It’s not just the minimum wage either, what happens when all of the things Biden and democrats campaigned on get overruled by the Byrd rule and a fear of abolishing the filibuster? At least the new administration will be free to drop bombs.
This reminds me that, because of the way power and ruling work, if I expect to be mostly happy with ANY president and administration I am only fooling myself and am going to be disappointed. I am far more satisfied having a Biden administration that I ever was having a Trump administration, but I will always be far from fully satisfied with the Biden administration and will be critical of it. As we all should be.
Yes Brian. I agree I am much happier with Biden than the trump administration. That bar was set pretty low for us all. And I will continue to be as critical of Dems and Biden as I was before Trump lowered t he bar. It’s not enough for me to be happy that no real progress gets made just because someone other than trump is presiding, quite simply I don’t think anything is going to get done without a bunch of dissatisfied people organizing and letting the current administration know how they feel and what they expect going into the mid terms.
Sad part is we’re back to the same old same old now. Old joe takes us back to the status quo America that got us into this shit, the rulers and the rich against everyone else. Military blunders, horrible foreign policy, domestic class separation. If there’s no trump next time, I’ll vote for any outsider, regardless of what party they hail from- gotta get rid of the swamp so the people have a voice.
I theory, I totally agree. The question is, can we as a people drain the swamp AND get someone competent in office? I think you could say that Trump supporters were trying to fight the status quo but they (in my opinion and many other's here as well) went about it all wrong by backing someone as incompetent as Trump-- and he was really only out to help the rich get richer. Damn! How is it those who supported Trump really think he cared two shits about them?
So how do we do what Trumpites were trying to do only with someone who truly cares and is competent? Is this just a pipe dream?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It’s not just the minimum wage either, what happens when all of the things Biden and democrats campaigned on get overruled by the Byrd rule and a fear of abolishing the filibuster? At least the new administration will be free to drop bombs.
This reminds me that, because of the way power and ruling work, if I expect to be mostly happy with ANY president and administration I am only fooling myself and am going to be disappointed. I am far more satisfied having a Biden administration that I ever was having a Trump administration, but I will always be far from fully satisfied with the Biden administration and will be critical of it. As we all should be.
Yes Brian. I agree I am much happier with Biden than the trump administration. That bar was set pretty low for us all. And I will continue to be as critical of Dems and Biden as I was before Trump lowered t he bar. It’s not enough for me to be happy that no real progress gets made just because someone other than trump is presiding, quite simply I don’t think anything is going to get done without a bunch of dissatisfied people organizing and letting the current administration know how they feel and what they expect going into the mid terms.
Sad part is we’re back to the same old same old now. Old joe takes us back to the status quo America that got us into this shit, the rulers and the rich against everyone else. Military blunders, horrible foreign policy, domestic class separation. If there’s no trump next time, I’ll vote for any outsider, regardless of what party they hail from- gotta get rid of the swamp so the people have a voice.
I theory, I totally agree. The question is, can we as a people drain the swamp AND get someone competent in office? I think you could say that Trump supporters were trying to fight the status quo but they (in my opinion and many other's here as well) went about it all wrong by backing someone as incompetent as Trump-- and he was really only out to help the rich get richer. Damn! How is it those who supported Trump really think he cared two shits about them?
So how do we do what Trumpites were trying to do only with someone who truly cares and is competent? Is this just a pipe dream?
As much as I’d like to say guillotines, the real answer is probably non violent organizing
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,804
the entire fucking system was set up by racists. get the fuck over it
Or address and make systemic attempts to heal the wound instead of continuing to let it fester and infect a nation?
Did you just “get the fuck over” your alcoholism? Or does that require continuous and systemic changes, sometimes uncomfortable ones, to perpetuate a state of healing and a sense of well being?
and how would eliminating this budgetary rule to advance legislation on simple majority vote "heal"? are they suggesting that all ideas that came from certain people of a certain era and place need eliminated?
heres how my alcoholism has been addressed. I stopped bitching and whining about a past that is never going to change. Instead I acknowledged and accepted the problem as it is and worked from there. I also rely on the experience of those I dont care for for a variety of reasons. because they're sober and have the same goal. to stay sober. As total shitheals that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire , they still have something to offer me and others.
Acceptance doesnt require approval. so yeah, GETTING THE FUCK OVER certain blocks to better living were a way to begin the daily job of living that comes so much easier to those not like me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I was basically told to get the fuck over being molested as a kid.
If $15.00 an hour for “entry level work” is so bad, why does Amazon and Costco pay it for entry level and as a minimum, having a “responsibility” to share holders and all? To my knowledge, they don’t means test by age, education level or geographic region.
If $15.00 an hour for “entry level work” is so bad, why does Amazon and Costco pay it for entry level and as a minimum, having a “responsibility” to share holders and all? To my knowledge, they don’t means test by age, education level or geographic region.
