"Their moving out in droves." Funny, because they were living there. But now, omg, $15 minimum wage in 2021 is forcing them out? Seems like rugged individualism is failing. Trump will MAGA.
"Their moving out in droves." Funny, because they were living there. But now, omg, $15 minimum wage in 2021 is forcing them out? Seems like rugged individualism is failing. Trump will MAGA.
Your drinking is affecting your reading comprehension. I never once said anything about minimum wage creating the current situation of millennials "moving out in droves". I specifically created another paragraph for that, and mentioned that that was a bigger issue than minimum wage, and that the minimum wage issue was a distraction to the larger issue of families not earning living wages sufficient to make ends meet. That is a much larger population, and a much more important issue than non-skilled, low educated people making a few bucks more for their beer fund. Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google wage disparity is contributing to urban flight in Seattle currently. I said I'm more concerned with that than with this minimum wage nonsense. Raising the minimum wage will not afford those low earners to have any sort of living wage in this area regardless of how much you raise it. But keep on keeping on with the $15/hr mantra. Once we can get all workers throughout the country earning $15/hr we'll have achieved nirvana. I can't wait to experience the $15/hr utopia where all our wants and needs are met, and businesses are thriving and more profitable due to their higher labor costs. That will be super cool.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
875,000 workers, approximately, earn minimum wage. Keep on keeping on about how that % of approximately 13 million wage earners is going to upset the apple cart. Keep on keeping on being a shill for corporate profits or small business. Link me some facts that posits that more disposable income in the form of wages, tax cuts or inheritance or any other means of "having more" results in the dire predictions of failing mom and pops, higher unemployment or inability to "live." With a roof over your head or be replaced by a robot. And where previously, prior to this post I'm quoting, did you reference seattles big 3?
And back to my original point why I even brought this up. Liberals are seen as wanting to help, and conservatives are seen as self serving. Was even mentioned as such in this thread. I disagree. I wasn't trying to convince anyone about minimum wage. Just pointing out there are reasons that are not self serving for the stances they have. Minimum wage was just the example I mentioned. Maybe you think my reasons are moronic, and maybe you'll be proven right. But it isn't about not wanting to help, we see it as creating a bigger burden than it solves.
What is this burden of which you speak? Facts matter, hashtag.
I thought I gave several examples. 1. Small family businesses. I worked for a small family for 2 years while in college. Great family, got to know them very well. They paid us $9/hr because he wanted his employees a little above minimum wage. There were about 6 of us, if he had to pay us each an additional $7 an hour, he would have closed his doors and been better off working minimum wage himself. If his small business was exempt, no one would have worked there. This is not an isolated example, many small family run business would be in the same boat. 2. Employees will lose jobs. Store owners will be more likely to go automated or reduce the number of employees. 3. The example of a tiered business structure that has been mentioned a couple times. If tarting wage is $10 now, and $15 in a year or when you get a promotion, how is the minimum wage not going to trickle up? If you dont increase the wage then you wont retain employees, and probably get fewer to begin with, and if you do you just increased the cost of business by quite a bit. Most likelt resulting in higher costs to customers. Thats basically how every fast food works. You get 8$ to start, if you hang in there for 6 months you get a raise. 6 months later you get a promotion with a new title and are now making $15.
You could disagree and think the impact is nominal and thats fine. What I dont get it is seems like you think these issues dont even exist, like I'm the first to think of them and bring them up. If it isnt going to impact small businesses, then why are they exempt in some cases? And do you really think if they are exempt that anyone will be willing to work there, when next door they can make double? Anyone with exempt status will never get another employee again, and if they pay the minimum wage they go under. Several companies have threatened to reduce employees. Including the CEO of Carls Jr. when it was brought up you just brushed it off as "you cant fight technology." But he specifically said he would go automated IF the minimum wage was raised to $15. Technology is already out there to do it, but it isnt used widely because it still makes sense to hire an actual employee. The only point that I havent seen argued by any professional is that last one, but that seems like the most common sense to me. You increase starting wage, it'l trickle up.
