people from ireland , afro-americans and mexicans how was their life back then in 1947-1979 - then you may have a clue what build your "wealth" in that years.

You are aware that Jim Crow and America's racist immigration policies date to well before the First World War, right? Sit down.

[kamuimac]

This is the age old argument over increasing minimum wage. The problem is that inflation is already increasing prices and wages aren't keeping up. Worker productivity has consistently increased. Corporations are making record profits.

well then workers are free to open their own companies and achieve success too

what is stopping them ?

ah they lack any decent skills and cannot produce anything valuable

what a shame

thn maybe their wages are fair after all .

[Elegiac]

well then workers are free to open their own companies and achieve success too

what is stopping them ?

Lack of capital. Which is impossible to accrue with shit wages and no social mobility.

ah they lack any decent skills and cannot produce anything valuable

You have it entirely, entirely backwards here.

Business owners are the ones that lack skills; that is why they pay workers for their labor (i.e. skills). What they have is the money (i.e. capital) to buy the equipment, buildings, and other infrastructure that helps turn that labor into valued products and services.

Shit man, can the capitalist die-hards in this thread please learn how capitalism works?

[Elegiac]

The idea of a 'skillless job' is a fallacy, created in the corrupted corporate mind to justify them underpaying their employees.

Also I'm curious what "skills" business owners bring besides causing most businesses to fail within a year of starting, lol.

[YUPPIE]

No, you should never reward people for not working. That's honestly crazy.

[Elegiac]

No, you should never reward people for not working. That's honestly crazy.

I have something to tell you about the stock market. And also landlords.

[YUPPIE]

I have something to tell you about the stock market. And also landlords.

it's just my opinion but you shouldn't be entitled to basic living if you don't expect to contribute to society in any way. That creates parasites.

[kamuimac]

Lack of capital. Which is impossible to accrue with shit wages and no social mobility.



You have it entirely, entirely backwards here.

Business owners are the ones that lack skills; that is why they pay workers for their labor (i.e. skills). What they have is the money (i.e. capital) to buy the equipment, buildings, and other infrastructure that helps turn that labor into valued products and services.

Shit man, can the capitalist die-hards in this thread please learn how capitalism works?

capital is there. when i was starting my side mini-small business (after hours in my work and to deduce some "costs" instead paying it all in taxes) that is nicely steadily growing i got nearly 15k euro grant from EU funds for new businesses .

people are just lazy and lack motivation . thats why they will always complain .

but then agreed i dont live in land of brave and free so i do look at stuff differently

[Elegiac]

capital is there. when i was starting my side mini-small business (after hours in my work and to deduce some "costs" instead paying it all in taxes) that is nicely steadily growing i got nearly 10k euro grant from EU funds for new businesses .

people are just lazy and lack motivation . thats why they will always complain .

"I started my business using government tax deductions and government subsidies" is not the shining argument for capitalism that you think it is, sweetheart. Lol.

Also, your anecdotes are statistically worthless and not applicable to anyone besides yourself.

[kamuimac]

I have something to tell you about the stock market. And also landlords.

and you honestly belive that landlords dont work ? or that people who invest heavily in stocks and rip profit from it dont work ?

guess you live in alternate reality or in 0,00001% of world wealth

most of wealthy people i know work crazy hours even though they could easily become rentiers by age of 40 .

but lack of things to do would kill them very fast.

- - - Updated - - -

"I started my business using government tax deductions and government subsidies" is not the shining argument for capitalism that you think it is, sweetheart. Lol.

Also, your anecdotes are statistically worthless and not applicable to anyone besides yourself.

exept to at least 4 - 5 of my friends who also got such grants - for businesses varying from hair/nails parlor, through private MD practise and ending with private lawyers practise.

also why it isnt ? anyone stopping you from making good business plan and taking start-up loan from bank ?

but ye if you start you gotta work - and lazy people dont want to work - thats their biggest problem .

[Doctor Amadeus]

True and anyone arguing against the OP Title forfeit their right to ever complain about crime or anything associated with it.

[Endus]

im gonna post like in every single thread of this type

living wage doesnt mean wage that lets you live comfotably only wage that puts roof over your head , some clothes on your back and minimal amount of food needed for nutrition .

where :

roof over your head means that you are able to rent a room/bed in someone elses apartement

some clothes - may mean used clothes sold in 2nd hand shops

minimal nutritions - 1500-2000 calories a day

this is what living wage means.

No. It isn't. A living wage is intended to give the worker a basic standard of living, and that includes a basic level of entertainment and the like, not just the barest of minimums.

What you're describing is a subsistence wage, which is not the same thing at all.

it's just my opinion but you shouldn't be entitled to basic living if you don't expect to contribute to society in any way. That creates parasites.

Acting as a consumer contributes to the economy, more than working for a wage does. Consuming itself is not "parasitic", in a consumer economy; it's the fundamental basis of the entire economy.

and you honestly belive that landlords dont work ? or that people who invest heavily in stocks and rip profit from it dont work ?

In both cases, no. Their income is derived solely through ownership of things.

In the case of landlords specifically, there's maintenance and such to handle, but landlords often hire a building manager to handle all that stuff. Often for the wage of "not paying rent for their apartment". The only "work" they would be doing is approving or declining major repairs, and making sure the funds are available for it.

And stocks? Hire a fund manager. They'll do literally all the work for a slice off the top. You literally do not have to do any work with your stock portfolio, to earn an income off it.