Costco requires you to be 18 and a high school diploma or GED. It’s also difficult to get hired, they usually require previous retail experience as well. So the entry position may be an entry position for Costco, but likely isn’t your entry job into the workforce.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
Sad part is we’re back to the same old same old now. Old joe takes us back to the status quo America that got us into this shit, the rulers and the rich against everyone else. Military blunders, horrible foreign policy, domestic class separation. If there’s no trump next time, I’ll vote for any outsider, regardless of what party they hail from- gotta get rid of the swamp so the people have a voice.
Sad part is people use words to make them happier without understanding the implications of those words.
just because some thought of trump as an outsider doesn’t make his actions representative of what an outsider would do.
trump acted like a complete insider. He profited personally from the presidency and demanded that congress not hold him to the unconstutionality of his actions. He demanded everyone be loyal to him and not to we the people nor to the constitution.
of course trump supporters are not interested in what non believers say, step one in converting America into an autocracy.
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Hey that’s a great idea! Hopefully something like that can happen
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Yes, creative, but isn't it true that you can only have one reconcilement bill per congress? This one will be reconcilement so it would have to wait until the next session, next year. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But on the other hand, why not take the $10 offer from the GOP on the table right now. I think that could get 60 votes. Not it isn't $15, but let that settle and then go for more.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,804
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Yes, creative, but isn't it true that you can only have one reconcilement bill per congress? This one will be reconcilement so it would have to wait until the next session, next year. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,804
But on the other hand, why not take the $10 offer from the GOP on the table right now. I think that could get 60 votes. Not it isn't $15, but let that settle and then go for more.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Yes, creative, but isn't it true that you can only have one reconcilement bill per congress? This one will be reconcilement so it would have to wait until the next session, next year. Correct me if I'm wrong.
3
May not matter. The parliamentarian ruled a little while ago that even this tax law would not be considered for reconcilement. I just heard it driving to get some lunch.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Yes, creative, but isn't it true that you can only have one reconcilement bill per congress? This one will be reconcilement so it would have to wait until the next session, next year. Correct me if I'm wrong.
3
May not matter. The parliamentarian ruled a little while ago that even this tax law would not be considered for reconcilement. I just heard it driving to get some lunch.
Crazy that an unelected position that most of us had never heard of has so much power and sway.
So this “Byrd Rule” has only been around since the 80’s and was sponsored by known former white supremecist leader Robert Byrd, and this is the excuse for why poor people can’t make 30k a year...hmmm it’s almost like southern racists and “former” racists have too much power.
The Byrd Rule is actually helpful to poor people because it allows reconciliation legislation to happen, which was impossible before 1974 without 60 votes in the senate.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
Yes, creative, but isn't it true that you can only have one reconcilement bill per congress? This one will be reconcilement so it would have to wait until the next session, next year. Correct me if I'm wrong.
3
May not matter. The parliamentarian ruled a little while ago that even this tax law would not be considered for reconcilement. I just heard it driving to get some lunch.
Crazy that an unelected position that most of us had never heard of has so much power and sway.
Well the senate has a history of rules that are not in the Constitution. They are tradition based. Senate Dems could plow right through all of them if they wanted to do so, but it cuts both ways obviously. It's really no different than nuking the filibuster, and you won't get the 51 votes needed to do it anyway. I agree it's crazy, but the senators choose to follow her. It's not an enumerated role.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
I think this is an interesting point and one that a lot of people never even consider. In most cases, a small business often starts with family or friends doing the heavy lift to get it going, but in order to ease the load and handle the day-to-day transactional operations, they hire someone they don't have to pay a lot in order to keep revenue margins high. It's a fine line for sure because you may end up sinking before you learn to swim. Might be hard to do in a restaurant or other service industry setting where you need a pretty solid sized starting staff in order to get up and running.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
I think this is an interesting point and one that a lot of people never even consider. In most cases, a small business often starts with family or friends doing the heavy lift to get it going, but in order to ease the load and handle the day-to-day transactional operations, they hire someone they don't have to pay a lot in order to keep revenue margins high. It's a fine line for sure because you may end up sinking before you learn to swim. Might be hard to do in a restaurant or other service industry setting where you need a pretty solid sized starting staff in order to get up and running.
Why start big? If it still holds true that more than half of restaurants opened shutter within the first year, perhaps people thinking about opening a restaurant should start with a small catering business or food truck first to see if their concept is a welcome addition to the marketplace.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
Minimum wage seems like a good idea, but just saying that there are alternative "systems" that work resonable well:
In Sweden, there is no statutory minimum wage, but instead wages are established through "collective agreements" between the labour markets partners, meaning: employers and trade unions, without direct state intervention. Common terms for this is "starting salary" or "base salary." The collective agreements are voluntary, which is why their lowest mark is only the minimum wage within the companies that have chosen to join the collective agreements. Thus, there is no minimum wage in Sweden, and the wage is a completely unregulated agreement between employees and employers.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
A little common sense eh? This argument is not about the federal minimum, you argued that if you can't pay living, don't open the business. What if the person has a gainfully employed spouse and this is just some retirement/spending/leisure cash? Maybe the mandatory interrogatory would flush that out. I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
A little common sense eh? This argument is not about the federal minimum, you argued that if you can't pay living, don't open the business. What if the person has a gainfully employed spouse and this is just some retirement/spending/leisure cash? Maybe the mandatory interrogatory would flush that out. I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
See thread title.