Lastly, I dont get the argument for the family living wage. Most minimum wage are high school or college students, working part time, not single moms with 3 kids. A quick Google search to verify, the top 4 search results all said the same thing. More than half or under 25, 70-80% are part time, nearly the same percentage are students, very few are actually the head of the household with primary income. Of course some would benefit, but with 3% of the working population being over 25 making minimum wage (and that still includes students and part-time workers), very few were primary incomes. It just seems to me to make sense that more workers, like those running a small business, would be hurt compared to those who would be helped. I didnt bother digging into all the resources, but when the top 4 search results say the same thing it seems consistent. http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider the ultra rich. Those who can afford to buy housing in desirable locales, if just for the weekend. Vancouver, NYC, Seattle, LA, Boston, etc. The world has gotten rich but you can blame the "working family" all you want. Go ahead, check the rate and monetary flow of foreign investment in US real estate, go ahead. And Trump doesn't profit? Sure.
so, all those Starbucks baristas in Seattle commute from Portland?
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
There were/are politicians who did seek to raise the minimum to $15 immediately, with a plan to increase to $20 over the next couple of years. It has been debated for a few years now.
What research do you need that if someone currently goes to school for 4 years just to make $22/hr, they will no longer be able to fill those jobs if minimum wage is $20, unless they also increase that pay? What research do you need if a family run business pays 6 employees $10/hr and profits about 80k/year, they will be better off getting a minimum wage job themself than to pay each employee $20/hr. And the the 6 employees are out of a job. Yes, its a lot of speculation. But it makes common sense to most. National average for EMT is right around $20hr (some places even less). How many will strive to be an EMT if they can just work at the local McD's, or anywhere and make that same amount without a high school diploma? So either an EMT should make minimum wage, along with everyone else with specific training and skills, or those jobs will increase too. And that is just inflation, and helps no one. EMT is just one example of hundreds of jobs that a huge increase of minimum wage would have a drastic impact on. Either they become a minimum wage job too with all their training and skills, or you increase that salary. Either way it will hurt more than it benefits.
Because everything I've read about it is that small, family businesses with less than X number of employees (15 sticks in my mind) is exempt. And there are many exemptions state to state. Some go full bore, others not so much. Which politicians and which states or Feds are arguing for $20 per hour? I've never read that or heard about it. Debated and being enacted are two completely different things. Seeing how you won't address questions and are relying on supposition, here's some facts:
I'm not arguing that the unemployment rate is due to Seattle's drive to $15.00 an hour but its not having the effect that you claim, either. Also, Starbucks pays their part time employees $15.00 an hour and provides paid time off and college tuition assistance. Has Starbucks gone out of business? Has DD or Tim Horton's raised their prices as a result? Do any of them have trouble finding labor? I'm not sure it will hurt more than it'll help. Would you argue that WalMart can't afford to pay their folks more? Have you seen WalMarts profit margin and dollar amounts for the 7 members of the WalMart family? And why is it always good to give the rich or corporations tax cuts? People spend money. Spent money creates jobs. Created jobs tighten the labor market. Tightened labor market raises wages. Which by the way have been stagnant for decades, despite increased productivity and record corporate profits. Facts.
Yes, small business will be exempt based on employees and company, but if the mom and pop shop only pays $10 and the gas station is paying $15.00, where are people going to work? As it has been stated already, educated and field trained employees starting at around $20.00 are going to want to see wage increases at the base levels if you want to retain or attract new employees, which then only trickles up among the middle class wage earners. You're still not really hurting the upper class, but you are creating an upheaval at the low -middle class wage levels. There is going to have to be some disparity in the wage ranges to make the benefit of an education or specialized training a significantly bigger pay off to start with. I worked at a family owned business as a teenager and I think the small business minimum wage at the time was .50 below regular, so in order for this to work, the small businesses would need to be within at least $1.00 of large businesses. By the time I was working in my field, I was making around $15.00/more than minimum wage
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
New quote system is terrible. It is way too jumpy to use on mobile.
