Minimum Wage vs A Liveable Wage (millionaires, interest, salaries, employment)
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.
A car is not a necessity of life (Just move closer to work.) Neither is living without a roommate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
I agree.
There is a program called 'Lifeline' for low income people to get a telephone at a reduced cost.
Lots of people in this thread seem to think that deprivation is a good thing. In the case of cell phone service and internet access, they are missing the benefits of the "network effect," wherein each person's access to the service provides utility to everyone else who uses the service. I believe that some states use "lifeline" for cell phone service.
I'm also not sure why an individual who earns minimum wage should simply be expected to live in extreme austerity. Minimum wage jobs are often the sort of local, service jobs that cannot be outsourced but require little experience or education. Increasing the minimum wage will therefore not likely have a large impact on the number of these jobs offered by employers. What then is the harm in increasing the minimum wage to allow one a more comfortable living for full time work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Minimum wage would be worth a lot more if Big Government didn't confiscate so much in Social Security and Medicare tax. Don't forget that the amount deducted on the paycheck is only HALF the tax; if the tax wasn't there, the minimum wage earner would be able to keep TWICE the amount that is deducted from his paycheck, without costing the employer a penny (let alone the administrative costs of handing withholding for the IRS, which the employer could again put into employee wages).
But the reason labor gets paid so little, is because the value of labor has been destroyed. Labor has no bargaining power, for two reasons. 1. Washington decided to open the floodgates to open-door immigration in 1965. Within 7 years, the supply of labor so exceeded the supply of jobs that median wages began dropping. 2. Washington pursued "Free Trade" and tax policies that rewarded Big Business for sending jobs and manufacturing overseas. This absolutely destroyed the normal production of jobs in the economy, even as open-door immigration continued (both legal and illegal) and continued to flood the workforce.
Strangely, excessive government regulations and taxation has prevented the low cost of labor from benefitting the average American family in any way (to offset the harm imposed). Many working couples would love to hire someone to help with the housework as they slave away at their jobs. But then THEY are forced to handle all the taxes and regulations of being an "employer"--including sending Washington a big chunk of taxes that minimize what the employee gets. And they also risk getting sued if the employee gets clever; even if the couple did nothing wrong, it costs so much to fight a lawsuit that they would have to settle with a huge amount of money (for both the lawyer and the ex-employee) anyway.
And don't forget Worker's Comp--and all the taxes and bureaucracy that goes with that. So the working couple (who suffers from low hourly wages thanks to labor overpopulation, and must work endless hours to pay the bills) that SHOULD be able to hire some household help, is better off NOT giving someone else a job--again, thanks to Big Government.
Government taxes, it does not confiscate. It also provides benefits. Do you think that Social Security and Medicare should be eliminated? I think you would be alone in that bucket.
Worker's compensation is a benefit to those who need it due to on-the-job injuries. Do you think that injured workers should receive no compensation?
Your discussion of hiring a housekeeper is simply incorrect. If you hire a full-time housekeeper, then you are most certainly an employer. Most people, however, hire a contractor to provide housekeeping services regularly (every week or two or four). That service is provided for a fee and does not require any paperwork on the part of the person hiring the housekeeper.
I take it you have experienced getting sued by a housekeeper. If you qualified as that person's employer under state law, then you should have been complying with the requirements of acting as an employer. If it was a close question, then you should have been more careful. If it wasn't close, then the lawsuit should have been disposed of quickly (and your renter's/homeowner's insurance probably should have hired an attorney as the person was injured on your property).
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivalday
You need to understand what a "basic necessity" means. Just because you all dont WANT a landline, doesnt mean that if its all you can afford, then thats what you get. Wanting doesnt make for a necessity.
Internet is also not a necessity. If you are talking about looking for a job, then you can spend plenty of time at the library on the internet looking for a job. Once you have a job, you don't need the internet any more. Once again, not a necessity, but a want.
A car is NOT a necessity. There are a LOT of people in this world who do not have a car, but rely in public transportation. If it were a necessity, they couldnt do it.
Food, shelter...necessities.
Cell phones, internet.....luxuries. Tho to this generation of entitlement, they may disagree.
Do you think it is a good thing for people who work full time to only earn enough money to afford necessities? At the federal minimum wage, before any taxes, an individual earns $15,080 annually working 40 hours a week without any time off. After state and federal taxes, that is not going to stretch terribly far in most places. At San Francisco's minimum wage, the highest in the nation, an individual working 40 hours a week without any time off earns $21,299.20 annually before any taxes. That would not stretch very far most places, much less in coastal California.
Compare even living in different parts the country, to see how the difference in cost of living effects people. It compares cities all over the U.S., where you can see the difference in other parts of the country, but also other parts of a state. Starting at highest, going on down to the lowest.
