Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one wants to work for 7.25 but sometimes that is the only job they can find so they have to take it.
They want to work and earn, and they are only qualified for MW jobs. They take the job because they WANT to, they don't have to.
Quote:
If someone can not afford to live off that wage then no because that person has to rely on government assistance so the business is leeching off of others so they can make a lot more money. What is the point of working a job if you can not live off it?
This has been covered before in multiple threads. If an employee is receiving government assistance, it doesn't mean that the business is leeching off of others. This false idea just needs to stop.
That's news to me - I pay about 40% of my income in taxes. (Federal and state income tax, Social Security employer and employee share, Medicare tax, property tax, and sales tax.) If there is anything left then my kids will pay the inheritance tax.
Most people never run into an issue with taxation at least at the federal level on inheritence with the cutoff being 5.3mm or more
No one wants to work for 7.25 but sometimes that is the only job they can find so they have to take it. If someone can not afford to live off that wage then no because that person has to rely on government assistance so the business is leeching off of others so they can make a lot more money. What is the point of working a job if you can not live off it?
To get started. To learn some skills. To pay for essentials while in school. To supplement family income. Any other reason the employee deems worthwhile.
This statement was what led me to believe that you feel a raise in min wage was supposed to elevate one to the "middle"----
"We do need to raise minimum wage from time to time, but doing so will only keep those on the bottom from falling further behind, it will never land them in the middle class. It can't."
The intent of min wage was to provide a floor that would allow the min of life's requirements, not a floor for poverty stats, it was never intended to impoverish, rather it was an answer to the already impoverished living conditions common to the mass of poor in America at that time.
The armchair economists here would have you believe a calamity is on the horizon should American business have a mandate to pay a living wage, Think about the fact that a worker has no lesser position in our form of government when compared to the business owner,we've been bamboozled into thinking that the "rights" of the business owner is somehow greater than the rights of a worker.
I owned a business for many years, I paid union wages, I paid all the add-ons to those wages, I made money, my customers got benefit, no one has a "right" to exist on someone else's labor. When there is a surplus of labor the armchair economist proposes that the "market" set it's own wage bottom, and in that thinking lies the fact that our citizens are subjected to a system wherein a labor surplus must be kept as a provider of desperate workers vying for too little employment.
That is the sole reason for poverty among the lowest paid workers in America, the taxpayers help the businessman by subsidizing his employees with provisional housing vouchers, health care, food, and state education for those who at one time were trained on the job. All the hoopla is nothing more than the corporate fear of an all out wage dispute arising from the raising of the minimum wage, they've told the lower men that "your prices will rise" and that causes a deep fear among those who earn more than the lowest pay, but are far from wealthy. America, not just those at minimum needs a raise.
Minimum wage was enacted in 1938. Adjusted for inflation, 1938's minimum wage of $.25 per hour would be $4.19 per hour today.
Given that fact, I fail to see how a floor is not being provided.
They want to work and earn, and they are only qualified for MW jobs. They take the job because they WANT to, they don't have to.
This has been covered before in multiple threads. If an employee is receiving government assistance, it doesn't mean that the business is leeching off of others. This false idea just needs to stop.
If your two choices are take the job or not have money and lose your housing or go on unemployment you take the job. This idea you have that everybody who works a jobs wants to be at that job is not based in reality.
Most people never run into an issue with taxation at least at the federal level on inheritence with the cutoff being 5.3mm or more
Illinois exemption is $4 million, Federal is $5.3 million. I am only 61. With 30 more years of inflation and capital gains, if the exemptions are not raised my kids will have to pay some tax.
If your two choices are take the job or not have money and lose your housing or go on unemployment you take the job. This idea you have that everybody who works a jobs wants to be at that job is not based in reality.
It's absolutely based on reality. The person in question may not have a lot of good choices available, but they always have a choice to take the job or not.
To get started. To learn some skills. To pay for essentials while in school. To supplement family income. Any other reason the employee deems worthwhile.
If you are getting skills or going to school you still need money to live on don't you? Most people who work these jobs are not going to school or supplementing family income that makes a small portion of the workers. Where does it say these jobs are not supposed to be a career I have yet to see anyone show any evidence.
It's absolutely based on reality. The person in question may not have a lot of good choices available, but they always have a choice to take the job or not.
Okay you just ignored anything I said. If your only choice is take a job or end up homeless you take the job does not mean the job is a good job.
Okay you just ignored anything I said. If your only choice is take a job or end up homeless you take the job does not mean the job is a good job.
No, I didn't ignore what you said. I said that one always has a choice. I didn't say that the job is a good job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
