How is 'livable wage' defined?

If you can't afford to pay all of your employees a decent wage, then perhpas you ought NOT be in business? If you want free labor, go to China.

 

That's what I though....a lemonade stand.

maybe

 

What constitutes a 'living wage' for those people who are on obama's unemployment lines. Most of these people have been resigned to the fact that they'll never get a job as long as obama is in office. Remember the 99ers that fat head ed shultz kept screaming about who were so unlucky and so poor for being on the unemployment line for a mere 99 weeks that the call went out to extend their non-work bennies/wages indefinitely.
What constitutes the living wage of all of obama's welfare dependents? Hard to put a dollar amount on a welfare queen who is getting more money and more bennies than the average worker at Walmart. Hard to put a dollar amount on a low/no information obama voting welfare dependent who sits idly on the couch all day eating ho hos, smoking cancer sticks and chit chats on her free obama phone.

 

A true intellectual would realize that the author doesn't know what "begging the question," means; he just copies what some other ignorant Diploma Dumbo thinks it means. Its real meaning is too difficult for such educated frauds to understand. Their whole lives beg the question by assuming that their undeserved income means we should look up to them as an example of how to structure our lives.

College means living like a little boy until you are 22; Americans should be proud of not putting themselves through such a childish, depressing, and insulting experience that proves nothing about their ability to do a good job, instead of merely to get a good job. Sacrifice has no merit; it is nothing but brown-nosing. It puts inferior people in superior positions, which is why they can't pay a decent wage and still make all the profit they think they are entitled to. They have no right to their jobs, no matter how much they bitterly resent their self-destructive sacrifice and want to get even with those who didn't see them as role models.

Proving how totally unnatural our "opportunities" are except for Greedhead zombies, when the bullying rich thieves first started pushing it, the only way they could get Americans to put up with four years of work without pay, which is all college means, was by threatening to send them to Vietnam if they dropped out. Negative motivations create "successes" who are nothing but minus signs.

 

No wonder we never hear the question, "Are you a man or a mouse?" anymore. Fat cats love mice!

 

Actually that's totally false. The state min wage was only $6.25 in the state I was speaking of at the time, and the starting wage at that Walmart for a part-time employee was $8.70. It was even higher for full time employees.

So you know not what you speak of.

I call BS on that - unless maybe you're talking about the wages for someone who comes in after hours to mop the floors. But the regular floor associates and cashiers? They made much more than that, even when the federal min wage was lower than it is now.

That's why it's a good idea not to have more kids than you can support on your current income.

Ideally he shouldn't have had 3 kids if his only source of income is a Walmart salary. What's done is done I guess, but the idea that someone's 'entitled' to more money just because they chose to have so many kids is pretty ridiculous.

I work online from home and make $13-18 per hour on average, sometimes more. So yes there are other job opportunities out there, people who say "there are no other jobs" are usually just looking for an excuse not to look for something better.

Because they earned it, you didn't.

 

Huh?

 

Earned is subjective. I may not consider what some CEO's do to be enough to earn what they are paid, and likewise the CEO may not consider what I do to earn my wage.

If they get to be greedy, so do I. And people like me VASTLY outnumber the big business leaders. And we are growing more angry and deperate every day, as our wages stagnate and the price of living grows.

Something will have to give before too much longer. The only reason there have not been any full scale riots and revolution is because our situations have not gotten desperate enough yet, and there are still legal actions that we can take to make changes to how things are done.

That will change. It is only a matter of time.

 

When I started for Walmart, I got 6.50 an hour, which was the same as the minimum wage in Indiana at the time. When I left in September of 09, after a little over four years, I was making 8.10. They did have decent insurance for single people, but if you had a dependent on your policy, it got very expensive.

And my friend had his kids when he was working for 19 dollars an hour at a factory. The owners of the factories close it down and moved their operation to Mexico, putting the 1000 people that they employed out of work. Walmart was the only place hiring. So it was either work there and rely on food stamps to make up the difference, or uproot his entire family and move to another state looking for work that he may not find.

 

lol, you two should take this comedy act on tour.

