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.
I'm curious.
If minimum wage was raised by $5 (which is about 50% what it is now), what about all those who are making $15 an hour now with college degrees in entry level specialized positions? They won't get a $7.50/hour raise. They will be making the same as those in positions that do not require special skills or education. Is this fair?
I'm very open to hearing differing opinions without getting into an argument.
What do you think YOU'RE worth?
I'd like this to be an open discussion with no attacks or party-blaming (dems/reps)
In the current economy at about $9-10 an hour as minimum wage, I'd say I'm probably worth $21 an hour.. With a specialized masters and a license to practice therapy. Second year out of school.
It's not really up to me to demand $15 an hour. If the employer wants me to show up on time, work the day through and at times submit ideas on how to make the workplace more efficient, then that's a fair offer and I'll take it. I'm not forcing the employer to pay more, they can refuse and I'll go elsewhere.
I was in a similar situation when I was your age. Except, I couldn't even find a job in my field as a Software Engineer due to the dot-com bubble bursting after graduating college. What did I do?
I took a retail job paying close to minimum wage, which wasn't anything near $15/hour at the time. Lived with my grandmother for a few months to help save money. Eventually got my own place WITH A ROOMMATE to help offset the costs and utilities. I didn't think about having kids or marrying until the job market recovered and I had my foundation set.
Minimum wage was never meant to provide sustainable living. If you need to save money at that level, or get more, you need to get creative and use your head. Get skills that are in demand. Stop blaming the system and being a victim. A country like the United States can't sustain itself by distributing wealth that doesn't exist, especially when those people don't have the skills necessary to sustain the country. Yeah, a free market isn't always fair, but then nothing is really. There will always be problems with any system. Socialism isn't the answer. We've already seen how that's resulted in the past and even today, very few countries can pull it off, and trust me you wouldn't want to live there, or IDK maybe you do, in which case that option is always available to you.
Congratulations on your resourcefulness in dealing with a bad job market. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Americas sad economic condition. Here are some of the items that people are buying: https://www.truefacet.com/breitling-...SABEgJgivD_BwE
What I presented above was a thirty thousand dollar Breitling watch, a $190,000 Rolex, Small luxury hotels, and multi million dollar houses. Extreme wealth is there. If we don't know about it, it isn't being marketed to our economic class.
I agree that true Socialism not the answer, but state directed economies are not what exists in Western Europe. Social Democracy is Western Europe's way of insuring that trickle down works. We shouldn't confuse Social Democracy with Socialism. They are two radically different things.
No, we're telling them if they want more money, they just need to develop skills that are in higher demand.
Unfortunately that is a major problem. A lot of skills that are in high demand are in such high demand because there is almost no way to obtain them. Companies refuse to provide any training and colleges can only provide the skills necessary to learn the specifics. As a result, we have companies screaming about skills shortages, and workers who would be willing to learn have the door shut in the face. I see this a lot in my profession. Businesses looking for purple squirrels like 10 years epoxy formulations with no regard as to how the heck anyone is supposed to develop those skills when noone will hire and train them.
It's not really up to me to demand $15 an hour. If the employer wants me to show up on time, work the day through and at times submit ideas on how to make the workplace more efficient, then that's a fair offer and I'll take it. I'm not forcing the employer to pay more, they can refuse and I'll go elsewhere.
That's a fair attitude. You do not work for them, but instead of protesting one wage for all, you simply move on, which allows them to find the right match for them w/o harassment from 3rd parties.
they might help you join the working world, but they do not determine your salary
what skills did you gain from those certifications and why should you be paid more for having them compared to someone else? did you get them for a reason other than to add to your "credentials"? they do not add credit to you if you dont have anything to offer from having them.
what can you do with that degree that someone else with a different or same degree cant?
what was your work experience between 18 and 22? you spending four years in college does not mean the competition did not spend four years gaining experience.
and... most people do not have jail records, you arent standing out because you kept clean
Considering some of the certifications cost several hundred dollars, and some a week's alone worth of training for, yes I do believe I deserve higher compensation for them. Higher qualifications = higher pay and more job opportunities. That's how it should be. If not then why did I go to college? And why did I work three unpaid internships to give me better qualifications for a better job?
Just because I spent over 60k for college (including living expenses) and got loans for all that, and spent extra to gain things like the HAZWOPER cert and study for that on top of my own major instead of work a retail job, doesn't mean I'm the only one who deserves to be able to save cash at the end of the day.
I want you to say this to yourself. "Hey if you are willing to go into 70k or more in debt, you deserve to make more than $15 an hour"
Let that sink in. It doesn't make economical sense. I come from a wealthier family which is why I was able to do all of that. Instead of spending late nights at McDonald's, I got to study. I had someone else to pay my bills early on instead of taking that on while I was in college. I don't shame or hold people down because they aren't able to afford to do that same thing. I was able to clear my debt early on in my life, which is why I felt college made economical sense. I wouldn't have if I had to take all that in high interest loans, which most students have to do because government loans are miniscule.
I view this in a very simple way. If the majority of your life has to be spent doing something, for money, then it should be able to sustain the majority of your life. It's not rocket science. You spend 8 hours a day a minimum working a job. A THIRD of your entire day. That job should be able to sustain you, right? If not raising wage, then lower rents. Make it so people can live on $10/hr where you are. Give them extra spending cash, and then they can upgrade their skills, pursue more education, less likely to turn to stealing and crime, buy a new fridge or dishwasher, and help boost the economy. Rich people can only spend so much at the end of the day. They only pay healthcare for so many people, they only upgrade houses for a small amount of homes, etc. The extra money is better off in the hands of the less well off. More kids can get better education, more people can pay higher taxes, the rich can only do so much. They only have 24 hours in a day like the rest of us, and can't spend all of it shopping. They can only hire so many accountants to avoid taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy
Prickly Pear: When I was coming of age in the mid- to late 1990s, most people a couple of years out of college lived with roommates. I would not expect a typical 22-year-old, even with a degree, to be able to afford to rent a home on his or her own and save money, to be honest. Or do you mean that you can't afford to rent even with a couple of roommates?
