"Businesses that pay less than living wages don't deserve to exist" - President

All business's are in business to maximize profits.

Your statement would be the same as saying "I knew this one business that would shop around for printer paper, and even said 'we try to find the cheapest brand'"

Would that be an atrocity too? From a business perspective, it's the exact same thing.

 

Japan's minimum wage is very similar to ours.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#Japan

Further, Japan has a comprehensive social safety net.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Japan

In fact, any country you can name that is "killing us" almost certainly has a more comprehensive wage and welfare system than we do.

 

First of all, I fully agree food stamps should not be used on tobacco etc. I think charging taxpayers retail price is wrong, and that's why it costs nearly 100billion a year, or whatever, last I checked it was like 80.. Rather, they should offer food parcels. But the food stamp money goes straight to the food giant corps. anyway.. Social welfare is actually corporate welfare too if you think about it.

But assuming the strictest austerity, it's still not enough to meet basic needs. Yes we have lazy slackers that manage to sponge for years and have a smartphone too, but you also have families that were either victimized by the government businesses, like in the false-foreclosure scams of 08-09, or are just down on their luck, and genuinely cannot make ends meat on that wage. We can't blame them for not getting educated and being paid more, because we priced the poor out of higher education; it's simply not an option for many people who would love to get educated. The only alternative is debt slavery, average debt of a grad I believe is around 25k if I'm not mistaken.

When they say it's not a living wage, they don't mean you can't live in luxury on it; they mean you can't have all your calories, health-care, medicine and things you do need. America has malnourished children and this is an unfortunate fact.

So I guess your answer to the question is you're happy as long as they live baseline austerity with no extra luxuries? Which I guess is fine, but the fact is it's below that. It's like in Greece, though not as bad in USA yet, but people are starting to be subjected to sub-austerity. We previously decided what should be a minimum amount required just to survive, and then through cuts and inflation, gone below that point. The government business have been robbing the poor for too long and they only squeeze the stone harder for further drops of blood. And when the stone runs dry, that's when you get social unrest. Not OWS. I mean proper riots.

 

it's not allowed... but what you have is people choosing to what COULD be grocery money on Tobacco, and then claiming they can't afford groceries, so they need food stamps.

No, you have enough for groceries, you just chose to spend it on other items.

http://www.businessinsider.com/family-of-four-live-well-on-just-14000-per-year-2014-4

this family seems to do fine....

 

This family don't have any housing or rent payment.

 

@ JB

A. every time I see you link to that I'm going to put this, I have it saved you've been warned

B. "They took advantage of Nevada's declining housing market to score a cheap foreclosure."
not everyone lives in a place where cheap foreclosures are available.
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)

C. It assumes 2 parental units- Some people die and can't always be there to raise their kids.
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)

C2. It assumes that one of the 2 parental units is willing to give up his/her carreer to stay at home raising kids and has the skill/ technology to manufacture their own clothing, bake and freeze their own food etc-
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)


D. Not every one can do military, blind people, sick people, all are usually shot down for military.
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)
D2. That means that not everyone is going to have access to health insurance
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)
D2I. Woe be to the parents of cancer laden children
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)
E. Not every one has access to a fresh food co-op.
(your example doesn't apply broadly enough to be useful)

In summation that one family, in one specific set of circumstances does not an argument make. Get real.

 

oh noes.... none of your retorts change the fact.... a family of for makes 14000 a "liveable wage"

cheap houses are everywhere... but rolling up your sleeves to fix it (because cheap houses are cheap for a reason) is not fun or easy... therefore... the lazy won't partake and will choose a free handout any day.

that's why I broke it down breaking it down per adult in the house. 7000 per adult.

learn how. This family made a choice.... daycare costs more than she could make working... so they decided stay at home was better.

Again, choices have to be made in life. They are choosing to do it this way, at least until he graduates with his degree.

I have never claimed that the truly sick or disabled should not get govt assistance. My example is of able bodied adults. If you are able bodied... you have no excuse

If you were to break down what 14,000 a year is per hour if you worked 40 hours a week times 52 weeks a year.... you'd make under $4. A person making DOUBLE that at 8$ hour, can survive, if able bodied. Just make better economic choices on what to buy and what to budget for.

Obamacare negates that, doesn't it?

I haven't said it, but to me, that falls under the healthy adult part. If an adult is truly disabled, sick... I have no issues with govt assistance.... the same goes for able bodied adults with children who are ill.

This example shows 2 able-bodied adults with 2 healthy children.

organize one then. There's a need... I have never claimed that being poor was easy.... or desireable. this is part of making better economic decisions.

the entire "what are you goingt o do for me" mentality is why you are making min wage in the first place in many situations.

in summation, it all applies to able bodied adults with healthy children.

<$4/hour seems to be a GREAT definition of "liveable wage" when you make good economic choices. I also noticed, this family doesn't smoke, or drink either. They give up luxuries.

 

All of that and you haven't shown how your example applies widely enough to be useful?

Fail.

 

all that and you have still yet to define what you classify as "liveable wage"


I Have at least shown how a family of 4 can live off of 14k. You simply pick some random number out of the air and say "this is liveable" Well, no, even 15$/hour (31k/annually) isn't liveable if you make poor economic choices like by luxury items before you buy food. You finance a new car before you pay rent, etc.

