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.
Requiring the employer to PAY a living wage WILL work
if these poor people made enuff money at their jobs
they would not qualify for any social programs
Got It?
Wouldn't it be simpler and just as plausible to provide everyone with a unicorn with hundred dollar bills stuck on its horn?
Requiring the employer to PAY a living wage WILL work
if these poor people made enuff money at their jobs
they would not qualify for any social programs
Got It?
What you are asking is that employers foot the bill for underemployed people.
That 16 year old can live just fine on min wage.
But now we have adults flipping burgers as a career.
The problem in America is deeper than just increasing min wage.
greedy so called job creators took their taxcuts and outsourced all the good paying jobs so adults who cant find anything better have to take any job available to them ...and none pay a living wage
creating the need for all those social welfare programs
That outsourcing and offshoring has been happening for near 50 years, one industry at a time.
Folks who lost their jobs in those industries spoke out but no one listened.
Why ? Because offshoring gave them cheaper goods, that's why.
The minimum wage should be high enough so that if someone is working full-time, they wouldn't be eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid. Otherwise, the taxpayer is subsidizing employer's low wages.
In the year 2015 maybe about 25% of all jobs pay at a rate that allows full time workers to get government benefits. Even if the current people who are working in these jobs get training and move out of the low wage workplace someone else will take their place. So the argument that low wage workers just need to get more skills and education to move up does not really help the situation. Face it, no matter who is working in these jobs at any time, a large number of jobs in America pay under $10 an hour. And these are the jobs that are growing in today's economy. If you want a job, these are the jobs the typical American can get. And they are not jobs for kids and senior citizens anymore. Lots of the folks working at McDonalds are bring up a family on that job's income.
So, who should pay for the government benefits for the 25% of households whose primary bread winner is making $8 an hour or less than $20K a year?
Is it the responsibility of the employers of low wage labor? Or every taxpayer? Or should we just eliminate things like Food Stamps, reduced lunches at school, Medicaid, government paid housing, etc. for people who work?
Remember, someone is going to be doing these low wage jobs regardless of the hopes and dreams of people in them today.
Here we have the quickest way for a massive layoff of employees. You're on food stamps? Sorry, going to have to let you go.
Of course not. An individual FTE at that hourly rate would still net a wage above poverty guidelines. Add a second worker (spouse, i.e.) at that rate and, well, you get the picture.
Oh, and don't have kids until YOU can afford them. Unwed motherhood is the surest route to poverty.
Many minimum wage jobs are designed to be less than full time especially in restaurants and fast food where shifts fluctuate based on customer traffic. If business is slow, managers send employees home early. These minimum wage employers hate to pay overtime especially when corporate cost constraints are enforced. I once worked a 48-hour week due to unusually high customer traffic. My boss hired a few more people and reduced my scheduled hours accordingly in order to ensure I was never again paid overtime.
I doubt that was the reason. Overtime hours, even with 1 1/2 time pay, are typically the least expensive hours for the employer. The fixed cost per employee, which is based upon a 40 hour week, don't change, benefits don't change, unemployement insurance and L&I insurance don't change. So the only "cost" is the direct pay to the employee. It's more likely that productivity went down when working employees over 40 hours a week, or they wanted additional bodies to cover for absentees, ect.
I guess other areas are harder hit than my area is, or people just have a different mentality. I have several younger relatives and friends kids facing today's economy. One currently is working as an electrical apprentice and is taking classes for his journeyman's card...while having no college and marginal grades in HS, and is making good money. Another took a basic 6 week welding class at a local CC, worked with 2-3 companies and now in his mid-30s is 2nd in command and VP of a ~100 person company. Another went to the military, did his 3-4 years and is now working his way up in a machine shop, doing web design and customer service. Another started out in fast food, and at ~21 is a manager, and being trained for higher (corporate) positions. I honestly can't say that I know any younger people that are doing nothing and living in their parent's basement, or flipping burgers. It seems as if the opportunities are out there for young people with some drive, skills and a willingness to put forth some effort. As opposed to say crying on the interweb about how they can't improve themselves and get a decent 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.