The one thing I think 99.9% of us will agree on here. I get the feeling if I stare long enough enough at the multiple quote ones, a 3D image will pop out at me. Maybe that's what it is, maybe the image is a list of tour dates!
Do we live in a box or on a spectrum? I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles. There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent.
Post edited by dmaradona10 on
Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
Yes
Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?
Do we live in a box or on a spectrum? I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles. There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent.
Do we live in a box or on a spectrum? I think we live on a spectrum. I dislike political titles. There's things I agree with on the Left and things I agree with on the Right. I guess if anything I'm an Independent.
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
Yes
Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?
I can tell you, I work for a crown corporation in canada. I'm not sure if that's a term used in the US, but in Canada, it's technically not government, but all of our profits go to the government. and we follow the same guidelines as government. it's called not-for-profit, but it's actually all profit, as all profit goes to the government and they choose how to waste spend it how they please.
in my organization alone, there is a LOT of fat that could be trimmed. there are entire departments that are there just because they are "corporate standard" after a corporate review by a third party auditing company that made recommendations (which also cost us a monumental amount of money to undertake), but the thing is, they are useless in our industry, and serve very little if any purpose at all. and they are some of the highest paid people in our company. it is maddening.
hundreds of thousands per year would be saved if only ONE of these departments was removed. two guys from that department have quit: their exit interviews, why did they leave? "not enough to do". Jesus.
There were/are politicians who did seek to raise the minimum to $15 immediately, with a plan to increase to $20 over the next couple of years. It has been debated for a few years now.
What research do you need that if someone currently goes to school for 4 years just to make $22/hr, they will no longer be able to fill those jobs if minimum wage is $20, unless they also increase that pay? What research do you need if a family run business pays 6 employees $10/hr and profits about 80k/year, they will be better off getting a minimum wage job themself than to pay each employee $20/hr. And the the 6 employees are out of a job. Yes, its a lot of speculation. But it makes common sense to most. National average for EMT is right around $20hr (some places even less). How many will strive to be an EMT if they can just work at the local McD's, or anywhere and make that same amount without a high school diploma? So either an EMT should make minimum wage, along with everyone else with specific training and skills, or those jobs will increase too. And that is just inflation, and helps no one. EMT is just one example of hundreds of jobs that a huge increase of minimum wage would have a drastic impact on. Either they become a minimum wage job too with all their training and skills, or you increase that salary. I think it was the CEO of Burger King who said if it goes to $15, he'll be firing half the employees and installing automated ordering systems because the cost will be too high. Either way it will hurt more than it benefits.
Yes, which puts more people in higher rates of consumption, which is what drives an economy. It's beyond common sense, and yet conservatives can't wrap their minds around the fact that more people spending more money is better for the economy than less people having more money.
So if you double everyone's pay, that solves poverty? Not how it works, the bottom will still be on the bottom if everyone gets paid more. Prices will rise accordingly to adjust for the inflation. So okay, now you make $20 an hour. But bread is now $5 instead of $2.50 because the entire country just got a pay raise.. Youre still in the same boat. You cant just give everyone more money and expect inflation not to occur. Thats why we "can't wrap our heads around it."
This is the part I don't get either. I used to try to enter into the minimum wage discussions, but tend not to venture in very often because they don't end up making any sense. If you currently have a couple of pay grades in your business, say $10 for new employees and $15 for employees who are experienced, senior employees, and suddenly minimum wage is raised from $10 to $15, do you pay both $15? Or do you now bump the senior employees to $20? If you leave the seniors at $15, good luck retaining employees. You'll now have a business filled with unskilled labor offering substandard quality products and services. If you bump the senior employees to $20, you've now radically increased labor costs. If you run a tight margin business, that leaves you with a couple of options - fewer employees (so that your labor cost remains flat - doesn't help minimum wage earners), fewer hours for employees (so that your labor cost remains flat - doesn't help minimum wage earners) or increased prices for your goods or services (to compensate for increased labor costs). That pay increase doesn't just come out of some unicorn's fart. So if you raise prices of your burgers from $7 to $10, will you still sell the same number of burgers because people now have customers with additional income, or will those same people who struggled at $10 an hour, now struggle at $15 because costs are rising for all of the things they need to purchase. Due to the rise in cost for that burger and everything else, discretionary spending won't necessarily increase. Inflation has taken care of that. So we're left with status quo, but people's checks "appear" to be larger, and Uncle Sam can now grab more of it. Yippee! What's been accomplished? (aside from people feeling good that they passed a bill increasing wages for everyone).
