Workers want pay boost

[GoofGoof]

Sorry Nubs70 - you must missed the first part of the thread where we were told all workers struggling to make ends meet are stuck in those jobs because they are the modern equivalent of endentured servants. Bound to work in their current job because there is no other work in their job market and it's impossible for them to be anywhere else but where they are now. It is known...

I don't agree with that extreme either. Plenty of people who at one time or another worked a low or minimum wage job advanced to a higher pay level. Raising the minimum wage is intended to increase the salary of those who work a minimum wage job right now. Whether they work that job for six months before getting a better job or for the next 15 years IMHO they still deserve a higher wage. It doesn't need to be a dramatic increase. Just a buck or two would increase the inflation adjusted spending power to where it was 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[Nubs70]

What happens in Montana?

Montana is not a strict at will state.

 

[Nubs70]

I don't agree with that extreme either. Plenty of people who at one time or another worked a low or minimum wage job advanced to a higher pay level. Raising the minimum wage is intended to increase the salary of those who work a minimum wage job right now. Whether they work that job for six months before getting a better job or for the next 15 years IMHO they still deserve a higher wage. It doesn't need to be a dramatic increase. Just a buck or two would increase the inflation adjusted spending power to where it was 30 or 40 years ago.

An increase in the minimum wage is deserved to support the minimum lifestyle we have in 2014?

 

[GoofGoof]

An increase in the minimum wage is deserved to support the minimum lifestyle we have in 2014?

I'm not really sure what you mean or who the "we" is? I don't have a minimum lifestyle or make minimum wage myself and I would guess very few people here do either. Most workers earning minimum wage work in a few industries. The biggest being leisure and hospitality. So the people cleaning hotel rooms or working at places like amusement parks. Another large chunk work in fast food or food services. Someone making $7.25 an hour cleaning hotel rooms or flipping burgers probably has a pretty minimum lifestyle. The ones still living with mom and dad are fine, but if they are trying to support themselves or a family they are most likely struggling.

 

[englanddg]

I'm not really sure what you mean or who the "we" is? I don't have a minimum lifestyle or make minimum wage myself and I would guess very few people here do either. Most workers earning minimum wage work in a few industries. The biggest being leisure and hospitality. So the people cleaning hotel rooms or working at places like amusement parks. Another large chunk work in fast food or food services. Someone making $7.25 an hour cleaning hotel rooms or flipping burgers probably has a pretty minimum lifestyle. The ones still living with mom and dad are fine, but if they are trying to support themselves or a family they are most likely struggling.

There's more to that BLS chart.

It is illegal to pay less than federal minimum wage. Even "waitress wages" are not allowed to earn less than federal minimum wage (not waitress wages) once final accounting is done.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

One thing the folks against a living wage seem to be over looking is Corporate welfare.

By the thinking I see posted, companies cannot afford to pay a higher minimum wage and people need to work hard.

Then I ask.................what about Companies like McDonalds and Wal-Mart and others , all making big money, yet they tell their employees at or near minimum wage to go and apply for welfare and food stamps to make ends meet!

Its called the companies living off the taxpayers.

I would much rather pay a higher price for goods and services if the money goes to the employees then have people on welfare.

AKK

 

[twebber55]

You're right, it would be a strategy and is one being employed to avoid the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, but my focus is more on jobs that inherently lack sufficient demand.


You have repeatedly made comments, some more specific than others, that it is exploitative to hire persons for less than 40 hours/week at $25/hour. Part time work falls right into that. The reason a person is able to work multiple part time jobs is because employers do not limit hiring for part time positions only to those needing only part time work, but all qualified candidates. Unless you ban part time work, employers will still be able to hire people at less than the ≈$50,000/year you have declared as the threshold for exploitation.

agree
Probably the biggest reason im against the ACA is just that...it s a jobs killer at most or at least a reduction in hours to part time work for people with a jump in cost to the consumer...Dems are running away from obamacare in this cycle of elections and the worst part of this law hasnt even kicked in yet

 

[lazyboy97o]

One thing the folks against a living wage seem to be over looking is Corporate welfare.

By the thinking I see posted, companies cannot afford to pay a higher minimum wage and people need to work hard.

Then I ask.................what about Companies like McDonalds and Wal-Mart and others , all making big money, yet they tell their employees at or near minimum wage to go and apply for welfare and food stamps to make ends meet!

Its called the companies living off the taxpayers.

I would much rather pay a higher price for goods and services if the money goes to the employees then have people on welfare.

AKK

I've addressed this several times now. This policy has been employed because the costs can be directed and controlled. You can't make a 1%er eat at McDonald's or shop at Walmart, but you can levy a tax just at such levels.

