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.
It's funny my nephew works at a fast food place and HAS BEEN ALL THROUGH HIS SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL. Upon graduation at 18, he was made an Asst. Mgr. The owner sees the potential and he wants to groom him to be able to own his own store.
And from the sound of things, your nephew is not paying rent for an apartment, at least, certainly not at today's rentals prices. If he were totally supporting himself while in high school full time (which is free, by the way, compared to college) and working full time at a minimum wage job, something in that equation will eventually have to give. Either he makes more money, or he gives up the apartment and lives on the street, or he goes part-time and gets on a government support system, or he drops school.
I say kudos to your nephew, but the reality of the situation is he is on parentfare while he's working a minimum wage job. Not everyone has that luxury.
And if you compared rent to minimum wage in 1974 to today, minimum wage workers would need to be making approximately $16/hr to be able to pay today's rent.
I say kudos to your nephew, but the reality of the situation is he is on parentfare while he's working a minimum wage job. Not everyone has that luxury.
.
A large percentage of minimum wage workers are on parent fare. Why not direct your government intervention to actions such as expanding the EITC instead?
A large percentage of a higher minimum wage will be realized by families making above the average income and much of it will be paid by those who are not.
It doesn't need substantiation. It's self evident. That's like asking someone to substantiate that 1+1=2. A thing's monetary worth is measured by what someone else is willing to pay for it. It's axiomatic. There can be no other way to measure something's worth that isn't subjective. Something's market value is the only way to objectively measure its economic worth.
In a world where taxing is high; increasing only promotes the trend happening now; that is more and more being produced with less human workers needed.
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.
Punishing people who hire those at the bottom rung of the skill ladder is counterproductive.
We don't HAVE to accept it but since it's the best system known to mankind, we SHOULD accept it.
That's arguable, which is actually an improvement over your previous stance of "everything I believe is just a perfect expression of natural law that I can't explain and you can't debate okay!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Not true at all. Until we built a nanny state mankind lived quite well with a free market.
No it didn't. Read about the Gilded Age and the early Industrial Revolution pre-unionization. Unless you don't consider 10-year-olds getting their hands chopped off at work part of "mankind". Although I would actually argue that the feudal period is a more pure expression of the free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
And your fantasy about robots is just that.
"Human workers being replaced by robots? What an absurd fiction! How could anybody believe this fantasy in the Year of our Lord 2015? Now let me tell you how minimum wage is stupid because McDonald's will just fire all their workers and replace them with automated cashiers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
It doesn't need substantiation. It's self evident. That's like asking someone to substantiate that 1+1=2. A thing's monetary worth is measured by what someone else is willing to pay for it. It's axiomatic. There can be no other way to measure something's worth that isn't subjective. Something's market value is the only way to objectively measure its economic worth.
Are you literally advocating that we should run our society on the assumption that poor people are worthless?
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.
It has nothing to do with employer. People make their own choices. Maybe that breadwinner at Mickey D's should have thought twice before having 3 kids he couldn't afford.
It's no different than Obama wanting to punish people who saved for their childrens' education because there are irresponsible parents who had children without being able to provide for them.
The answer is not "punishing" employers for paying what the market will bear, it's cutting off the government freebies to the takers.
It has nothing to do with employer. People make their own choices. Maybe that breadwinner at Mickey D's should have thought twice before having 3 kids he couldn't afford.
It's no different than Obama wanting to punish people who saved for their childrens' education because there are irresponsible parents who had children without being able to provide for them.
The answer is not "punishing" employers for paying what the market will bear, it's cutting off the government freebies to the takers.
Maybe the breadwinner was a plant foreman when he had those three kids, back before the factory was shuttered.
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.
What?