But ultimately I think the minimum wage discussion is a distraction. It has nothing to do with a living wage even though people interchange minimum wage with living wage. The reality, based on the link from the Bureau of Labor Statistics posted by Halifax clearly shows that the low income earners are young, unmarried, part-time, less educated and living in the South. Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage for the breadwinner of the family. It was intended for a low-skilled, young person trying to earn weed, beer and gas money and to give them a start at learning to hold a job. PJSoul made a good point about the inadequacy of a federal minimum wage, since a vast disparity exists between economies of locales around the country. Seattle's $15/hr minimum wage has been brought up, but again, that is in no way a living wage for this area. A family of 4 making $72,000 in Seattle is now considered low income (median income is $96.000). That's the problem. The other problem is that while median income in Seattle is $96,000, the median house price in Seattle is $722,000, doubled from just 5 years ago . So even if you aren't "low income" and are making the median income, you cannot afford to buy a house here. It is even worse in San Francisco.
So if people want to champion a minimum wage to make themselves feel better, go for it. The reality is that your cause won't do shit to address the inability of working families being able to make a living wage or to ever afford a home in many areas.
Nobody is claiming that a minimum wage should afford you to buy a house. Man you guys shift the goal posts. A lot.
Not sure who "you guys" are who you referred to, and not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the minimum wage. More weed money for non-skilled stoners?
Edit: and as I specifically said, I don't really give much of a shit about the minimum wage. It is a distraction from the real issue of families trying to make a living wage (nothing to do with minimum wage) trying to afford to live day-to-day. It isn't just about buying a house. If house prices are high, it follows that rent prices are high as well. Around here millennials are moving out of the city in droves in search of affordable housing and a future. They aren't minimum wage earners. You're the one stuck on minimum wage. I was trying to make the point that there is a larger problem. This isn't a minimum wage thread, so I didn't think it was against the rules to make a tangential point. But if you'd prefer that this be a minimum wage thread, have at it.
Re the bolded comments: Your first statement is what makes no sense to me. Say they did keep the $15 wages the same once minimum wages went up to that? You think everyone who didn't get a raise would quit en masse? Where do you think they'll go? People don't just quit jobs without other jobs to go to, and there is no reason why all of those people would suddenly easily be able to find higher paying jobs elsewhere. So I think your assumptions here are extremely flawed, unless you think that people would prefer to not be employed at all over being paid the same as those who used to be paid less. This strikes me as a very odd supposition.
Your second statement... well, it tells me that you may not have any interest in considering the lives of low-wage earners. What in the holy fuck did you mean by that comment??? Obviously, people want full time minimum wage earners to be able to afford basic expenses so they can live. Expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothes. And maybe even a little bit left over so they can go see a movie every once in a while, or, yeah, maybe buy a couple grams of weed once in a while. That is far from too much to ask for people who work full time. And for the part time minimum wage workers... well their hour is worth just as much as a full time worker's hour, obviously, so just because someone doesn't have to support themselves on minimum wage it doesn't mean they should be working for shit wages. Lower wage earners are SO fucking undervalued, it is disgusting.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
Yes
Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?