 

[slappy magoo]

You have repeatedly made comments, some more specific than others, that it is exploitative to hire persons for less than 40 hours/week at $25/hour. Part time work falls right into that. The reason a person is able to work multiple part time jobs is because employers do not limit hiring for part time positions only to those needing only part time work, but all qualified candidates. Unless you ban part time work, employers will still be able to hire people at less than the ≈$50,000/year you have declared as the threshold for exploitation.

I've repeatedly made comments that people who work part-time deserve a per-hour salary comparable to what a livable wage would be for someone making 40 hours, not meaning "someone who works deserve 20 hours deserves to make the same per week as someone working 40 hours," but "the hourly wage of someone working 20 hours should be the same hourly wage as someone working 40 hours, and THAT hourly wage should be enough for someone working 40 hours to be able to support himself." This way if a person can't find a full time job but can get 40 hours over the course of 2 or 3 jobs (which is a hard way to live), they can still be able to cover rent and food and keep clothes on their back and the lights on. Whether that's $25/hour is open to interpretation, maybe people can get by on less than that, maybe YOU can't.


EDIT: I can't even fathom what happened that the above quote would have been attributed incorrectly, but lazyboy97o really really wanted credit for not understanding things I've written in the past, and who am I to deny a man his dream?

 

[slappy magoo]

No. It's perfectly fair. And, if the employer, as a result, decides not to rehire them, that is also fair.

Additionally, if others decide to seize the opportunity to take those now open positions, this is also fair.

And, if the "organized workers" who decided to leave decide to go off and start up a competing enterprise and attempts to put the original company out of business, that is also fair.

However, demanding something, even at the expense of the business, and then being rejected, is no reason to then turn to the government to enact laws to make it happen. This goes for employers, as well. That is not fair.

Sure it is. Because the company that might not be paying people a better wage might also be making them work extra hours for NO money, or in unsafe working conditions, paying them in a company scrip that can only be used in a company store with artificially inflated prices. Historically these things and worse have happened, which is why we have labor laws in the first place. If every "maker" treated every "taker" fairly, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But of course there are always makers looking to make an extra nickel at the expense of someone else's pennies. And laborers realized they could use their pennies to organize and make a nickel back, and that's unfair? Hey, call me the Devil then, I see no problem with that. Can a union be corrupt? Sure, just as much as any corporation can be corrupt or in violation of labor or environmental laws. The answer, unfortunately, lies with the people who are too tired or too distracted by Idol to pay attention to what people do to them in the name of doing something for them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've repeatedly made comments that people who work part-time deserve a per-hour salary comparable to what a livable wage would be for someone making 40 hours, not meaning "someone who works deserve 20 hours deserves to make the same per week as someone working 40 hours," but "the hourly wage of someone working 20 hours should be the same hourly wage as someone working 40 hours, and THAT hourly wage should be enough for someone working 40 hours to be able to support himself." This way if a person can't find a full time job but can get 40 hours over the course of 2 or 3 jobs (which is a hard way to live), they can still be able to cover rent and food and keep clothes on their back and the lights on. Whether that's $25/hour is open to interpretation, maybe people can get by on less than that, maybe YOU can't.

First, you have attributed the wrong person for the quote. Second, I have already provided evidence showing that $25/hour is a minimum of what is required to meet your description of a living wage. It is based on the federal poverty guidelines and supported by MIT.

An employer only offering part time work because the jump to full time costs is no different than the employer offering a lower wage because a higher one cannot be afforded. If offering a lower dollar is exploitation, than so too is fewer hours.

 

[slappy magoo]

First, you have attributed the wrong person for the quote. Second, I have already provided evidence showing that $25/hour is a minimum of what is required to meet your description of a living wage. It is based on the federal poverty guidelines and supported by MIT.

An employer only offering part time work because the jump to full time costs is no different than the employer offering a lower wage because a higher one cannot be afforded. If offering a lower dollar is exploitation, than so too is fewer hours.

First has been fixed, you are now attributed as the person who interpreted my words incorrectly. You're welcome.

Second, I don't think I've used the number $25/hr, this thread has gone on too long I can't remember what I ate for lunch the day I first contributed to it, but if that number is what it is, thanks for doing the math.

Third, just as it's dangerous to assume anyone who is working a minimum wage job is too lazy to have a different job, just as it's dangerous to assume all people who don't have a job at all are too lazy to find one, it's also dangerous and short-sighted to assume an employer working part-time hours is doing so only to skirt paying people a decent wage, and part-time workers are being exploited. Some business have swing hours early monrings or late at night or weekends, some workers have a full time job but need a few extra hours' pay, or merely WANT a few extra hours' pay to nest egg it up and achieve that American Dream. Some stay at home parents want to work the hours the kids are at school. Some retired workers who are already on Medicare and don't need health benefits don't want to spend all day vegging out at home or at "the home."

They're not necessarily exploited, though they still deserve a fair hourly wage.

