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.
How can you say that all jobs have value, and then turn around and say that workers deserve to be paid a living wage?
Huh? Perhaps there is some confusion about what a Living Wage means and the difference it is from socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
The value of a job, and thus the wage it pays, is determined by the labor market for said job and how much value it contributes to the company. Wages are not a reflection of "the worker," but of the labor that the worker is hired to provide (IOW, sell) to the employer. The more valuable your labor is to your employer, the higher a wage you can negotiate.
Pay is generally determined by the labor market but the floor is not, as we are seeing play out right now in SA where COL is increasing substantially but pay in the lower income brackets is not keeping pace. Hence, we have a large factor in the problem as stated in the OP.
In a predatory system, the floor is kept low and companies take advantage of it, either by paying the floor to full time employees or just a few dollars above, even if this means it is well below the bare minimum to survive and they are raking in hundreds of thousands, millions (in some cases billions) in profit. Why? Well, because they can.
Take a look at working conditions pre Fair Labor and Standards act.
Were workers paid adequately, did we have child labor, overtime pay?
What where working conditions like before unions added the benefits we have today?
What are working conditions like in other countries such as China, North Korea and such that do not have workers rights nor intervention for them?
Based on the questions above, should we have intervention from the government and organizations such as unions or should we just Wild West it and as you said "the value of a job, and thus the wage it pays, is determined by the labor market for said job and how much value it contributes to the company"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
To say that a worker should be paid a living wage is to attempt to decouple wages from labor value and instead create a nonexistent link between wages and cost of living, all while completely ignoring the effects of one's personal decisions and financial habits upon COL.
The living wage stance is absolutely not "decoupl(ing) wages from labor value". With the Living Wage stance, wages still will depend on value, education, effort etc and it is ensuring the floor is not kept low (below the bare minimum to survive) either intentionally or unintentionally. Living wage is not socialism where everyone is paid the same. There absolutely should be a link between the floor of full time wages and cost of living. Hence, if not, we have a large factor regarding the original post in this thread and the article that was presented. We also have a problem with income inequality. Do we have a problem with income inequality in this country? Is the wealth concentrating with a few or with the majority? What does unbiased research show us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
"Ignoring the effects of one's personal decisions and financial habits"
Again, we have an attempt to dehumanize, devalue, categorize and label the millions that are working in these positions even though we personally have not met them all.
New report says that San Antonio is one of 10 Cities where cost of living is outpacing wages. Not only are San Antonio housing costs rising faster than wages, but the cost of health care also is outpacing income growth.
Today’s real average wage has about the same purchasing power it did... 40 years ago.
New report says that San Antonio is one of 10 Cities where cost of living is outpacing wages. Not only are San Antonio housing costs rising faster than wages, but the cost of health care also is outpacing income growth.
Today’s real average wage has about the same purchasing power it did... 40 years ago.
Huh? Perhaps there is some confusion about what a Living Wage means and the difference it is from socialism.
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Now how about a straight answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
Pay is generally determined by the labor market but the floor is not
Most people don't work for "floor" wages, so this part of the discussion is irrelevant to a discussion of community-level economics. As I stated in a previous post, a brand new employee with no skills or experience can walk into Bill Miller's and start earning upwards of $9 per hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
Based on the questions above, should we have intervention from the government and organizations such as unions or should we just Wild West it and as you said "the value of a job, and thus the wage it pays, is determined by the labor market for said job and how much value it contributes to the company"?
We already have LOTS of intervention from government; so much so in fact that companies have to have staff devoted exclusively to compliance matters. While basic regulations are necessary (workplace safety, deceptive trade practices, etc.) the current state of many industries is simply over-regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
The living wage stance is absolutely not "decoupl(ing) wages from labor value".
Yes, it intrinsically is, in fact it can't NOT be decoupled from labor value. The entire notion of a "living wage" is built around the idea that wages should be coupled to COL instead of to the value of one's labor in the marketplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
Living wage is not socialism where everyone is paid the same.
I never claimed that is is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
There absolutely should be a link between the floor of full time wages and cost of living.
That cannot be so unless wages are decoupled from labor market value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan
We also have a problem with income inequality. Do we have a problem with income inequality in this country? Is the wealth concentrating with a few or with the majority?
No we don't, we have a problem with an inequality of financial know-how and inflated costs and taxes. Those who don't know how to properly handle finances shouldn't be paid more (because that won't help permanently improve their financial pictures), they should be taught financial literacy so that they can make wise financial decisions. Also, the COL for all of us should be decreased by reducing taxes and regulations that unnecessarily increase the cost of compliance born by our employers and those who produce and sell the goods and services we consume.
How? As you can see from this thread most people are quite happy with things as they are.
Legislation.
Keep in mind, this forum/thread may or may not be indicative of the majority for a given topic. It is often indicative of those who want to speak the most and the loudest.
There is another thread on this forum titled "Why does SA Vote so blue". Fortunately, people are waking up to the fact that:
1. One party tends to create policies that favor the few at the expense of the many
2. Another party tends to create policies that favor the many at the expense of the few
Based on San Antonio's voting record, it appears that SA is voting for group #2
How can you say that all jobs have value, and then turn around and say that workers deserve to be paid a living wage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Now how about a straight answer?