I can tell you, I work for a crown corporation in canada. I'm not sure if that's a term used in the US, but in Canada, it's technically not government, but all of our profits go to the government. and we follow the same guidelines as government. it's called not-for-profit, but it's actually all profit, as all profit goes to the government and they choose how to waste spend it how they please.
in my organization alone, there is a LOT of fat that could be trimmed. there are entire departments that are there just because they are "corporate standard" after a corporate review by a third party auditing company that made recommendations (which also cost us a monumental amount of money to undertake), but the thing is, they are useless in our industry, and serve very little if any purpose at all. and they are some of the highest paid people in our company. it is maddening.
hundreds of thousands per year would be saved if only ONE of these departments was removed. two guys from that department have quit: their exit interviews, why did they leave? "not enough to do". Jesus.
Re the bolded comments: Your first statement is what makes no sense to me. Say they did keep the $15 wages the same once minimum wages went up to that? You think everyone who didn't get a raise would quit en masse? Where do you think they'll go? People don't just quit jobs without other jobs to go to, and there is no reason why all of those people would suddenly easily be able to find higher paying jobs elsewhere. So I think your assumptions here are extremely flawed, unless you think that people would prefer to not be employed at all over being paid the same as those who used to be paid less. This strikes me as a very odd supposition.
Your second statement... well, it tells me that you may not have any interest in considering the lives of low-wage earners. What in the holy fuck did you mean by that comment??? Obviously, people want full time minimum wage earners to be able to afford basic expenses so they can live. Expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothes. And maybe even a little bit left over so they can go see a movie every once in a while, or, yeah, maybe buy a couple grams of weed once in a while. That is far from too much to ask for people who work full time. And for the part time minimum wage workers... well their hour is worth just as much as a full time worker's hour, obviously, so just because someone doesn't have to support themselves on minimum wage it doesn't mean they should be working for shit wages. Lower wage earners are SO fucking undervalued, it is disgusting.
I don't think people would quit in masses. I think it would be harder to fill those jobs currently in the $15-20 range in the future, jobs that require some education and training, and you would see the impact in a year or 2. A kid just out of high school has the option to chose job A that requires no training, can start right away and make $15. Or, he can chose job B that requires him to go to school for 2 years, get a special license like a plumber's license, pay to be certified and all that, and still only make $15. Not that employers will increase those wages over night, or that people will quit on day 1, but I do think it would drive those wages up faster than it would otherwise, or else people will not be drawn to those jobs any longer. There are a lot of jobs, especially in the mid-west or other parts of the country with lower average income, that require a lot and pay not much more than $15. I mentioned EMT before, because the national average is about $20, which means in some parts of the country it is $15 or even less. Some places are already short finding EMTs, how much harder will it be if they can make essentially the same amount working a coffee shop with zero stress and regular hours? They would take the shorter, faster road with the same rewards. I don't see how that can be a competitive job without increasing the wage, but it sounds like that is what you are arguing against what would happen. As far as the second comment, that wasn't me talking about buying weed so I can't respond to that.
Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.
No, stagnant isn't good either. But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.
Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.
No, stagnant isn't good either. But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.
But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I put my right foot in. I put my left foot out. I do the hokey pokey. Unless I'm listening to Lou Reed. Then I do the Hookey Wookie. That what it's all about.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.
No, stagnant isn't good either. But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.
But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.
I looked up the number last week when I was reading a few article about it. Forgot the exact amount, but was definitely the majority of minimum wage workers are not the primary caregiver for the household. Most are high school or college age, working part time to get some extra spending cash. The amount of heads of households making minimum wage was very small, I think in the single digits if I remember. But that number is misleading, because that was just those making minimum wage, not including those making a buck or two above it So my question is then why does everyone need a livable wage? Is there a way to make sure those over 25 supporting a family can get a livable wage, while the 16 year old in high school who works 8 hours a week just to get some spending cash gets the wage they deserve? Because honestly, very few HS kids need or deserve $15/hr, and are perfectly happy making half that. Would it be fair to have a minimum wage for a HS diploma and another without one? And another with an age limit? But then that would just make it nearly impossible for others to find work if an employer was forced to pay more. Just like the small business exemption. Many small businesses cant afford a higher wage and make it, but if they are exempt who would work there?
