Do you believe in a living wage?

I didn't say change taxes, because this is a MW thread, just that the economic effects of tax changes to that percentile are not as potent as tax changes to the bottom 90%.

On another note, it only goes to show how poorly the middle class is doing if 77k puts you in the top 10%.

 

Exactly.

 

How so? Id say it shows theyre doing better.

 

Whether its done immediately or over time the effect is the same - pressure on all wage levels to increase, resulting in wage increases on up the pyramid.

As that no-experience just out of high school burger flipper's wage increases, it will eventually reach a point at which it will force the next higher wage level to increase, which will force the next higher level to increase, etc.

Prices will increase due to wage inflation. And as the wages go up and more money is being spent, prices will increase due to simple velocity of money and inflation. After a while, that new minimum wage will not buy any more than the old min wage.

And it will start all over again.

And that's the politics kicking in. Once the "progressives" (and Seattle is run by very busy body "progressives" and a handful of billionaires) have a winning strategy which gives them power and control, they will milk it long past any conceivable actual benefit (assuming there is an actual benefit).

 

Obviously, taxes must be used to pay for legitimate costs of government. I think that most people, even the ones who complain the loudest realize that. The complaints are more accurately based in two areas. One- not getting your money's worth for the tax you pay, and Two- paying taxes that are actually redistribution of wealth rather than the cost of legitimate services. The federal government is not in the business of charity, and has no business extracting money from the people for charitable purposes.

As far as the actual level of tax- yes, it is far greater than most people understand. At every stage of building a product, taxes are added, and they accumulate. The wages of those who mine ore are added to the cost of the ore- as are the taxes the mine operator has to pay. When the ore is made into iron and then steel, more tax is built into the price. When the steel is made into an automobile, more tax is added, and so on. Everything we buy has had taxes built into the cost several times. Of course this happens in many other ways too. In the end- all businesses are tax collectors working for the government, free. Nearly all taxes are actually being paid by consumers, although most are hidden in the price itself. By having the real tax numbers hidden, the government takes a lot less heat. I also look at the management of government, and realize that the level of efficiency (value received per dollar spent) is terrible- and that is a management problem of huge proportion. If that were solved, there could be a huge surplus each year instead of a deficit- but they have worked this way for so long they neither know how to fix nor have the will to do so. .

 

We can't afford to have kids flipping burgers.

Those heading in that direction need to be going to school - vocational, academic, apprenticeship, whatever.

There is no future in burger flipping AT ALL. In the future, "burger flipper" will be a name for a piece of the machine that delivers fully assembled bags of fast food.

Beyond that, minimum wage does not have the power you propose.


As for "milking" middle America, you complain about minimum wage while Trump celebrates Goldman Sachs being no in control of Treasury in the person of Mnuchen - the guy whose wealth came from foreclosing on the homes of middle America, the guy who foreclosed on a home over 27 cents, the guy who foreclosed on 16,000 reverse mortgages, the guy who led the banking industry in foreclosure methodology by demonstrating how to foreclose on widows.

Which do you think drained more trillions of dollars of the personal wealth of America's families:
- minimum wage?
- foreclosing on America's middle class?

 

Burger flipper, cashier, stocker, truck loader, receptionist, it does not matter what the specific example is. It does not even matter what the job is that receives the minimum wage. Whatever the lowest level of work is, even if all those "burger flipper etc" jobs go away and the lowest job is an entry level software programmer, the min wage supporters will be clamoring for a higher min wage.

And now you jump into the land of the blind NeverTrumpers.

Your question is fake. Min wage is bad. The collapse of middle America - which has been going on long before Trump - is bad. You fail to make your point about min wage.

 

Taking money from the taxpayer's pockets is what a living wage would mean to eliminate.

 

I suppose this is where the philosophical disagreement comes in. I am suggesting that if one works full time, minimal survival, without government support, is not "extra".

Again, that philosophical disagreement. That "charity" you speak of is the taxpayer. And I've asked this question on this thread already, but one more time. When we do that - support a full time worker with our tax money - who is benefiting from that support? That worker, or the CEO in the big house on the hill? A fair answer is that they both do. But I have a problem with that. I don't want to support that CEO in the big house on the hill. I would rather support the worker and the CEO through my patronage of his business, not my taxes.

 

I've always read/heard the target inflation rate is 3%. That way gov't can keep expanding spending, without relying heavily on raising taxes.
And of course, the lowest wage earners rarely keep up to that 3% yearly increase.

 

Many times we use the wolves talking over that to eat and seek a vote. There is a sheep involved in voting too.

But I wonder at some posts. Maybe as the wolves chat with the sheep, a different group is Coyotes chatting with a coop of chickens what to eat.

