Do you believe in a living wage?

But that would never happen. The federal government would simply raise the bar creating an higher federal poverty level, while continuing to dispense Welfare benefits at the same rates. For the 97% of US businesses that are not publicly-traded corporations, higher wages often translates into higher prices. Remember that the average CEO salary is only $220,700 according to BLS.

 

A 100% increase in some wages, for 11% higher prices. That concerns you?
Which studies? Which markets?
The economy has been flourishing, min wage has been around for 70 or 80 yrs.

 

Yes, but of the top 100 CEOs of U.S. companies, $30 million is the average.

My story is similar, Old Man, starting with picking pears on farms, grocery clerking, working in a warehouse manufacturing boxes, and then into the Army. After the Army, I attended school and worked in a department store and went on from there. My wife, too, has worked all her life, starting in a McDonalds when she was 16. I started regular work when I was 17, and I have never been unemployed since, and I am 61. No one gave anything to me or my wife either. So I understand the work ethic, believe me. I worked 9 hours today, as a matter of fact.

I understand that most business owners and CEOs don't make that kind of money. The reason I mention it is that it points at the fact that there is an awful lot of money at the top of the pyramid, and not enough money at the bottom of the pyramid to even survive on. So we - you and me - pay for that. We pay for it in our taxes. Last year my state and federal income taxes I paid amounted to $28,000, and it is not lost on me that a portion of that is used to help low-income people survive.

This is America, the wealthiest country in the world, and we are not going to tolerate having working people living in shanties, being hungry, and unable to afford to see a doctor. So, you and I pay for them to have food, shelter, and medical care through our taxes and high medical insurance rates. So if we don't think these people should receive a viable subsistence wage for working full time, then we will pay for their survival with our taxes. The other option would be to shift the tax burden to individuals in the very high income brackets and have them pay for them that way. But if neither, we pay.

 

Battle3, all I am really suggesting is that we replace welfare with work. I am not suggesting that we make anyone rich. Do you know anyone who lives off Section 8 housing and food stamps? It is subsistence, not easy street. What I am suggesting is still just subsistence, but that we taxpayers don't pay for it. If we believe people shouldn't be lazy and just leech off the taxpayers, then let's replace welfare with work. But in order to do that, the worker has to be able to survive off the pay from their work, even if it is low-skill work.

 

I have no problem with people living in shanties or being hungry.

Sorry, but you might have to go a more local route when going about your do-goodiness, and forget the rest of us. If we want to help, we will....

If we don't, then we don't.

That's a reality that you're going to have to deal with

 

Sort of. But keep in mind that inflation happens when new money is added to a system. I am not really suggesting that. I am suggesting that money needed to survive come from the employer rather than the taxpayers. The same amount of money would remain in the system. This would inhibit inflation.

Also, the cost of things can't rise beyond what people will pay for them. That is the law of supply and demand. This means that the provider of goods and services may increase prices to offset the cost of a more expensive employee, but they can only do that so much. So they may have to alter their business plan which may include they themselves receiving less.

Now understand that I am not some black-hooded anarchist, nor am I some flaming liberal. I don't hate the capitalist system. I just have a problem with company owners getting rich while we taxpayers pay for their employees to survive. I find that disturbing, and it makes me wonder who we are really supporting - the low-paid employee or the business owner.

Meta777 suggested that another way to accomplish the same thing if we don't want to go with a living wage, is to shift the tax burden to very wealthy individuals and have them support low income people that way. This in effect is the same solution, just that it's accomplished slightly differently.

 

Well, I think the whole discussion presupposes that the government went along with the idea and supported it, not that they undermined it.

 

Im still trying to put some time away to read up on his proposal. But from what Ive read on it so far, Im not convinced.

Anyway. The problem you run into when you try to force businesses to raise wages instead of subsidizing them with welfare is you end up with the same result. Wages go up. Prices go up. You are correct in saying that prices can only go up so far before people will stop buying them. But that's dependent on wages staying the same. You've forced companies to raise their wages. People have more money, people buy same products at higher cost. New wages for unskilled folk are the new poverty line. Or employers cut the number of people they employ and prices stay the same. But there are more people out of work.

The only way to stop that would be to add more government in the market to say how much a product can be sold for. And I think we know where that leads.

Smell what Im stepping in?

 

Do you pay income taxes, Belch? Does the government take some of your money every year? If the answer is yes, then you will pay for food, shelter, and medical care for low-income people whether you want to or not. And that will not change. You did it last year, you'll do it this year, and you'll do it next year and on into the future. That's the reality you have to deal with ... unless you're not paying any income taxes.

What I am suggesting would put a stop to that.

 

OK so what? The worth of some jobs is not equal to amount the money necessary to support a family of four. A business pays what the job is worth to them not what is necessary to totally support one's self. If you need a job that pays totally for yourself then seek one that pays that much. Many don't need a job that total pays for themselve.

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL.....WE could do it by making employers pay employees at a loss to the company?

 

We certainly agree on this point

Why the leftist/progressive can't seem to grasp that there is a measurable worth of a job to the person who is paying the for the labor for that job and not all jobs are worth to the employer the amount necessary to support oneself let alone a family of four is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -

What if the value of the job to the person paying for it is not worth that amount?

