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

[Logwyn]

Businesses also have to pay the wages, and people might buy items made in other countries instead.

Thus some businesses will be better off, some worse off.

Similarly some will be out of job, since paying that much for the job doesn't make sense - either the job isn't done at all or automated/done more efficiently. If the person can find a new job that could still be a positive thing, if they can't find one it doesn't seem like a good thing.

I heard somewhere that for Amazon to pay all of their workers at least 15 an hour all they would need to do is raise their prices 1 penny across the board to maintain Amazon levels of income and profits. Not sure the truth to it. But I bet its closer to the truth than not for most mega corporations.

[Calfredd]

He's confused by the anarcho part of that term.

And now his entire account is deleted.

[Hilhen7]

Businesses also have to pay the wages, and people might buy items made in other countries instead.

Thus some businesses will be better off, some worse off.

Similarly some will be out of job, since paying that much for the job doesn't make sense - either the job isn't done at all or automated/done more efficiently. If the person can find a new job that could still be a positive thing, if they can't find one it doesn't seem like a good thing.

I mean if we are talking about an extra $1 or $2 per hour the business must be doing extremely bad to not be able to survive...

I'm sure a small portion may be spent on foreign goods. But in the grand scheme of things how much is a poor person going to spend on foreign products? Most likely the majority will be spend on food and other essential goods.

[Zan15]

A grade school kid with a part-time paper route does not "deserve" a living wage.

YA!!! that billion dollar corporation should be able to have sub standard child labor so they can make billions and the CEO make 19 million a year.

Living wage does not mean paying a paperboy enough money to afford an house, car, etc etc on a part time job.

Are you saying the newspaper company should be allowed to pay that kid 2 dollars an hour for 12 dollars worth of work just because he is a kid and part time?



I take it you never delivered newspapers huh? or maybe forgot?
its quite a demanding job in some area's still to this day.
Try newspapers as a kid in 11 inches of snow, when that snow comes every other day in new England.


Besides almost all papers are now delivered by adults in cars because of the papers/per mile pretty much make it impossible for kids to perform.

..and on your topic, most of them are woefully paid a substandard living wage.

- - - Updated - - -

I heard somewhere that for Amazon to pay all of their workers at least 15 an hour all they would need to do is raise their prices 1 penny across the board to maintain Amazon levels of income and profits. Not sure the truth to it. But I bet its closer to the truth than not for most mega corporations.

its been like this for decades every time someone did a study of Walmart. The amount they would have to raise prices to offset would be so small no one would notice in relation to the standard inflation rate.

They even did the same for McDonalds and the cost increases were no where near what price increases happen on a yearly basis that have not caused any loss in business.

- - - Updated - - -

It's strange when people say that raising minimum wage is bad for businesses.

If wages go up that means people have more to spend and companies should be able to sell more products (Of course here are limits). The only time increasing wages is bad for the economy is when people start hording their wealth instead of spending it. And usually the Rich hoard wealth, not the poor.

that is why 2008-2009 was so bad.
Corporations laid off so many people so fast just to get a small bump or prevent a drop in stock prices that in the end they lost millions of customers. short term gains for current execs/shareholders turned into long term losses.

[Forogil]

I mean if we are talking about an extra $1 or $2 per hour the business must be doing extremely bad to not be able to survive...

I'm sure a small portion may be spent on foreign goods. But in the grand scheme of things how much is a poor person going to spend on foreign products? Most likely the majority will be spend on food and other essential goods.

Food and essential goods may also be imported, and people may not spend extra money on food even if they are starving. (And perhaps not the best food.)

Trying to reason what a poor person should spend their extra money on rarely gives the correct answer; at least that's one lesson I got from "Poor Ecomics".

[Hilhen7]

Food and essential goods may also be imported, and people may not spend extra money on food even if they are starving. (And perhaps not the best food.)

Trying to reason what a poor person should spend their extra money on rarely gives the correct answer; at least that's one lesson I got from "Poor Ecomics".

The actual item it's being spent on doesn't matter too much as long as the wealth is being spent. Does it really matter to Food Town if the money is spent on broccoli, or a can of soda?

Even if the good is made overseas not all the money exits the US economy. The retailer gets it's cut, which is often the lions share anyway....

[Cruor]

Welfare is shitty till the day you need it.
So many people i know in both 2008-2009 and 2020 who used to rail against every program, now are unemployed and quiet on the subject.


There are a lot of things that come out of your pocket and much of what comes out of your pocket funds things other than welfare. You might even support a lot of those programs but other people do not.

The big one, people whom have to pay taxes to support other people's kids going to school or pay the same for 1 kid that someone is paying for 4.

in the end I realize that some of my money goes to programs I don't support, but most to those I do.
In a perfect world i could choose where my tax dollars go but in reality that won't happen, so compromise it is.

So in the end i support almost all the programs, but i still fight against waste and fight for a transfer of spending from one program to another.

Once you realize that welfare benefits the economy and lowers crime, you might get out of your funk on hating it so much

- - - Updated - - -



btw what do you consider "welfare" in our budget?