Left on social issues, right on economics. Left on environment, right on second amendment.
Left on a lot of social, but not all, some I'm decently far right. Right on economics mostly. Center on environment...been moving left compared to the maintstream right. Far left on 2nd amendment.
Can someone tell me what right on economics is? Because to me it's corporate handouts and deficit spending.
to me it's lower taxes and less government. waaaay too much government out there. tax cuts for corporations that stay in america instead of going overseas. I always equated deficit spending with democrats but I could be wrong.
hugh, i'm definitely to the right when it comes to the 2nd amendment but I believe in back ground checks, training and registration.
the only issue i'm still on the fence about is the death penalty. but yeah i'm right in the middle.
Does too much government mean too much spending, too many government employees, or too much regulation?
Yes
Which laws get removed and what budget gets cut to make a significant difference?
Well I hope everyone understands that wages and salaries ALL do actually need to increase over time. Some of you seem to think that keeping wages stagnant indefinitely is what we should expect, which confuses me.
No, stagnant isn't good either. But increasing all wages too fast doesn't solve anything either. That will just result in the cost of everything going up, which won't solve anything.
But if wages are not currently allowing people to support themselves at even the most basic level, what in the fuck is the alternative. It isn't their fault that the government has fucked the dog for too long and refused to make sure that wages kept pace with inflation. Because that is exactly what the government has done, it is the government that has to support businesses as wages are brought up to a living wage. I can't believe anyone is willing to make excuses around this, would support continuing to ensure that so many people can't even feed themselves properly. There are plenty of options that could allow living wages ASAP. It's just that politicians are refusing to do so because they are afraid to alienate the rich.
I looked up the number last week when I was reading a few article about it. Forgot the exact amount, but was definitely the majority of
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. Small family businesses. I worked for a small family for 2 years while in college. Great family, got to know them very well. They paid us $9/hr because he wanted his employees a little above minimum wage. There were about 6 of us, if he had to pay us each an additional $7 an hour, he would have closed his doors and been better off working minimum wage himself. If his small business was exempt, no one would have worked there. This is not an isolated example, many small family run business would be in the same boat.
2. Employees will lose jobs. Store owners will be more likely to go automated or reduce the number of employees.
3. The example of a tiered business structure that has been mentioned a couple times. If tarting wage is $10 now, and $15 in a year or when you get a promotion, how is the minimum wage not going to trickle up? If you dont increase the wage then you wont retain employees, and probably get fewer to begin with, and if you do you just increased the cost of business by quite a bit. Most likelt resulting in higher costs to customers. Thats basically how every fast food works. You get 8$ to start, if you hang in there for 6 months you get a raise. 6 months later you get a promotion with a new title and are now making $15.
You could disagree and think the impact is nominal and thats fine. What I dont get it is seems like you think these issues dont even exist, like I'm the first to think of them and bring them up. If it isnt going to impact small businesses, then why are they exempt in some cases? And do you really think if they are exempt that anyone will be willing to work there, when next door they can make double? Anyone with exempt status will never get another employee again, and if they pay the minimum wage they go under.
Several companies have threatened to reduce employees. Including the CEO of Carls Jr. when it was brought up you just brushed it off as "you cant fight technology." But he specifically said he would go automated IF the minimum wage was raised to $15. Technology is already out there to do it, but it isnt used widely because it still makes sense to hire an actual employee.
The only point that I havent seen argued by any professional is that last one, but that seems like the most common sense to me. You increase starting wage, it'l trickle up.
Lastly, I dont get the argument for the family living wage. Most minimum wage are high school or college students, working part time, not single moms with 3 kids. A quick Google search to verify, the top 4 search results all said the same thing. More than half or under 25, 70-80% are part time, nearly the same percentage are students, very few are actually the head of the household with primary income. Of course some would benefit, but with 3% of the working population being over 25 making minimum wage (and that still includes students and part-time workers), very few were primary incomes. It just seems to me to make sense that more workers, like those running a small business, would be hurt compared to those who would be helped.