All jobs have value. All. No matter how much we try to dehumanize any worker and devalue any job (oh, they are just a burger flipper, waiter, cashier, fruit picker etc) their job is vital to local and national micro and macro economies (the big picture). There seems to be an attempt to dehumanize and label these lower paid groups of people as unnecessary of a living wage by claiming they are just lazy, bad planners, poor spenders, irresponsible (insert excuse here). That they somehow deserve less then the bare minimum to survive. This same mentality was present before the Fair Labor Standards Act. This mentality was also prevalent with slavery. In 2018, it discourages me that this is the mentality that some are continuing to champion for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Most people don't work for "floor" wages, so this part of the discussion is irrelevant to a discussion of community-level economics. As I stated in a previous post, a brand new employee with no skills or experience can walk into Bill Miller's and start earning upwards of $9 per hour.
Many people work for floor wages. Many more people work for just a few dollars more then floor wages. This isn't just a few tens, a couple hundred or just a few thousand people. This is not just a handful of people. Are you attempting to make it appear so?
Do you think making $9 per hour (which is only a few dollars more then the absolute floor) is sufficient in the local economy for one single person working full time, without any kids, to survive off of without assistance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
We already have LOTS of intervention from government; so much so in fact that companies have to have staff devoted exclusively to compliance matters. While basic regulations are necessary (workplace safety, deceptive trade practices, etc.) the current state of many industries is simply over-regulated.
If there still are tremendous amounts of predatory practices, loopholes for dodging a fair share of the load, rampant abuses of the system and unsafe conditions throughout the country that need oversight etc, it is my opinion and the opinion of millions around the country that this "LOTS" is not enough. It is my opinion that it is not "LOTS" but is indeed "insufficient".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Yes, it intrinsically is, in fact it can't NOT be decoupled from labor value. The entire notion of a "living wage" is built around the idea that wages should be coupled to COL instead of to the value of one's labor in the marketplace.
We already have wages decoupled from labor to a degree. Do you think the current minimum wage law is coupled to value of labor? Its not. The minimum wage law "is the body of law which prohibits employers from hiring employees or workers for less then a given hourly or daily minimum wage."
Why do we have a minimum wage law? Why is the government prohibiting employers from paying less then a certain amount? Why is a prohibition even required in this case? What were conditions like before a minimum wage law?
Everything above the minimum wage is paid according to value. The minimum wage law does not change this. The living wage stance is saying that the floor, or the minimum wage should be based on the bare minimum to survive in the local geographic area, not below. The market will sort the rest out.
Without this prohibition from paying less then the minimum wage (a law that decouples the wage of the floor from perceived value), do you think working conditions would be good and that people would be reasonably paid? What has history shown us in this country and all around the world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
That cannot be so unless wages are decoupled from labor market value.
Please see above
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
No we don't, we have a problem with an inequality of financial know-how and inflated costs and taxes. Those who don't know how to properly handle finances shouldn't be paid more (because that won't help permanently improve their financial pictures), they should be taught financial literacy so that they can make wise financial decisions. Also, the COL for all of us should be decreased by reducing taxes and regulations that unnecessarily increase the cost of compliance born by our employers and those who produce and sell the goods and services we consume.
You dodged the question. No one asked you about financial know how. The question that was asked to you was, do we have an income inequality problem in this country? Do we?
For anyone who is reading this, I encourage you to do your own unbiased and thorough research on this topic. This can be done on Google or at a local library. After doing so, what does your thorough and unbiased research show?
Regarding the rest of your statement....
Again, we have an attempt to dehumanize, devalue, categorize and label the millions that are working in these positions even though we personally have not met them all. According to some posters on here and some of the arguments I have heard outside of here:
All of them "dont know how to handle their finances so they shouldn't be paid more". All of them are "driving around in Audie's and Bentleys". All of them are just "irresponsible" and "lazy" and they just dont want to move up with more responsibility. On and on the "tribalism mentality" and the label train goes.
Let me ask you something about labeling these people as people who do not know how to "properly handle finances". If 100% of their paycheck is going to basic living expenses and that 100% is not enough to cover them just to pay for the necessities so they are going to exorbitant loan places to pay the rest, how do you suggest they be more financially responsible? Invest a portion of their pay in a savings account? With what money? Invest in the stock market? With what money? Invest in healthcare when its exorbitant and they have to pay the rent and light bill? How? On and on the list goes. So, how?
If we as a society continue to pay sub stand living wages, how can we then accuse these millions of people that they are financially irresponsible when more then 100% of what they are being paid is needed for basic necessities?
Regarding the other part of your statement:
"...the COL for all of us should be decreased by reducing taxes and regulations that unnecessarily increase the cost of compliance born by our employers and those who produce and sell the goods and services we consume"
What has history and present day shown us when there is little to no regulation, oversight and "no cost of compliance born by our employeers" of companies that employ people? Hint (look US history pre 1938 and other countries now - such as China and NK).
So you want society to pay millions of people below the bare minimum to survive, then you want to reduce the taxes from the strongest/wealthiest (and everyone) that help pay for programs to supplement them to survive and stay healthy? Am I understanding you correctly?
Last edited by txbullsfan; 12-01-2018 at 12:43 PM..
Home sales in the San Antonio region increased slightly in November but figures released Tuesday show the area’s housing market has slowed as prices continue climbing. https://www.mysanantonio.com/busines...n-13474889.php
Home sales in the San Antonio region increased slightly in November but figures released Tuesday show the area’s housing market has slowed as prices continue climbing. https://www.mysanantonio.com/busines...n-13474889.php
The commentary you put above was the local reporters. The SABOR person has different take. I’d tell Joshua to leave it to the professional.
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.
Now how about a straight answer?