- - - Updated - - -



LOL "under Obama", for taxes that were created decades ago....and were not touched by Obama at all.

So obama created income tax? Employment Taxes? NYC income tax? Etc etc?

i am so sorry your dad had to live on 550,000 a year, my condolences.
He really needs a better accountant and/or financial consultant.

That would be 450k, not 550k. Less than half. You either can't read or do basic math so why argue with you? I said kept 45 cents on the dollar.

[Zan15]

That would be 450k, not 550k. Less than half. You either can't read or do basic math so why argue with you? I said kept 45 cents on the dollar.

Cruor: "Oh thank god, a typo/math mistake to save me from actually having to support my original statements or answer questions. Hell at least i don't have to admit i was wrong or full of shit on most of the points"


since i don't know which it was because a 4 is next to 5 and my maff skills are as badder as my grammers skills.

How about instead of being childish you keep to the topic and answer some questions.
Or maybe put in a disclaimer that you have no intention of ever actually having a rational discussion so people don't have to waste their time?

[SirBeef]

And now his entire account is deleted.

Typical conservafraud. Can win an argument with facts and sound reasoning. Tuck tail, run, and hide.

[Forogil]

I heard somewhere that for Amazon to pay all of their workers at least 15 an hour all they would need to do is raise their prices 1 penny across the board to maintain Amazon levels of income and profits. Not sure the truth to it. But I bet its closer to the truth than not for most mega corporations.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/02/t...age/index.html

- - - Updated - - -

The actual item it's being spent on doesn't matter too much as long as the wealth is being spent. Does it really matter to Food Town if the money is spent on broccoli, or a can of soda?

It matters to Food Town if the money is spent in Food Town or not, and "the poor" does not necessarily spend extra money on food.

[Zan15]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/02/t...age/index.html

- - - Updated - - -


It matters to Food Town if the money is spent in Food Town or not, and "the poor" does not necessarily spend extra money on food.

The poor, and for that matter most people in general when receiving extra money like the stimulus are spending it more on food than any other category.



https://www.census.gov/library/stori...-payments.html

In households that spent their stimulus checks, respondents reported using the money for a variety of expenses, and many reported spending it on more than one thing: About 80% of these respondents reported using it on food, and 77.9% on rent, mortgage and/or utilities, including gas, electricity, cable, internet and cellphone.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coro...ing-money.html

Data compiled by digital bank Current found members who received stimulus payments over the past five days spent 16% of the money on food, including takeout and delivery. An additional 9% of spending was on groceries and 10% went toward gas.

[Cruor]

Cruor: "Oh thank god, a typo/math mistake to save me from actually having to support my original statements or answer questions. Hell at least i don't have to admit i was wrong or full of shit on most of the points"


since i don't know which it was because a 4 is next to 5 and my maff skills are as badder as my grammers skills.

How about instead of being childish you keep to the topic and answer some questions.
Or maybe put in a disclaimer that you have no intention of ever actually having a rational discussion so people don't have to waste their time?

There is no pont in discussing the same points with you over and over. 1) You see what you want to see. It wasn't a typo you just read it as keeping 550k because it makes my strong point less strong. 45% taxes would still be too much however. 2) You are brainwashed by the left and think I should have to help strangers and I will never agree. I don't care if the poor can't sustain themselves. Crime? Let them come. I have enough guns and bullets. Luckily I live in a right to defend state but we do need it to be that way for the whole nation 3) I firmly believe if I can do it anyone can. I struggled but survived after school, I wanted better, joined the army, got a top secret clearance and now I have a good income. Not rocket science. Note: I did not get help from my dad he is a tough love type.

What can I discuss with you that has not been said in my decade on this forum? You won't convince me and I won't convince you.

[Hammerfest]

In most of the developed world, there's laws against child labor for good reasons. Y'know.

Nothing wrong with a grade school kid having a part-time paper route and getting paid a bit for it.

[Easo]

Nothing wrong with a grade school kid having a part-time paper route and getting paid a bit for it.

Normally I also would expect him to get paid the same as it would be for an adult with the same number of hours worked for the same job.

[Themius]

Businesses also have to pay the wages, and people might buy items made in other countries instead.

Thus some businesses will be better off, some worse off.

Similarly some will be out of job, since paying that much for the job doesn't make sense - either the job isn't done at all or automated/done more efficiently. If the person can find a new job that could still be a positive thing, if they can't find one it doesn't seem like a good thing.

You realise that when a populace has more money in general that they then use that money to buy things. Ergo having a populace that has more disposable income, leads to a more robust economy.

THE ECONOMIST HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS SO GIVE IT A FUCKING REST.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing wrong with a grade school kid having a part-time paper route and getting paid a bit for it.

So you believe in slave labour??

Why should a child be paid less for the same job than an adult for the same job?

Here is the problem with you republicans.

YOU LITERALLY WANT TO REDUCE WAGES OF PEOPLE BASED OFF ARBITRARY THINGS not tied to production value. Do you not see wtf the problem with that is?

[kail]

Nothing wrong with a grade school kid having a part-time paper route and getting paid a bit for it.