I do agree that the minimum wage (and minimally higher wages) should be raised to keep up with inflation. I do not know that it needs to be $15/hour. If someone thinks that a higher minimum wage is "unfair" because then it wouldn't be "fair" to those currently making $15/hour, I don't really know what to tell you. LOL I guess it will be "unfair" to someone. I'd rather err on the side of helping those making $8/hour raise their standard of living.
Right now in my area, it's much less expensive to buy a house than to rent one. People owning two properties and those renting out their homes on AirBnB are not the issue; there's not a shortage of homes for sale. There's nothing wrong with renting; not everyone is in the position to buy. The prices are very high, though. Right now we could rent out our home out for 150% of what we pay each month for the mortgage/taxes/insurance, which seems crazy to me. That's a problem that's separate from the minimum wage issue, though, I believe.
It is less expensive to buy in my area than rent also. The difference is the down payment.
AirBnB is an issue, because it restricts housing supply. Not everyone has an 800 credit score and can qualify for a FHA. Let's be realistic. AirBnB creates investor interest into buying properties and using AirBnB instead of renting. It lowers hotel prices, sure, but increases renting costs. Even with a FHA I don't have enough money for a down payment. If I am stuck paying 1k a month for rent (market rate for 1 bedrooms in my area) and I barely make my bills as that is nearly half my net income, I can't save for a down payment. Rents have to go down before more can buy.
I have a roommate right now and I am making my bills, and saving pocket change. But I still feel that it's silly that since I make over 40k a year, I can't afford a one bedroom in my city. I find that ridiculous. Some one bedrooms I can afford if I want to risk my safety, but as a young single girl, I don't like that idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityWok
I was in a similar situation when I was your age. Except, I couldn't even find a job in my field as a Software Engineer due to the dot-com bubble bursting after graduating college. What did I do?
I took a retail job paying close to minimum wage, which wasn't anything near $15/hour at the time. Lived with my grandmother for a few months to help save money. Eventually got my own place WITH A ROOMMATE to help offset the costs and utilities. I didn't think about having kids or marrying until the job market recovered and I had my foundation set.
Minimum wage was never meant to provide sustainable living. If you need to save money at that level, or get more, you need to get creative and use your head. Get skills that are in demand. Stop blaming the system and being a victim. A country like the United States can't sustain itself by distributing wealth that doesn't exist, especially when those people don't have the skills necessary to sustain the country. Yeah, a free market isn't always fair, but then nothing is really. There will always be problems with any system. Socialism isn't the answer. We've already seen how that's resulted in the past and even today, very few countries can pull it off, and trust me you wouldn't want to live there, or IDK maybe you do, in which case that option is always available to you.
Why even bother working if it can't even pay your bills and you continue to climb in debt? No wonder people are just forgoing working altogether. Either raise the wages, or lower the expenses. How can you get skills if you don't have the money to pay for those skills? Or a good enough credit score because other debt and expenses, to get a loan to pay for those skills?
The wealth does exist. It's in the hands of less than 10 people.
It's not socialism. It's asking for laws to be kept up the way they were intended when written. Socialism is government owning the means of production, communism is no government but the community (hence the "commun-" prefix of the name) owning the means of production. I wasn't aware telling people they need to pay workers wages that can afford rent meant forgoing their companies entirely to nationalization. Mind telling me how that works? How does a raise mean you have a Big Brother government now? I'm failing to see the correlation.
never has been, it is always about skill, and knowing how to do it
knowing theory is fine but only if you can act on it, otherwise its only good to sit around a fire and talk over it
sounds like people prefer to be think tanks but at the end of the day, they need to put it to action, and they cant so they look foolish if they cant back their words with action
My boss had written on his wall this notion as you have stated: "YOU ARE NOT PAID FOR KNOWLEDGE, YOU ARE PAID TO PRODUCE". I disliked that notion very much. Ask anyone who went to college, they had to have the knowledge BEFORE they could APPLY that skill. One without the other is apt to be NON producing.
And yes I see No harm in a human who has skills to be given livable wages. This Minimum wage is a mockery.
Socialism isn't the answer. We've already seen how that's resulted in the past and even today, very few countries can pull it off, and trust me you wouldn't want to live there, or IDK maybe you do, in which case that option is always available to you.
Scandinavian countries are doing very well. Canada is far more socialist than we are and they're doing well. You've been watching to too much Faux News.
And it's not as easy to move to another country as you may think. I considered Australia, but did the math and realized between the flight to get there and immigration fees (assuming I could find a job is also a big what-if so I'd need spending money to live on) it would be $5,000. Since I'm already living paycheck-to-paycheck, I don't have that kinda dough to move to a better country. I considered England and Ireland as well, but Europe is hard to get into unless you're a refugee.
The minimum wage was $2 per hour in 1973. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, what would cost $100 to buy in 1973 would now cost you $540.56. Therefore for the minimum wage to be equivalent to what it was in 1973, it would need to be $10.81 per hour now. Any lag in the minimum wage below $10.81 means that the Fair Labor Standards Act is out of date and needs to be adjusted.
The FLSA is also out of date in their calculation for overtime pay. $23,660 as a floor for overtime pay is sadly out of date. What this means is that a salaried manager at McDonalds making $35K a year and working a 60 hour week would be making just $11.22 an hour. Without a meaningful FLSA adjustment virtually anyone making more than subsistence wages can be classified as salaried.
Good post and all true.
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.