 

Yes, I smell it, and I am not in favor of price controls. I think the market is its own price control.

Remember, people wouldn't really have more money. I am suggesting that we replace welfare with wages. I agree with you that there would have to be adjustments in the business plan, and I understand that not every business is making millions in profit. But, in the big picture, there is an awful lot of money at the top of the pyramid , and yet there is not enough money at the bottom of the pyramid for working people to even survive on without taxpayer help. I find this disturbing.

Even if we don't all agree on how to deal with this phenomenon, at least we're talking about it.

 

The inflation argument, again, supposes uniform and instant inflation.

Markets take time and things don't inflate uniformly. Perhaps at the end of a new cycle, inflation has happened again, but low-earners have banked some better purchasing power because certain goods did not appreciate in value as much as others. Perhaps there's a middle time when wages have risen but prices haven't yet. If any such time can be entertained, than it follows that there is a way to healthily and consistently raise MW faster than inflation for a net benefit.

 

Then the employee survives through taxation of other people's money. If you are a taxpayer, you pay for them.

The reason an employer can pay a full time employee an amount below the subsistence level is because the taxpayer will make up the difference. If the taxpayer didn't pay for their minimum subsistence, the employer would have to, otherwise the employee simply wouldn't work for pay that didn't support their survival. This is how it was before welfare.

Working people in our country do not die of exposure for lack of shelter, starvation for lack of food, or sickness because they can't see a doctor. But since they don't make enough to pay for all of this off their wages, the rest of us pay for their necessary shelter, necessary food, and necessary medical care. We pay for it when we pay our taxes or our inflated medical insurance premiums. We pay for it.

This whole discussion suggests that maybe there is another way.

 

And many older retired people can start a minimum wage or lower wage part time job to supplement their retirement savings and social security. They don't need nor want a job that pays a "living wage".

 

Just because there are some socialist things I currently have to pay into doesn't mean it's going to continue.

We're not going to go full communist, and I'm guessing that the socialist crap I do have to pay into is going to be decreased.

Communism doesn't work, and we now have an awesome president that understands that. Trump is going to put you guys back at least 50 years!!!!!!

 

I say there isn't enough money at the bottom because people became comfortable in their poverty. It isnt some big rich guy keeping them down. Its their own complacency and their own government keeping them there.

In a country where anyone with a drive to succeed and a good idea can become a billionaire there is no reason to complain about your poverty. (not you specifically) but it seems most of the people at the bottom would rather that someone be forced to make them more comfortable.

But the long and the short of it is, in the end they are not better off. Well maybe they were able to buy that new gaming console before everything else went up. But in the end they are right where they started with folks crying for another wage increase so we can do it all again.

Makes no sense.

 

Yeah that automation in agriculture totally wrecked the economy and we are all worse off for it. Why is it better to keep people in repetitive manual labor that actually produces products of lesser quality? That's Metropolis writ over.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

My suggestion was for a program that teaches people skills so that they can get a decent job.

We will have social programs no matter what. The question is do you give people fish, or teach them to fish.

 

One of the greatest successes in modern economics was the Gingrich/Kasich welfare reform where they tightened work requirements and time limits for able bodied people. I recall news stories on even the MSM of person who not only themselves but their families had been on generational welfare and now it was you have some many months left and your off and they went out and got jobs and how their own self esteem was so much higher they were saving money to buy homes now and were even PAYING TAXES now.

 

Why do you believe all poor people spend money frivolously? Is it that hard to not stereotype and entertain the idea that there are people who legitimately are good people that have thru unfortunate circumstances been stretched to their affordable breaking point? I don't suppose you believe every rich person got there because of hard work? Because then you can't suppose every poor person got there because of laziness.

Also, you presuppose an "end.". What is the end? Is making sure MW keeps pace at least such a bad idea?

 

Well you said

OK the key word I guess is "should". What if the job they seek or have isn't worth the value of what it takes to afford all of this housing and food and transportation? The value of a job is what it is worth to the employer.

- - - Updated - - -

Well you said

OK the key word I guess is "should". What if the job the seek or have isn't worth the value of what it takes to afford all of this housing and food and transportation? The value of a job is what it is worth to the employer.

 

Im sure that is the case. I want to believe that most people want to make their own way. But that is not what I see most of the time. All I see is people complaining that they dont make enough. Though many seem to not take the inititive to go learn new things to make more.

And can you define able bodied please? According to the VA I am not able bodied. But work far more hours (both on the floor and in the office) than even the most dedicated of the supervisors I employ.

 

Ive been one of those good people through unfortunate circumstances ended up without a home. So I get it. But I also see the frivolous spending that occurs when people get a little extra pocket change. I did it myself for a time when I didnt make much.

 

Well, I'm glad you were able to survive and get by and can understand the cycle. But the system is not so fair to others, and it is good to see both sides.

Philosophically, even if there are layabouts, does that justify leaving the worthy few to rot? Like the justice system, should we ever tolerate a single false conviction? If the system is legitimately unfair to any single person, then the successes of all others who benefit from that system are compromised.