What I mean is there seems to be various groups chatting with various groups who to make the victim.

Some claim the worker is the victim. That government gets to use FORCE of law, with punishment including prison, on free humans to force them to perform the task of jumping through government hoops.

I have done all sides. I worked and got wages. I owned several companies over my life and paid wages. My scheme was to pay good wages and never came into conflict with minimum wages. I had to post on a bulletin board what they were and included a phone number to call and turn me in. Due to my wages never getting that low, I was in no danger. But believe this .. my bulletin board was littered with a vast array of laws that must be followed.

Why do I hate democrats so much? They crafted all those lousy rules to be followed. (hate was tossed in for drama sake)

 

Put it plainly. MW increases have never hurt the economy. EVER.
There has been min wages since the 1940s or so. Our economy has risen dramatically.

 

No they don't. An Australia proves it. A double in min wage would increase inflation by about 11%.
There was a link earlier in the thread.
History proves min wage doesn't hurt the economy. We've had it for near 80 yrs.

When will someone post that increasing the min wage has hurt the economy over the long run?
Oh, no one can do so.

 

To learn your thinking ...

Case 1. Youth with no experience. Market wage is 12 dollars per hour. Minimum wage is $7.25 Do you pay him $7.25?
Case 2. Released convict applies for job. He tells you to pay him anything to get him working. Do you pay him as he asks to be paid? Is said convict a liability compared to other people and would you set his wages lower?

 

No, there isn't. But when the Constitution was drafted, the only wage had to be a living wage. It was a given because there was no welfare. You couldn't work for less than a living wage because you wouldn't have a warm shelter or enough food in your stomach, and you would die.

But as long as there is a demand for the private sector's products and services, they won't go elsewhere.

And I'm not talking about taxing business. If anything, business should not be taxed at all, in my opinion. What we're talking about here is whether a full time worker should receive enough to survive on independent of the taxpayer giving them support. If we say that we don't want to force this responsibility on private business, then we are saying we want to force this responsibility on the taxpayer. And in a day and age of record corporate profits, why should a regular middle class guy like me have to support their employee? The work of their employee helped create those record profits. So who am I really helping when I pay my taxes? That low income guy, or the $30 million CEO who doesn't pay his employee enough to survive on?

 

Have you been paid wages all your life?

 

Fail to see any relevance to this post.

 

I would submit to the forum an interesting piece from Forbes about this issue.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...imum-wage-rise-in-san-francisco/#237c8a1f64a4

Since I have been paid wages and also paid them, the sensible thing is to see what really does happen.

 

We often read of we must this or that as a nation.

Sadly I don't live in this nation. I live in a city that is composed of about 95 sq miles and about 230,000 people. There are so many customs here one has little in common with the majority of the others here with me. What cultural bond can I have with residents from China? I have been daily surrounded by Chinese who hardly admit i am here. I reached out and though things went well enough, no sense of a friend is detected. I would flat be shocked to be invited to dinner.

Anyway, we are what Democrats laud as diverse. I see no benefit. When I moved here this city was 95 percent caucasians. The 5 percent was very little noticed. Now as the minority, I look for these wonderful things i am to get by being diverse.

I heard it was good for my city. I see nothing that shows that. I mean crime rates are showing it a safe city, but it was when whites were the main population. By the way, we do have some Mexicans. The police reports I have seen do not show me who committed crimes. I have to check more I suppose. But this is not about crime. It is about why we need more people from other nations? We happen to have plenty of hi tech people here. But look who they are. The Chinese moved her and imported their high tech here. From what I can see, our boom has helped China a lot.

 

Yeah, I talked about this on one of my other replies in this thread; that is, about the more experienced workers who might find themselves making as much as the newer, lower skilled workers. What I am suggesting with a living wage is a paradigm shift. This paradigm shift would inevitably cause a period of readjustment to address the problem you're talking about. But inevitably, wage justice would shake out.

In our history, we have gone from wages that support at least minimal subsistence to wages that don't, and we augment those wages with tax money to provide subsistence. For this reason, I don't really see a living wage as a radical liberal idea, but a return to what used to be. It makes sense to me - excluding all politics and the right/left divide - that a person who works hard full time should at least be able to support himself without needing me to help support him too. I don't see this as left or right - just sort of natural. It used to be that way in our country, but somehow we got away from that.

It seems to me like we have grown used to our welfare state. We are so used to it, that we don't question why so many full time workers are receiving some sort of welfare. And we are in a time when wealth is being concentrated at the top - an era of record-breaking corporate profits.

I'm perfectly happy that American corporations are doing well. But at the same time, as long as they are doing well, I don't see why any of their employees should need a regular middle class guy like me to help support them in their basic necessities.

Something is wrong with that.