There are always variances that demand more money for one person/family/situation, than someone else, in a different part of the country....

I showed an extreme case..... 14k for 4.

you have yet to show me one case, where $8/hour isn't liveable, if better economic choices are made.

 

the ONLY thing I will grant you is my example had time to plan for 14k, while some lose their salary with no warning.... and they were able to pay off their vehicles prior to his loss in salary. They were able to buy a house out right, beofre he lost his salary. So I can even adjust for that in total expenses needed to survive to include a house payment. But you can find decent used cars for 1500$.... you don't have to finance anything.

 

You must have missed my reply, then. I noted that your example family had no housing costs, enabling them to live on $14,000 a year.

Housing typically costs between 1/3 and 1/2 of income (closer to the higher number for poorer households).

So in order to generalize your family of four in Nevada, you would need between $21,000 and $28,000 a year.

That matches up very well with actual federal poverty guidelines:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

The poverty level for a family of four is $23,850.

An income of $23,850 translates to a full-time worker making $11.46 an hour.

So THAT is a liveable wage.

 

I'm sorry, you have a right to live alone? get a roommate if you can't afford $600/month. Housing is a need.... not having a roommate is not a need.


This family took steps to make sure they didn't have to have 2 families in one house. That's what's called a good economic decision.

 

I'd also put a livable wage @ around 20-25 k.

I won't deny that they made some really good choices, seriously those guys are great at it. I do think its unrealistic to conclude that everyone has the oppurtunity to make those same choices.

A roomate is a good idea too.

 

and yet... you just arbitrarily pull that number out of the air.

I've provided a solid example that 25 is WAY to high. Even if you say 15k per person a year.... that's still plenty for a person to live and support a child, even if alone and having to pay for day care, and house, etc.

that's $7.25 an hour.... seems the min wage is already pretty close. Now, it's on the min wager to make better economic choices or deal with the consequences....

 

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking "liveable wage". I didn't realize your definition of "liveable wage" was "two families of four sharing a three-bedroom house."

Heck, if we assume THREE families can live in a one-bedroom studio apartment, we can really push that "liveable wage" down.

Given reasonable assumptions, the federal poverty guidelines seem to do a pretty good job of describing what a living wage is.

Though I just realized I'm crossing terminology. What constitutes a "living wage" in this instance is, "what would it take to support a family of four with a single wage earner." The answer to that question is "$11.46 an hour."

If the question is, "What would a single adult need to live", that answer is obviously less: the federal poverty guidelines peg that at $5.61 an hour.

So the question of "What is a liveable wage?" isn't simple; it depends on the situation you're talking about.

 

liveable wage doesn't mean you get to live alone. That's a privilege that comes with having a marketable skill worth more than min wage. It's why teenagers that make min wage still live with their parents, or get a roommate in a 2 bedroom apartment.

 

And what percentage of people rely on either of those two mechanisms?

Japan is in fact killing us in terms of how many of their young complete college with a degree.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...completion/2011/09/12/gIQAegt6NK_graphic.html

Our system is broke because we encourage dependance on the system.

 

he pulled that number out of someplace but I'd bet it wasn't thin air

 

its very much dependent on where you live....in Ontario poverty line for a single adult is $19,900, for a single parent and single child it's $28,185...where I live in 2005 the poverty line for family of four was $38,000, and property values have more than doubled in 9 years since then, minimum wage will be raised to $10.20 per hr/$21,216 per year in september...

 

How much do you pay your employees, or are you just telling other people how to run their business?

The only people I see making less than $10/hr are kids, retired people supplementing S.S., and people too lazy to work hard enough for a better job. (and illegals, who drive labor costs down) People who work hard are compensated to keep from losing the value of their work.

 

Not to mention that it would inflate the economy, shrink debt, skyrocket investment, and put consumption rates at an all time high. Its about time people get the common sense to adjust wages with price inflation. 10.86$ is all I'll accept. No more or no less. Anything higher or lower is essentially controlling the economy.

 

I'll just pull arbitrary numbers out of thin air too.


$5.14 is all min wage should be.

 

I agree that it's dependant on the area.


but take Florida for instance.... the state setting an arbitrary min wage does not account for different areas, even within one state.


you can survive off of 10$/hour in my part of the state, but if you go to Orlando.... absolutely not. Why? because COL is so much higher down there due to increased property values thanks to Disney, which my part of the state doesn't have.

So if Tallahassee decides "we need to change the state min wage" someone gets screwed.


Set it to $10/hour.... that works for NW Florida, not for South Florida

Set it to 20$/hour.... that works for South Florida, but destroys the economy in NW Florida.



This is why the market should determine what people will work for. If it's too low, you will not have enough employees.... if it's too high, profits go down. The market will find equilibrium and the only role govt should play is regulating stuff like collusion between all the fast foot companies keeping an artificial low.

 

arbitrary number are arbitrary.............

Please fill me in on what talking head gave you that number??

 

Number? You mean how I adjusted inflation rates with a wage? It's basic math actually, but I guess that's not your forte.



http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount-with-inflation/

Of course, a constant inflation rate today would be 10.54$, but that does not change the fact, that people are being payed 3.50$ less than inflation rates demand.