 

Well ... that is something you cannot do ... at least to the point that it benefits the laborer.
You start writing laws that are too unfavorable to business ... and business goes elsewhere.
Then people turn around and fuss at business because they took their business elsewhere.

 

And what do they do when they have no where to run?

People are getting desperate the world over, and eventually it will reach the boiling point.

If the businesses were smart, they would make moves to eradicate the poor and worthless 'parasites' that are leeching on their profits. But they won't. They are content to let the parasites slowly starve.

Too bad those parasites will end up taking the host down with them when they die.

 

If they're starving then why are the lowest income class still the most likely to be overweight?

 

If the only food they can afford is the cheap fast food that is heavy on fat and low on nutrition, then yes, they could be fat even if they are poor.

But still, lets consider your position that the people that are poor in the USA are not poor compared to the rest of the planet. Do you really think that the poor people in this country will allow themselves to become as poor as people in 3rd world nations?

And assuming they are not, what do you think they will do to prevent that from happening?

 

Vegetables, Beans, Rice, Potatoes, and Decent Meat are all cheaper than fast food.
Food that is Nutritionally Beneficial ... Is not what I see in a shopping cart full of junk that every food stamps recipient I see is pushing.

The best part is when they buy tons of cookies, and jugs of Pre-mixed Kool-Aid (too freaking lazy) ... when they could spend $0.65 for a package of sweetened mix (add water), instead of $1.65 for the jug.

We aren't running away from anything ... But answering a better call from somewhere else.

Edit:
It is like when the Liberals said that old people were having to eat dog food so they could afford their medicine.
Everybody with half a brain knows beans are cheaper than dog food.

 

This assumes, of course, that they have a home, a stove, a fridge, electricity and/or gas, and dishes to cook with, at the very least. If the person cannot afford these things, it makes cooking nearly impossible.

Won't argue with you there. I support limiting options for people on welfare, as long as some form of standards exists to ensure a minimum quality of life to anyone that is working 40 hours a week.

And that is fine. But just because businesses choose not to deal with those people any longer doesn't make those people go away. And I am a firm believer that people treat you like you treat them. If you treat people like garbage, or like parasites, how can you expect them NOT to do this to you?

Beans may be cheaper than dog food if you can afford a house, a stove, a fridge, and electricity and/or gas. If you cannot afford these things, dog food may be a cheaper alternative.

 

Probably varies from country to country.

'In Australia, the 1907 Harvester Judgment ruled that an employer was obliged to pay his employees a wage that guaranteed them a standard of living which was reasonable for "a human being in a civilised community" to live in "frugal comfort estimated by current... standards, regardless of the employer's capacity to pay.'

More

' The judgment was later overturned but remains influential. From the Harvester Judgement arose the Australian industrial concept of the basic wage. For most skilled workers, in addition to the Basic Wage they received a margin on top of the basic wage, in proportion to a court or commission's judgement of a group of worker's skill levels. '

More

' The first Retail Price Index in Australia was published late in 1912, the A Series Index. From 1934, the basic wage was indexed against the C Series Index of household prices. The concept of a basic wage was repeatedly challenged by employer groups through the Basic wage cases and Metal Trades Award cases where the employers argued that the basic wage and margin ought to be replaced by a "total wage". The basic wage system remained in place in Australia until 1967. It was also adopted by some state tribunals and was in use in some states during the 1980s. '

 

They didn't say they were eating dog food because they didn't have a house or a stove ... but because they couldn't afford medicine and food at the same time.
I said food is cheaper than dog food ... and it is, which means they were not making any sense.
But Hey ... If you feel the need to "Carry Water" to that extent ... Knock yourself out.

You have lost all concept of a discussion trying to hate on business ... and I won't ever agree with you there.
I have had experience with a ton of corporations (Through 3rd Party Quality Auditing - Regulatory and Compliance) ... and the number of good businesses far outweighs the bad.
There are some bad apples, but you never hurt them ... you just regulate the good ones out of business.

