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 significant increase in wages would only be sustainable with high tariffs so retailers wouldn't have to compete against those that can offer lower prices via cheap overseas labor...
There simply are not enough "skilled" jobs in the US at this time for everyone who wants to work, let alone everyone who ought to be working. A portion of the population, regardless of their effort, education level, or skill, are going to end up in "unskilled" jobs, and a portion are going to end up unemployed altogether. It's very easy to say "well, these aren't intended as living-wage jobs!" but given the current state of affairs, people are required to attempt to live off them, and no amount of head-in-the-sand commentary about that reality will negate that fact. So short of just letting folks starve or freeze, there are two choices: either the employers pay, or the public pays. If one won't insist on the former, whining about the latter is disingenuous.
No, the correct answer is "up until it became socially unacceptable to have five people in a tiny 2 bedroom dwelling and take the bus to work".
It used to be common to cram people into an apartment, etc. and now it's illegal.
It used to be that private ownership of an automobile was for the elite. Nowadays even minimum wage jobs want you to have "reliable transportation" or they won't even consider you.
The problem is not that the cost of living is that much higher. It's that we have changed our concept of what "living" entails.
If you want to tackle the living wage issue, whatever living wage is suppose to mean, then instead of addressing how much money a person gets, you should be addressing why a person cannot live on so much. Addressing this issue would obtain far more benefits, given the global competition, then complaining that people are not getting enough money.
That's easy. It's called over regulation. You know, that thing that says how many people can live in one apartment, that a dwelling must have certain requirements in order to be rented to someone, regulations that determine what type of home you can but, the thing that dictates that you must have a special over priced light bulb in your ceiling fan, your car must pass expensive safety test, emissions tests, you have to have x,y & z coverage on your car & apartment, government forced health care, etc.
In places like India, many people rent and buy homes Americans wouldn't even have nightmares about living in. Not including the places that don't have clean running water, a toilet, or electricity. Then there is also that problem that not only do you live in a dwelling with your wife and kids, but also your parents, and your brother and his wife and kids.
I'm not saying I don't like that there is government regulations, but I am saying it adds to the COL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
There are probably two or three items that take up the majority of someone's pay; find those items, then see why those items cost so much.
Rent, food, and transportation costs are what eat up low level workers pay. people living in cold climates also have deal with very high utility costs. For example, someone living in a studio bedroom in Columbus, Ohio would pay $500-700 for a studio apartment, $200-300/month in food, and $100-$150/month for utilities. Using the low end of these numbers, your already at $800/month and haven't even dealt with transportation costs, or the Obama Care. And again, at 7.25/hour your looking at a budget of $1000/month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Another thing to consider is; Walmart pays the wages they do because there is not a demand to exceed those wages. As long as a large segment of the workforce knows the gov will step in with supplemental support, this workforce will not demand more from an employer. Has it ever occurred to you that many in the workforce actually incorporate gov benefits into their financial and life decisions?
Maybe the person doesn't need to be very educated, or very skilled. But, your hitting the nail on the head. What's mentioned above, is the problem. The employees, and the employer, is depending on employees receiving government aid. These people are counting on tax payers to feed and house them. Walmart is getting fat, and greedy off of this business model and it needs to stop.
Those telling high school and college kids not to work are doing a disservice to them and society.
Sure there is a difference in working 2 jobs because you have to, and working 2 jobs because you want too, but why is that the employers fault? I have had to work 2 or 3 job multiple times in my life to support myself and my family, but it was not the employers fault, they told me upfront what I would be making and how much work they had. I took the job knowing that it was a need while I repositioned myself to take a step back up. It is stupid to think that fast food or retail stores should pay more just because some think they make to much money.
So you think tax payers should supplement the walmart worker income?
No, the correct answer is "up until it became socially unacceptable to have five people in a tiny 2 bedroom dwelling and take the bus to work".
It used to be common to cram people into an apartment, etc. and now it's illegal.
It used to be that private ownership of an automobile was for the elite. Nowadays even minimum wage jobs want you to have "reliable transportation" or they won't even consider you.
The problem is not that the cost of living is that much higher. It's that we have changed our concept of what "living" entails.
This is very true. I know a few people who could not get a minimum wage job because he did not own a car.
I don't feel like quoting the post, but "automobile ownership was only for the elite" hasn't been true since the 1920's, one of Henry Ford's legacies.
Why do employers want workers with "reliable transportation"? Because they want reliable employees who show up for work, that's primary. Secondarily they don't want employees who are tied to a set transportation schedule which may not allow them to extend hours, change work schedules, etc.
But, then again, we had a custodian retire last year after 40+ years who has never driven. He made it in to work every day in an area without public transportation.
Maybe these places are only meant for part-time work for high school and college students and aren't meant to be a liveable wage job, unless you are in management.
But, then again, we had a custodian retire last year after 40+ years who has never driven. He made it in to work every day in an area without public transportation.
What?? You mean an employee who handled his personal situation and didn't complain or make excuses? How rare.
When I was in college, I took a job at a fast food restaurant during summer break. I didn't have a car or any money. For the first 3 weeks, I walked approx. 5 miles each way in the hot summer sun. I didn't make excuses. I made it to work on time. When I got my first paycheck, I got a bus pass. I remember that day.
FYI, minimum wage at that time was $3.15 an hour.
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.