I didn't realize I needed to wear my uniform today, working from home and all.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
A little common sense eh? This argument is not about the federal minimum, you argued that if you can't pay living, don't open the business. What if the person has a gainfully employed spouse and this is just some retirement/spending/leisure cash? Maybe the mandatory interrogatory would flush that out. I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
See thread title.
I didn't realize I needed to wear my uniform today, working from home and all.
Don't be a simpleton. You said businesses should not open unless they pay a living wage, not that they meet federal minimum wage. I would argue in certain markets $15 is not living for a family of 2+. In other markets, it is.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
A little common sense eh? This argument is not about the federal minimum, you argued that if you can't pay living, don't open the business. What if the person has a gainfully employed spouse and this is just some retirement/spending/leisure cash? Maybe the mandatory interrogatory would flush that out. I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
See thread title.
I didn't realize I needed to wear my uniform today, working from home and all.
Don't be a simpleton. You said businesses should not open unless they pay a living wage, not that they meet federal minimum wage. I would argue in certain markets $15 is not living for a family of 2+. In other markets, it is.
In what markets is $15 an hour considered a live-able wage? Definitely not near me or you.
15 minimum wage? This is a joke, correct? Minimum wage should be 20 and all employers should have a health tax placed on them that allows the government to citizens basic healthcare, including dental, drugs, eye cart, physio chiro, etc...this includes Canada...
You think many small businesses can afford $20 an hour?
Maybe don't start a business in which you'll need hired help if you cannot then pay the person you hired a living wage?
This is confusing. Why is it up to the business to determine if they are paying a living wage? Isn't it up to the applicant to make that decision based on their personal situation? A business is designed to pay the rate where supply equals demand so long as the amount is over the minimum wage. Maybe the business should do a financial review of the applicants situation and determine whether the applicant should even take the job for the rate. And if the business decides...no, this isn't a living wage for the person, then it would be morally reprehensible to offer the job to the applicant.
I worked on Wall Street for 10 years, so I've heard the above bolded blind spot quite often. While many Wall Streeters may have earned their minimum wage badge in such a situation, the majority of minimum wage applicants have very little choice in the matter. In this nation, some are born impoverished, some achieve poverty, and some have poverty thrust upon them. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour goes a little way toward eradicating that last one. I'm all for municipalities raising their own minimum wages by vote or committee, just as they do with sales taxes in some municipalities.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
A little common sense eh? This argument is not about the federal minimum, you argued that if you can't pay living, don't open the business. What if the person has a gainfully employed spouse and this is just some retirement/spending/leisure cash? Maybe the mandatory interrogatory would flush that out. I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
See thread title.
I didn't realize I needed to wear my uniform today, working from home and all.
Don't be a simpleton. You said businesses should not open unless they pay a living wage, not that they meet federal minimum wage. I would argue in certain markets $15 is not living for a family of 2+. In other markets, it is.
In what markets is $15 an hour considered a live-able wage? Definitely not near me or you.
The rural area of MN could probably still get by on that. Wouldn't be great, but liveable. I'd imagine many of the rural counties of the flyover states would be able to get by.
Comments
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Didn’t work!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
just because some thought of trump as an outsider doesn’t make his actions representative of what an outsider would do.
trump acted like a complete insider. He profited personally from the presidency and demanded that congress not hold him to the unconstutionality of his actions. He demanded everyone be loyal to him and not to we the people nor to the constitution.
of course trump supporters are not interested in what non believers say, step one in converting America into an autocracy.
if the senate is creative, it will be easy to pass a new tax law that will pressure companies to pay a higher minimum wage.
for example a new tax law with a higher tax rate for companies that will not certify that their minimum wages paid for the year were not higher than the employees state’s poverty level is possible. Since this would be budget related, it probably passes the Byrd Rule. Simply said, make the tax rate difference as a monetary incentive to pay a least a living wage above the poverty level.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
agree.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
In Sweden, there is no statutory minimum wage, but instead wages are established through "collective agreements" between the labour markets partners, meaning: employers and trade unions, without direct state intervention. Common terms for this is "starting salary" or "base salary." The collective agreements are voluntary, which is why their lowest mark is only the minimum wage within the companies that have chosen to join the collective agreements. Thus, there is no minimum wage in Sweden, and the wage is a completely unregulated agreement between employees and employers.
And to answer your question: Assuming that both the small business employer and applicant live within roughly the same region as the physical place of business (shop, office, etc.), then one could likely take it on good faith that the employer knows the region and the relative economic situations of the municipalities within the region. In other words, a little empathy and some common fucking sense. If lacking in either, one should not open/run a small business.
I'm sorry, your argument is bizarre. A business owner should not take skill, scarcity, demand or even the federal minimum wage into account when opening as business. They have some amorphous obligation to determine what the "livable wage" is in their area before opening a business. Because it would be better for a potential business owner to NOT open a business at $10 per hour and have ZERO employees and pay no one a wage, than to pay something less than what you believe is a living wage for that person....whatever you think that number is.
I didn't realize I needed to wear my uniform today, working from home and all.