Sure, that's a part time gig not a full 40+ hour job. Having to work fulltime for someone while still struggling to pay rent and food is the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

2) You are brainwashed by the left and think I should have to help strangers and I will never agree. I don't care if the poor can't sustain themselves. Crime? Let them come. I have enough guns and bullets. Luckily I live in a right to defend state but we do need it to be that way for the whole nation

Thankfully not every politician thinks that way and understands the needs of those less fortunate. If you don't care about crime rates, there is not much else to say.

3) I firmly believe if I can do it anyone can. I struggled but survived after school, I wanted better, joined the army, got a top secret clearance and now I have a good income. Not rocket science. Note: I did not get help from my dad he is a tough love type.

What can I discuss with you that has not been said in my decade on this forum? You won't convince me and I won't convince you.

Anyone can do it, but not everyone. Society is designed to have bottom tiered jobs like janitors, cashiers, or any other unskilled labor. Everyone could get a valuable degree (engineering, medical, law, etc) right now but the job market won't ever support everyone with mid+ tier jobs. Someone has to clean the building or work the machines. Condemning a fraction of the working class to unlivable conditions isn't smart thinking for societal improvement.

[Cruor]

Sure, that's a part time gig not a full 40+ hour job. Having to work fulltime for someone while still struggling to pay rent and food is the issue.

- - - Updated - - -


Thankfully not every politician thinks that way and understands the needs of those less fortunate. If you don't care about crime rates, there is not much else to say.



Anyone can do it, but not everyone. Society is designed to have bottom tiered jobs like janitors, cashiers, or any other unskilled labor. Everyone could get a valuable degree (engineering, medical, law, etc) right now but the job market won't ever support everyone with mid+ tier jobs. Someone has to clean the building or work the machines. Condemning a fraction of the working class to unlivable conditions isn't smart thinking for societal improvement.

Its not unliveable though. A McDonald's cashier can make $16 an hour. The manager at my McDonalds is like 25 and drives a 5.0 Mustang. Can you support a family on $16? No, but you can afford a small apt and a computer to game on. If you want more than that then you need to do something better, I don't know what to tell you. I just don't think it should be up to tax payers to support people. I also think people should have to take personal responsibility. You can't have a family and two cars and a house if you work at Walmart. Someone has to do it, yes. But maybe the move up from shelf stocker at 18 to manager at 28 and then they can have that stuff combined with their wife's income.

[Themius]

I just don't think it should be up to tax payers to support people..

So young people shouldn’t pay boomer benefits.
Btw you know workers ARE TAX PAYERS

[Forogil]

The poor, and for that matter most people in general when receiving extra money like the stimulus are spending it more on food than any other category.



https://www.census.gov/library/stori...-payments.html

In households that spent their stimulus checks, respondents reported using the money for a variety of expenses, and many reported spending it on more than one thing: About 80% of these respondents reported using it on food, and 77.9% on rent, mortgage and/or utilities, including gas, electricity, cable, internet and cellphone.

People spent it on multiple things, so it doesn't mean that 80% was spent on food.

Data compiled by digital bank Current found members who received stimulus payments over the past five days spent 16% of the money on food, including takeout and delivery. An additional 9% of spending was on groceries and 10% went toward gas.

Which means that 84% wasn't spent on food. And that was for Corona-stimulus where lots of people had lost income.

I'm a bit unsure how you think that 84% of the money spent going towards non-food disproves my statement that people don't necessarily spend extra money on food.

- - - Updated - - -

You realise that when a populace has more money in general that they then use that money to buy things. Ergo having a populace that has more disposable income, leads to a more robust economy.

That disposable income must come from somewhere - and that causes problems as well. Especially at the moment where lots of companies are struggling.

I haven't been saying that it's wrong - just that it's a trade-off between different factors that have to be considered, whereas you are shouting without references; and thus I will not bother with you. You can continue to live in your own bubble.

[kamuimac]

Its not unliveable though. A McDonald's cashier can make $16 an hour. The manager at my McDonalds is like 25 and drives a 5.0 Mustang. Can you support a family on $16? No, but you can afford a small apt and a computer to game on. If you want more than that then you need to do something better, I don't know what to tell you. I just don't think it should be up to tax payers to support people. I also think people should have to take personal responsibility. You can't have a family and two cars and a house if you work at Walmart. Someone has to do it, yes. But maybe the move up from shelf stocker at 18 to manager at 28 and then they can have that stuff combined with their wife's income.

technically they most likely can . the trick is to get SO early and then manage your both incomes properly .

living in relationsip is relatively much cheaper then single life (you share costs and control your spendings (even unconsiously) much much more effectively )

this is also where a lot of people make huge mistake - they stay single untill 30 if not 40 and dont realise how ineffective financialy it is in longer run .

here i would point that im not saying people should marry young and have kids young - just find someone to share costs of living with in the 18-30 age bracket .

i could also go here on rant how much more effective polygamy would be in this case if all parties invovled worked but this is something that no country in west would ever allow to happen - as then more succesfull alpha males would be even more succesfull financialy if they had 2-3 females all working and living together so lets say that such things happen just unofficialy and its super effective if you have 3 incomes instead 1-2 :P