*Not to mention that I also know people hate it when others say it ... but if you don't like what you are being paid, then get a job where you can earn more.
I was a good enough business owner that if someone wasn't happy with what I was paying them ... or better yet, had skills that could earn them more ... I would fire them so they could find the courage to do what they needed to do in the first place.

 

We must have grown up under different circumstances and situations then. Because I have worked for many corporations, some of them quite big. And all of them do things I find morally reprehensible, all in the name of making greater and greater profit, at the expense of the 'little guy' employee.

Things like outsourcing, hiring illegal labor under the table, mandatory overtime, cutting hours without notice, adding on more responsibilities without increasing pay, etc.

I don't work because I want to, I work because I have to. Why are their greedy practices okay and mine are not?

 

Nope not at all. If I ate three $1 double cheeseburgers a day and nothing else, that'd be only about 900 calories, so even if I never exercised, I'd lose weight. Sure I'd probably be lacking in proper vitamins and nutrients, but unless I was eating 3,000 or more a day, every day, I would not gain weight. And yes it costs more to eat 3,000 calories a day than it does 1,500.

That's the biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard.

When that scenario is actually a realistic possibility then get back to me.

 

I am sure you have probably worked for quite a few places, because I wouldn't keep you around for long.
Anyone who thinks profit is morally reprehensible doesn't need to be working for me in the first place.

Furthermore ... Nobody is saying anything about your greed or their greed, right or wrong.
If you find yourself needing to work to buy the things you like/want and can't seem to find a decent company that will hire you ... then start your own business.
Since you know all about how a company should be run, and how it should exist for the welfare of the employees ... then I am sure you will have no problem achieving that set of standards.

Look at the example that will provide for the rest of the business world, your children, neighbors and community.
Once you start a business that takes care of its employees and is responsible, then you can come places like here and listen to people like you used to be.

 

Dude, as useful as it may be, don't just drop a link.

According to the link you provided, a livable wage is the wage a person would need if he was the sole-provider for a family... So, if a livable wage is $9 (like the recent minimum proposed), why is that needed if it's the wage needed to support a family as a sole income provider (1 person providing for 4), if both spouses almost always work? I think the term livable, as used there, is shaky.

To the OP: it isn't really defined. That's why politicians on the left love to use it.

 

Wow, nice attitude.

You don't know jack about me.

I am a reliable worker. I come in and work my hours every day. I don't call in frequently just because I don't want to work like many young people I see these days. I always give my job my all and generally do at least average in my performance. Many times I exceed. My last job I had before this one I was at for five years, until some minor medical problems caused some drama.

But what does the company do for me? They heap loads more work on my plate without giving me a raise for the added responsibilites. They add mandatory overtime to my schedule and threaten to write me up if I don't work it. They change my schedule and I'm lucky to get 48 hours notice about it.

How is what they are doing morally right or justified? And I'm not stupid. I know they do these things to make profit. And since making profit is the whole point of businesses, EVERY business does these things!

But just because their purpose is to make profit does not mean what they are doing is morally right, in my opinion. Profit is not the be all, end all of MY life.

And if businesses can be greedy and do things I would find morally questionable just to make a buck, then I can do the same. If the other side wants to rush to the bottom of the barrell and hit rock bottom, I would rather see it done sooner rather than dragging it out and causing needless suffering.

If I'm going down, I'm not going down alone. I will take as many of those I feel have wronged me as I can. I'm tired of working more and more, and harder and harder, JUST TO MAINTAIN WHAT I ALREADY HAD!

And I am the majority. The only reason we haven't had bloody, violent revolution yet is because things haven't gotten bad enough to drive us to it.

But it will.

 

Only until your body, which has been deprived of the sustenence it needs, goes into fat saving mode, then you will gain and retain weight.

It's only a matter of time. We just have not hit rock bottom yet. But I believe it will happen, as businesses continue making decisions that put profits ahead of people.

Do you really think all of those people that conservates call 'parasites' will really 'bootstrap' up if the government slashes all of the welfare and aid they give? I don't.

 

We built their business; they just hiked the ball, which they now want to handoff to the other team. We'll outlaw outsourcing, confiscate the stolen wealth of the economic traitors, and deport them.