 

[flynnibus]

Slappy - most companies want happy workers, most companies want their employees to have good lives. So why hasn't this living wage theory played out in the open market? Why haven't good willed individuals who lead companies or their own companies practiced what you preached?

Why is it companies that are known for paying their employees well, and offer good benefits, still pay people wages that you would not meet your 'livable wage' standards?

You've said if a company can't do this.. their business was flawed in the first place. You've painted the problem as simply a moral one.. and not one of practical constraints.

So why hasn't this taken off in the open market? Do you suggest that all business owners are morally corrupt? Or that all businesses are flawed?

I'd love to hear why you think these principles have not been put into use.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I've addressed this several times now. This policy has been employed because the costs can be directed and controlled. You can't make a 1%er eat at McDonald's or shop at Walmart, but you can levy a tax just at such levels.

Hi Lazyboy.

I honestly don't see your point.
Plainly if the fat cat companies who can afford to pay a better wage, did, then the whole issue is mute. Frankly I shop mom and pop as much as I can and don't want to pay a higher tax to keep McDonald and Wal-Mart fat.

AKK

 

[lazyboy97o]

First has been fixed, you are now attributed as the person who interpreted my words incorrectly. You're welcome.

Second, I don't think I've used the number $25/hr, this thread has gone on too long I can't remember what I ate for lunch the day I first contributed to it, but if that number is what it is, thanks for doing the math.

Third, just as it's dangerous to assume anyone who is working a minimum wage job is too lazy to have a different job, just as it's dangerous to assume all people who don't have a job at all are too lazy to find one, it's also dangerous and short-sighted to assume an employer working part-time hours is doing so only to skirt paying people a decent wage, and part-time workers are being exploited. Some business have swing hours early monrings or late at night or weekends, some workers have a full time job but need a few extra hours' pay, or merely WANT a few extra hours' pay to nest egg it up and achieve that American Dream. Some stay at home parents want to work the hours the kids are at school. Some retired workers who are already on Medicare and don't need health benefits don't want to spend all day vegging out at home or at "the home."

They're not necessarily exploited, though they still deserve a fair hourly wage.

You did not use the $25/hour figure. I calculated that out of your description of what a living wage supports and found support for my conclusion. If anything, it is still low and a federally mandated wage would have to be closer to $30/hour.

All of the reasons you give for the honesty of part time work you have rejected when applied to full time work. It comes down to available revenue, which you said is a sign of a bad business model. $320/week available to hire an employee can be spent as $8/hour for 40 hours or $16/hour for about 20 hours. It is the exact same mechanics at play.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hi Lazyboy.

I honestly don't see your point.
Plainly if the fat cat companies who can afford to pay a better wage, did, then the whole issue is mute. Frankly I shop mom and pop as much as I can and don't want to pay a higher tax to keep McDonald and Wal-Mart fat.

AKK

The companies are not going to absorb all of the costs of the increased wages, they will raise prices to compensate. Walmart and McDonald's have large customer bases in the demographic whose wages would be raised, meaning they are the ones paying the new higher costs, negating their new higher wages. McDonald's is an even poorer example because it is a franchised business. The local McDonald's most likely is a mom and pop operation and one in a poor neighborhood, where there is likely a lack of decent food options, is even less likely to have high income earning customers who can continue to afford higher costs and/or sufficient volume to maintain prices and still pay more by reducing personal profits.

Taxes can be levy just on high income earners. We have not yet tried a law say high income earners have to spend more money at Walmart and McDonald's.

 

[slappy magoo]

You have repeatedly made comments, some more specific than others, that it is exploitative to hire persons for less than 40 hours/week at $25/hour.

You did not use the $25/hour figure. I calculated that out of your description of what a living wage supports and found support for my conclusion. If anything, it is still low and a federally mandated wage would have to be closer to $30/hour.

So...I...DIDN'T ever specifically use a $25/hr figure, is what you're now saying.

All of the reasons you give for the honesty of part time work you have rejected when applied to full time work.

I'll make you a deal, if someone wants to work full-time but not get paid a living wage, they should feel free to go for it. I believe those are known as "volunteers."

It comes down to available revenue, which you said is a sign of a bad business model. $320/week available to hire an employee can be spent as $8/hour for 40 hours or $16/hour for about 20 hours. It is the exact same mechanics at play.

Chris Rock has a great line about the insulting nature of the minimum wage, that it' an employer essentially saying "Hey, I'd LOVE to pay you LESS, if I could but the government won't let me."

Meh, it's funnier than he says it.