I didnt bother digging into all the resources, but when the top 4 search results say the same thing it seems consistent.
http://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents
so, all those Starbucks baristas in Seattle commute from Portland?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I get the feeling if I stare long enough enough at the multiple quote ones, a 3D image will pop out at me.
Maybe that's what it is, maybe the image is a list of tour dates!
Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
Denver 10-22-14
in my organization alone, there is a LOT of fat that could be trimmed. there are entire departments that are there just because they are "corporate standard" after a corporate review by a third party auditing company that made recommendations (which also cost us a monumental amount of money to undertake), but the thing is, they are useless in our industry, and serve very little if any purpose at all. and they are some of the highest paid people in our company. it is maddening.
hundreds of thousands per year would be saved if only ONE of these departments was removed. two guys from that department have quit: their exit interviews, why did they leave? "not enough to do". Jesus.
www.headstonesband.com
Your first statement is what makes no sense to me. Say they did keep the $15 wages the same once minimum wages went up to that? You think everyone who didn't get a raise would quit en masse? Where do you think they'll go? People don't just quit jobs without other jobs to go to, and there is no reason why all of those people would suddenly easily be able to find higher paying jobs elsewhere. So I think your assumptions here are extremely flawed, unless you think that people would prefer to not be employed at all over being paid the same as those who used to be paid less. This strikes me as a very odd supposition.
Your second statement... well, it tells me that you may not have any interest in considering the lives of low-wage earners. What in the holy fuck did you mean by that comment??? Obviously, people want full time minimum wage earners to be able to afford basic expenses so they can live. Expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothes. And maybe even a little bit left over so they can go see a movie every once in a while, or, yeah, maybe buy a couple grams of weed once in a while. That is far from too much to ask for people who work full time. And for the part time minimum wage workers... well their hour is worth just as much as a full time worker's hour, obviously, so just because someone doesn't have to support themselves on minimum wage it doesn't mean they should be working for shit wages. Lower wage earners are SO fucking undervalued, it is disgusting.
A kid just out of high school has the option to chose job A that requires no training, can start right away and make $15. Or, he can chose job B that requires him to go to school for 2 years, get a special license like a plumber's license, pay to be certified and all that, and still only make $15. Not that employers will increase those wages over night, or that people will quit on day 1, but I do think it would drive those wages up faster than it would otherwise, or else people will not be drawn to those jobs any longer. There are a lot of jobs, especially in the mid-west or other parts of the country with lower average income, that require a lot and pay not much more than $15. I mentioned EMT before, because the national average is about $20, which means in some parts of the country it is $15 or even less. Some places are already short finding EMTs, how much harder will it be if they can make essentially the same amount working a coffee shop with zero stress and regular hours? They would take the shorter, faster road with the same rewards. I don't see how that can be a competitive job without increasing the wage, but it sounds like that is what you are arguing against what would happen.
As far as the second comment, that wasn't me talking about buying weed so I can't respond to that.
LOL
I will give them this, they are REALLY good at messaging
Maybe this time?
He wasn't here long this time around.
No clue what he did to deserve this ban.
The amount of heads of households making minimum wage was very small, I think in the single digits if I remember. But that number is misleading, because that was just those making minimum wage, not including those making a buck or two above it
So my question is then why does everyone need a livable wage?
Is there a way to make sure those over 25 supporting a family can get a livable wage, while the 16 year old in high school who works 8 hours a week just to get some spending cash gets the wage they deserve? Because honestly, very few HS kids need or deserve $15/hr, and are perfectly happy making half that.
Would it be fair to have a minimum wage for a HS diploma and another without one? And another with an age limit? But then that would just make it nearly impossible for others to find work if an employer was forced to pay more. Just like the small business exemption. Many small businesses cant afford a higher wage and make it, but if they are exempt who would work there?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©