The Cost of Living

I don't understand the conservatives fragmented view of the cost of living for ALL workers.

They somehow think people who work for a living shouldn't receive a Living Wage. They realize a person cannot live on the wage, they realize they are being subsidize to make up the difference though their taxes so the worker can live on his underpaid wage.

Then they insist that the worker would be overpaid to receive a living wage!

They insist the the Living Wage would hurt the employers, somehow.

They understand that a minimum wage is less than Welfare leaving no incentive to go to work.

They further insist that the worker, depending on the job, depending on age, depending on some other fictional variable, is not worthy of a living wage.

They also know when a worker makes more money they spend it which benefits the economy, which is taxed and adds to the coffers money that they won't be expected to spend.

So lets get into depth, down into the strange moldy damp mind of the conservative, down into the damp pit of diseased tissue, and try to extract some logical reason out of these weird people.

The only thing I can see is these con freaks of nature might have to spend a few pennys more for a hamburger. But they will also be spending less if they are not subsidizing the workers wages.

So once again I will supply the link to what I mean is a Living wage, where each area is paid according to the economic conditions that exist there. It should be noted this variable Living Wage might be lower in some places than the minimum wage.

http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

DISCUSS

 

My Location http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/12103

They say I need to live -> $1,490 a Month BS

Food $300
Medical $0 (free clinic)
Housing $180 (homeless with six motel stays a month)
Transportation $35 (bus)
Other $80

$515/mo [$6,180 annually]

Taxes $0

 

there are jobs that pay more than minimum wage and dont require experience like landscaping construction work type jobs and believe it or not i made around $120 a night delivering pizza.
you either just haven't looked hard enough or are too soft for manual labor.

 

I am not sure what you are saying. That you can live for less as an unemployed worker being subsidized by the taxpayer to just exist? If so, I could cut you down to a dollar a day and let you exist in a cardboard box.

A living wage is about working people surviving in their area of work.

 

Taxcutter says:
Don't care about the employer. I care about the consumer who will have to pay more for the same stuff.

Taxcutter says:
Not the worker. It is the work that is not worthy of a higher wage.

 

In my area the difference between the minimum wage and the "living wage" for a single person was 50 cents which pretty much blows a hole in that "We need a $15 minimum wage" crap. Ironically, the COL for 1 adult with 3 children as opposed to 2 adults with 3 children was $8.00 higher, which makes me wonder their methodology unless they assume that one parent would not work.

 

What about if a time comes when there are not enough workers, with enough wages to be the consumers? there has to be a tipping point like that at some point if the producers of the products get their way and eliminate the production cost they loathe the most... employees.

 

Ever heard of a thing called supply and demand?

And we really don't understand the accusation that employers loathe the employees. Now how it is where we work -- but then again our company uses Christian Business Ethics. We get bonuses, raises, good working conditions, insurance...

 

I think that's where 'we the people' "supply" the work, and the 'profiteers' "demand" the profit. Corporate America! Yes, we've heard of it.

 

So is there a problem with corporate America when you're on this list? I work for one in the top 40. They all are very profitable and also treat their employees and customers very well, just to get on the list. At most of them how well the company does translates to everyone working there...at least where I work it does=)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/2014/snapshots/1.html

 

I don't doubt that there may be exceptions to the corporate rule but, they're few and far in between, and I'm quite sure, the only reason they treat anybody with any degree of decency, is that they're CURRENTLY making money, hand over fist. That'll come to a halt when the money disappears (and it will). Temporary. The list will completely change in a year or two, and most of the money will be overseas, stashed away, and those jobs will 'evaporate'.

 

Which tells me you don't work for any of the "good" corporations=) By the way, there are plenty more that would be on that list if they cared to fill out the extensive application and submit the piles of documentation and have 1/2 your employees randomly polled. I'm thinking you're trolling at this point, hehe. Here's a hint...they wouldn't be doing so well if all their employees hated working there.

 

Well, I have my life experiences to go by, and mine reflect what I try to characterize (results may vary, I guess). I glanced at your list. Money management seemed to repeat itself over and over. Is that accurate? (I was trying to gauge what 'field' was doing so well). I don't feel like looking at each of them so, that's why I'm asking (I also don't care much for CNN these days).

 

Then high end goods will likely have a lesser demand evenually, and less of a market, do they want that? Will they still be able to produce them?

And good for you, glad your company has Christian Business Ethics, do you believe thay all do? Some people won't be as lucky as you.

 

Just depends. A great many people may go back to being self-sufficient. Such a scenario more adversely effects urban dwellers than people in rural area. Food and shelter are largely not exportable, so that becomes a matter of price. People would cut back to the very basics which would likely hurt enough foreign interests that they would intervene by coming into create sufficient jobs at sufficient wages to maintain a profitable market.

 

Mostly money, medical, and software/tech with some supermarkets. Still fairly varied and covers the gamut. Its Fortune's list but I guess the link went through CNN.

 

Taxcutter says:
The market will adjust.

 

I don't get this "living wage" trend. Say "decent wage" if you're trying to increase the minimum wage. Over a billion people on Earth live off a $1 a day, so by "living wage" standards, the minimum wage should be significantly decreased.

 

So, you're either a money mover, big pharma player, or (soon to be outsourced to India) IT work? That doesn't leave much.

 

Apples to apples, would be the argument.

The guy who has 6 months to live, dying of cancer, 'has it better' than say, somebody being brutally tortured with a blowtorch on his appendages every day, for 6 months solid. People just want to have a chunk of what their corporate masters have and, after all, it's only fair. It's THEIR work that generated all the profit to begin with, and maintains it for the creeps.

 

Why should a company that treats workers and customers well ever have to compete with one that doesn't? It would be better for everyone, ethical employers included, if our laws didn't allow shoddy companies to mistreat workers and customers.

 

Less profitable that way though, and profit is really all that ever matters.

 

Oh, you care about the consumer. Well lets just turn to slavery across the board, so that SUV is $20. and the consumer can buy them like emptying ashtrays if you are so concerned.

And how did you decide that it is the work that is not worthy ~ while your mincing words about a worker's wages.

 

Hmm, not a question of there being other jobs that make more, it is a question of paying a living wage for all jobs. You either didn't pay attention to the OP hard enough, or you just missed the point.

 

A simple 'no' would suffice.