I'm merely pointing out the circular nature of Fail. Someone who doesn't work is a loser. But someone who works at a minimum wage job is a Loser for not going for a job that makes more money. But if someone doesn't work that job for that wage, the employer has to raise the wage or apparently go out of business. Because his business model is predicated on the notion that he should be allowed to pay people as little as legally possible, indeed he'll fail if he doesn't. At don't call him an exploiter, because no one is being forced to work that job at that wage...but if they refuse to work that job at that wage it better be cause they found another job at a better wage, those lazy moochers. Damned poor if you do, damned poor if you don't.

 

[slappy magoo]

Slappy - most companies want happy workers, most companies want their employees to have good lives.

Most companies will claim that's what they want. They'll use it in advertising and corporate literature. There are religions that plot wars in the name of peace, too. There are dudes who'll tell a girl "Of course I'll respect you in the morning. I'll respect you MORE."

So why hasn't this living wage theory played out in the open market? Why haven't good willed individuals who lead companies or their own companies practiced what you preached?

Why is it companies that are known for paying their employees well, and offer good benefits, still pay people wages that you would not meet your 'livable wage' standards?

Perhaps because I'm being generous in my definition of a livable wage, perhaps because I never specifically said $25/hr even though lazyboy97o insisted I did before admitting I didn't, perhaps because when you factor benefits into their pay it might be way closer to a "livable wage" then someone making minimum wage and no are far more limited benefits, no? They might be getting pensions or 401Ks that afford them to not panic as much about their golden years, they get medical and dental so they won't have to worry about getting it through their state's exchanges (or try to qualify for aid in other ways, like Wal-Mart middle managers teaching their low-wage employees how to apply for Medicare so you and I can pay for their health care without ever shopping there)

Clearly, whatever the hourly salary is, it's not minimum wage. So instead of suggesting "hey maybe other companies should pay their workers like that," you think picking nits with me that by my definition they're still poor is witty. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I have friends that still own all their Blanche Knott Truly Tasteless Jokes books, too.

 

[flynnibus]

Because his business model is predicated on the notion that he should be allowed to pay people as little as legally possible, indeed he'll fail if he doesn't

Here is your first flaw. The Business model is not predicated on the notion he can pay as low as legally possible.. It's predicated on "This role returns this much value, can I afford to hire someone to do that work". The constraining factor is not the employer's moral compass, it is the value or revenue that position will generate. That is what defines the bottom for a business. If that number is not high enough, it won't support hiring a person at any wage. The lower the wage, the lower the barrier to creating that position.

The job exists because it performs a function of returning some value to the business. No value, no job. No net value after cost? The job is likely not to exist either.

At don't call him an exploiter, because no one is being forced to work that job at that wage...but if they refuse to work that job at that wage it better be cause they found another job at a better wage, those lazy moochers. Damned poor if you do, damned poor if you don't.

Second flaw... the notion that because I take a low paying job today, I am stuck in that low paying job in the future, so you better pay more more for the same job. Instead of, moving up the ladder through seeking better employment or improving your own value.

 

[flynnibus]

Most companies will claim that's what they want. They'll use it in advertising and corporate literature. There are religions that plot wars in the name of peace, too. There are dudes who'll tell a girl "Of course I'll respect you in the morning. I'll respect you MORE."

So your answer is its all lies. Every business owner falls into your greedy exploiter labels.

The reason people aren't falling in behind you in your campaign is because statements like the above are complete BS. You ignore the reality that the bulk of employers in the country are small businesses. They are your neighbors, they are every day people working to make a living just like you.

Perhaps because I'm being generous in my definition of a livable wage, perhaps because I never specifically said $25/hr even though lazyboy97o insisted I did before admitting I didn't, perhaps because when you factor benefits into their pay it might be way closer to a "livable wage" then someone making minimum wage and no are far more limited benefits, no? They might be getting pensions or 401Ks that afford them to not panic as much about their golden years, they get medical and dental so they won't have to worry about getting it through their state's exchanges (or try to qualify for aid in other ways, like Wal-Mart middle managers teaching their low-wage employees how to apply for Medicare so you and I can pay for their health care without ever shopping there)

If you want to preach for something - you need to qualify it. lazyboy97o qualified a number based on what you advocated the wage needed to support. If you don't agree with the number, come up with a better one. But by avoiding the specifics, it just reenforces that you are preaching an unobtainable ideal, not a reality. You argue what we people doing wrong, but can't tell people how to fix it.

Clearly, whatever the hourly salary is, it's not minimum wage. So instead of suggesting "hey maybe other companies should pay their workers like that," you think picking nits with me that by my definition they're still poor is witty. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I have friends that still own all their Blanche Knott Truly Tasteless Jokes books, too.

You must be one hell of a dancer... because you can talk an deflect and make japes... yet never answer the question.

Unless your answer is as you started with.. you really believe all business owners are greedy exploiters who only pay low wages because the government allows them to. And if you really believe that... we should just shut this down by saying your simply oblivious to who business owners are,what their realities are and you are unfit to judge their actions.