If you don't like one city or section of the country as it is too costly to live at the wages you can earn, consider going where it is more affordable.
Check what a certain type job pays, in different cities.
Food is not a necessity... plenty of garbage cans around. You live near a city many places throw out perfectly good grub at the end of the day.
Shelter...pfffft. A tent is just fine. No need for roomates either.
Car? Simply pitch the tent closer to work.
You want decent food, safe environment, and the ability to get to work? Please check your expectations at the door... this is America. You gotta work hard and make some intellegent choices to make that livable wage.
I'm also not sure why an individual who earns minimum wage should simply be expected to live in extreme austerity.
People of all income levels should live the lifestyle that they can afford, without using the force of government to extract wealth from those that have more.
Quote:
What then is the harm in increasing the minimum wage to allow one a more comfortable living for full time work?
You are free to pay your employees a nice wage. If you want them to be more comfortable, then by all means, pay them more. But it is despicable that you would use the power of government to force me to pay $10/hour for labor that is only worth $4/hour.
Quote:
Do you think it is a good thing for people who work full time to only earn enough money to afford necessities?
I think that it is a good thing that people earn the value of their labor. If the value of that labor is low, they will be low paid. This is a simple concept and shouldn't be that hard to understand.
People of all income levels should live the lifestyle that they can afford, without using the force of government to extract wealth from those that have more.
You are free to pay your employees a nice wage. If you want them to be more comfortable, then by all means, pay them more. But it is despicable that you would use the power of government to force me to pay $10/hour for labor that is only worth $4/hour.
I think that it is a good thing that people earn the value of their labor. If the value of that labor is low, they will be low paid. This is a simple concept and shouldn't be that hard to understand.
You appear to promote the elimination of taxes, complete deregulation of the labor market, and the associated elimination of government social spending. Do I misstate your position? If not, then I think you have the template for social upheaval. The United States is a rich country. We should act like one and protect regular workers.
If you make $11 an hour, you're not supposed to have your own apartment.
I did in Chicago. "Livable" is relative. Making 11/hr, one shouldn't be worrying about needing cable, internet, alarm system, car payment, or gym membership. One should be using any extra money on classes or training to advance one's career.
I did have a car payment though.
You appear to promote the elimination of taxes, complete deregulation of the labor market, and the associated elimination of government social spending. Do I misstate your position? If not, then I think you have the template for social upheaval. The United States is a rich country. We should act like one and protect regular workers.
I believe that we need a significantly reduced scope of government, with a correspondingly reduced amount of revenue to fund that government, and a better system to provide those funds.
Pretty much.
I believe that we need a safety net. But what we have now is a complete perversion of that concept. We have an ever growing segment of the population that uses the force of government as a means to plunder the wealth of the productive class. Able-bodied men and women should not be paid to produce children that they can't care for. If one is physically capable of working, they should work.
In Atlanta, it is very common to see someone pull into a gas station/mini-mart in a new or nearly new vehicle, pay cash for a tank of gas, and then use an EBT card to buy Red Bull's and snacks. Is that really the kind of government social spending that you are advocating?
I can't come up with ANY justifiable reason why money that I earned should be taken from me by force, and given to someone that didn't earn it, so that they can buy energy drinks and snacks. Can you?
Cell phone and internet are not basic necessities. Car payment and gas are also not necessities; lots of people live in towns with decent public transportation.
Funny what people deem "necessities".
Are you joking? A phone is a necessity, and a cell phone isn't any more expensive than a landline. You also need internet access to function in the modern world. That includes applying for jobs, applying for college, etc. A car payment and gas is a necessity in most places, and even if you're lucky enough to have good public transit, it's NOT FREE. When I took the park & ride bus in Houston it was $3.75 each way which is $150 per month.
A car is not a necessity of life (Just move closer to work.) Neither is living without a roommate.
Yeah, I would like to see you walk/ride a bike to work with the 40 inches per month of snow we've had this year not to mention the sub-zero temperatures, strong winds, sidewalks that haven't been visible since October and horrible traffic/angry aggressive drivers.
You can get by without a car in some places but in most places it isn't realistic.
I did in Chicago. "Livable" is relative. Making 11/hr, one shouldn't be worrying about needing cable, internet, alarm system, car payment, or gym membership. One should be using any extra money on classes or training to advance one's career.
I did have a car payment though.
That's fine if rents in your area are low enough. They are not in mine, and they weren't low enough for someone making $11 an hour even 17 years ago when I moved here.
We may disagree on the details, but you seem to understand the larger point....You realized $11 an hour wasn't going to get you the life you wanted so you did something about it besides complain.
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.
