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.
People's pay/ hourly wage/ salary tend to be a reflection of how much market value they are adding to society.
Not to society, but rather to "the bottom line" of the company.
There are a lot of people who add a tremendous amount of value to society who either aren't paid well or are unpaid volunteers. There are a lot of people who don't add a lot of value to society, and who earn egregious amounts through dividends and stock options. Value is also highly subjective. I don't find a whole lot of value in Facebook, but their financial statements tell another story.
Not to society, but rather to "the bottom line" of the company.
There are a lot of people who add a tremendous amount of value to society who either aren't paid well or are unpaid volunteers. There are a lot of people who don't add a lot of value to society, and who earn egregious amounts through dividends and stock options.
Too many people 100% equate "market value" with "greater good for society", because they pray to the Market Gods, and the patron saint Homo Economicus (and even if H.E. existed, he would only act for himself, much like the Crabs in a Bucket, or the Prisoner's Dilemma). Therein lies the problem.
Those who are making $15 an hour now with college degrees in entry level specialized positions have a ladder to promotion and higher wages.
Minimum wagers don't.
Why would anyone think that someone isn't worth a wage to stay out of poverty?
You are confusing wages and need - they are not necessarily related. Needs are filled by assistance programs if wages are insufficient.
Poverty level for 1 person is $12,880 - that is about $6.50/hr - for 4 people it is $26,600, with 2 working full time, works out to about $6.70/hr - current min wage is above poverty level in both cases - so will "stay out of poverty". Even so, min wage is meant for starting out, it is not meant to cover a family long term.
Not to society, but rather to "the bottom line" of the company.
There are a lot of people who add a tremendous amount of value to society who either aren't paid well or are unpaid volunteers. There are a lot of people who don't add a lot of value to society, and who earn egregious amounts through dividends and stock options. Value is also highly subjective. I don't find a whole lot of value in Facebook, but their financial statements tell another story.
They should also should NOT be conflating "low skill" with "not needed". Most of us can mop floors, clean toilets, vacuum, set burger machines, and this isn't very skilled work. However, at the end of the day, it needs to be done. If it doesn't get done, then you have no store. Or, the manager needs to do all of that him/herself. Until we can build cylons to do all of this (not just make burgers and stock shelves, but taking out trash, etc.), then these folks are essential.
Every person is worth enough money that they shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours/week to pay for food, clothing, housing, child care, medical care, and education. If that number is $15/hr, then they are worth that much.
You are confusing wages and need - they are not necessarily related. Needs are filled by assistance programs if wages are insufficient.
Poverty level for 1 person is $12,880 - that is about $6.50/hr - for 4 people it is $26,600, with 2 working full time, works out to about $6.70/hr - current min wage is above poverty level in both cases - so will "stay out of poverty". Even so, min wage is meant for starting out, it is not meant to cover a family long term.
We should not be subsidizing Walmart for their employment costs when they refuse to provide salaries that cover basic needs that therefore require OUR taxpayer money to make up the difference (food stamps, etc.) Walmart is simply an example and applies to many other places.
Assistance programs should not be made for people with full-time employment (even if divided amongst two or more part time jobs). It should be for people who cannot work or run into terrible situations, such those who are physically or mentally ill. If you work "full-time" that work should be able to provide a "full-time" life.
I'm sick of subsidizing places like Walmart or Amazon and their subsidiaries. Socialism isn't ok, unless it's for businesses, then it's ok.
The minimum wage has always been the wage that at full-time people need to afford rent (which is 1300+ a month now where I am in one of the "cheap" cities for a studio or one bedroom), health insurance (100 or more a month for many), utilities (I pay around 200-300 a month in utilities for my half of a two bedroom apartment), groceries (varies), and have enough for spending money. Spending money that, you know, is the back bone of this country and the very foundation of this economy. If no one has elective spending money and all money is going to rent and groceries, companies go out of business.
I make more than $15 an hour where I am and I'd say my wage should be the standard minimum wage in my city. Basically $50k a year.
Let's bring back the minimum wage to it's true definition - the minimum wage needed to sustain life.
We should not be subsidizing Walmart for their employment costs when they refuse to provide salaries that cover basic needs that therefore require OUR taxpayer money to make up the difference (food stamps, etc.) Walmart is simply an example and applies to many other places.
.
Here's some information you're obviously missing or ignoring.
• Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies.
The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
How many of these were only part time employees?
And the same can be said about the majority of Retail Employee families, including the big name old time department stores that pay far less than Walmart.
• Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason:
Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
So does every business in the United States including the big military hardware factories, aircraft (planes) factories, your small businesses in your home town. Congress approved the laws and the president signed them, to encourage businesses of all types to spend money on improvements in their businesses which give a lot of people their jobs producing those improvements.
• The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.
So does every stock holder buying stock for their retirement, etc. Waltons are only doing what the Federal Government tells them to do. There are no tax laws to let stockholders pay taxes on investments at the same level as wages.
In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.
Trusts are set up, so spend thrift kids cannot blow the family fortune, and keep them from losing and shutting down the business. It protects the jobs of employees, and their suppliers, etc., etc.
That article was written by a Walmart Hater, who is spreading so much b*** that it is a wonder anyone with half a mind would believe it, let alone post it here as facts.
Just remember, Walmart is doing exactly what the Federal Government tells them to do, not making up their own tax paying rules. Laws and rules, designed to make it possible for businesses to grow, and to in turn increase the jobs in this country. Walmart is doing exactly what the federal wants them to do.
1: Sell goods at the price that families can afford to pay.
2: Make lots of money, so they pay a lot of taxes.
• Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies.
The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
LOL. Unless you can show us a check for $6.2 billion made out directly to Wal Mart, that is 100% false.
These same employees are on the same safety net programs before and after being with Wal Mart.
Now if you can show us the $6.2 billion check from the US Treasury made directly to Wal Mart, feel free.
I agree with this 100% and I think this is the main point of all. Minimum wage should be enough to pay for all your needs and not have to work 40 hours a week, regardless if you are a dishwasher at a restaurant or an IT engineer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii
Every person is worth enough money that they shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours/week to pay for food, clothing, housing, child care, medical care, and education. If that number is $15/hr, then they are worth that much.
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.
