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.
So what if there was no minimum wage and so a common low pay fair market rate is $3 an hour. Isn't that still slavery?
Minimum wage is meant to create a floor, something by which no one should fall under.
When I was coming up my parents and other adults including teachers pressed upon us kids the value of an education and keeping your nose clean. Otherwise you'd end up a "bum" and or stuck in some low/minimum wage job like pumping gas or whatever.
It is interesting that over years many immigrants (including a good number of the ancestors of those posting on this forum) once held low wage jobs. To their credit they soon pulled themselves up and out of that mess, and or made sure their kids at least did better.
There is an episode where Carmella is going to divorce Tony and make a go of it in real estate. Until one day she spies a mob wife whose husband was whacked working as a checkout-bagger at local supermarket. That summed things up for Carmella and she reconciled with her husband. She knew she didn't have the skills and juice to make it in RE, and certainly not to keep up the lifestyle she had as Mrs. Tony Soprano.
And that boys and girls sums things up in a nutshell; if you make it to 30, 40, or whatever years of age and best you can do is a mw job; whose fault is that? Nine times out of ten when you hear about such workers their lives are a litany of bad or questionable decisions.
The fact that you think anyone is worth less than $7.25/hr shows your own lack of morality
The fact that you think that the value of someones labor has anything to do with morality shows you're complete ignorance of reality. You can't pay someone more than the job brings to the business. It doesn't matter who is doing the job that's the fact. Not all jobs are worth a "living wage", regardless of your virtue signaling high and mighty "morals". It has absolutely nothing to do with the worth of the person, typical of the left to try and divert the discussion. Elon Musk isn't going to be paid any more to collect shopping carts at Safeway or pumping gas in Oregon than a high school kid doing the same job because that's what the job is worth, not the person.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
The fact that you think that the value of someones labor has anything to do with morality shows you're complete ignorance of reality. You can't pay someone more than the job brings to the business. It doesn't matter who is doing the job that's the fact. Not all jobs are worth a "living wage", regardless of your virtue signaling high and mighty "morals". It has absolutely nothing to do with the worth of the person, typical of the left to try and divert the discussion. Elon Musk isn't going to be paid any more to collect shopping carts at Safeway or pumping gas in Oregon than a high school kid doing the same job because that's what the job is worth, not the person.
Doesn't always happen, wage compression is a thing....
Hence the dwindling Middle Class. If higher earners do not see an increase they have effectively taken a pay cut because they will bear the burden of rising costs labor costs for minimum wage workers.
Some allow 2 per bedroom plus 1, so that would be 3 in a one bedroom
It all depends. There is no one universal formula used by all cities/towns/housing authorities.
It usually starts with the size of the bedroom. The bedroom has to have a minimum square footage allowed for one person, and then so many additional square feet for a second person - to make a one bed legal for two to live in.
It also depends if the lessees are related or not.
The plus one is usually a child in one bedroom scenarios. Not a 3rd adult, un-related roommate, camping out on the couch.
And if you can't afford to the the lifestyle you think you deserve, move to a less expensive are.
Not everyone who want's to live in NYC, LA, SF and Seattle is owed anything in order to allow them to live there.
Yes, but all the rich folks in NYC, LA, SF, and Seattle don't want to look after themselves. They want slaves to do their bidding, so they can feel important. Well then, the slaves need to earn enough so they can live close enough to look after their masters.
The decadence and superiority of the entitled rich doesn't stretch to them making their own meals. They want servants to do it for them. Well, pay up then!!
Moving to a less expensive area means you will be paid less. So how exactly would your senecio work out.
Your pay might be less , but housing and other expenses might be much less .
Many people in high cost cities like NYC , SF ,L.A etc are spending more in rent than many people spend on a mortgage . The homeowner is building equity too over the years .. while the renter has nothing to show for it.
Renting makes sense short term but long term owning property pretty much always ends up being the better option .
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.
