You’re argument is dead locked on one example I gave. My apologies for not opening with a novel on the benefits of increasing the minimum wage. Are you reading what you’re posting? You’re saying that a higher minimum would be a tool to keep people poor and enrich corporations because people might spend a bit more on Starbucks. Then you ignore the benefits of increased income arguing some people may actually desire **** pay. Your arguments have been ridiculous across the board. Understandable given your position.
Ever increasing living expenses and the cost of a four year degree. The average person lives paycheck to paycheck even when only buying the essentials. For many, missing a paycheck is near financial suicide.
Quote where I have said anything of the sort. I’m advocating a higher minimum wage. Not unemployment. Work on your reading comprehension. Also, I’m perfectly capable of looking up job listings. I just have no reason to make your argument on your behalf. Your failure to offer any kind of link speaks to you convictions on the matter.
Who works 40 to 60 hours making minimum wage? Is this from personal experience? I never met anyone that made minimum wage for over a month at the same job
Raising the federal minimum wage wouldn't equal more buying power and what exactly is a livable wage?
You’re making the assumption that anyone who’s working minimum wage would stay in that position for 20 years. Companies don’t make a habit of keeping on labor they see as disposable.
From 18 to the time that I joined the military I worked two jobs getting about 30hrs a week from each. I didn’t have time to do much more than work and sleep. I did little outside of that and still barely made ends meet. I don’t know what job experience you have, but businesses that pay minimum wage aren’t quick to progress peoples’ wages beyond that.
A livable wage is one that doesn’t leave people in abject poverty. A common indicator of wages being appropriate is percent of income spent on rent/mortgage. Above 25% is problematic. For many, especially those living in cities, staying below that percentage is impossible.
Why would they let a person go after training them? The only way they let people go if they never show up
So one doesn't realize that voting for people who raise local taxes is the problem and not companies?
Low skill labor is cheap and easy to replace. Any number of factors can lead to a person losing work at the whim of the employer.
It depends on what the taxes are for and what is taxed. Your generalized statements do little to support your argument.
Walmart has taken steps in the right direction, but its percentage of part time employees that don’t earn a livable wage is still well above industry averages.
My argument is sound a city like Chicago or Atlanta hasn't had a Republican mayor in almost a hundred years It's a huge circle, people keep voting locally for Democrats and watch there rents go up.
How does pinning the issue on one side of the political aisle or the other resolve the issue of people barely earning enough to scrape by in most places?
No, not at all. Walmart should work to increase its percentage of full time employment opportunities. As should most businesses.
One does not want to admit the obvious, the problem is voters in Democrat controlled cities who vote against there own intrest.
What does that have to do with the percentage of workers in the US that are part time employees? You’re all over the damn place.
Which cam first mom and pop stores that paid good wages or big box stores? Not that hard to figure out once again it's the peoples fault , the cooperation gave the people what they wanted cheap goods for Asia. Profit margins are slim..