Do you believe in a living wage?

Then give us a dollar figure, what is a living wage?

- - - Updated - - -

I totally disjointed statement as to what I said and to what I was referring.

Try again.

 

The first time I heard of this living wage idea I hated it. All my conservative instincts kicked in.

What turned me was realizing that this isn't some liberal, commie idea, but a return to how things were. Before welfare, you couldn't take or offer a non-living wage. If you took it, you'd die. If you offered it, no one would take it. Sometime during the 20th Century, that changed. Today you can offer a non-living wage and people will take the job, and the employer and the employee can count on government and the taxpayers to keep the employee alive. Helluva thing, if you ask me.

 

I earned some.
I didn't say spending created wealth it creates money flow, jobs, and i suppose someone does get wealthy if they have a good product.

 

Buying stocks that isn't a ipo isn't giving a company any more money.

 

The welfare state is allowing that to happen, so instead of getting rid of the welfare state, you want more legislation to patch up the foibles of the wefare state?

You'll never get what you want, ever. Not by using the state.

 

You're right. The state has a vested interest in perpetuating welfare. Those politicians and bureaucrats who benefit from the welfare state would absolutely hate it if working people at lower levels didn't need them anymore. Do you smell what I'm smelling?

 

No, your wages don't have to reflect that. Again, you're not entitled to any given Standard of Living or Life-Style. There is no Law or Theory in Economics to support you bizarre beliefs.

2nd World-ish closer to Russia or Romania, not 3rd World. And you don't have any say in the matter, so it doesn't matter what you believe or what you want. Your world is changing; either adapt or be made irrelevant, and if you're under 40, you'll come to find out that what I'm saying is completely true.

 

I was reading something yesterday evening about how since the government is whom is unhappy, let them subsidize the worker. Company pays the same wages. What grates me is taking from you to pass to joe unable to tie shoes.

 

Let's review the rules of Alinsky.

But way after I get this done.

I am a Democrat. (I once was)

I manage to persuade the congress to hand you plenty of cash.

Who do you vote for next time?

End of story.

 

minimum wage should be regionally adjusted to reflect CPI

 

"Them" is "us".

Ask yourself honestly. Who benefits from this situation? And I don't mean the worker. Who else benefits?

I used to have a sig at the bottom of my posts, but I replaced it with the Trump quote. But that sig was ...

"Things are the way they are because someone wants them that way. - Unknown"

Truth right there.

 

COLA increases do not cover the true increases in Cost-of-Living.

So COLAs calculated using the CPI-W do not necessarily reflect how inflation affects Social Security recipients.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ial-security-cola-questions-answers/91970980/

No, history doesn't say they'll be replaced, and there's no guarantee "more jobs will happen as well."

A $15 Minimum Wage Would Cost 6.6 Million Jobs.



In late 2014, Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither of the University of California at San Diego released research examining what happened to low-wage workers the last time that the federal government raised its minimum wage—rising in three steps, during 2007–09, from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), they focused on how the minimum wage hike affected employment and income among those whom the minimum-wage hike affected most: low-wage workers earning below $7.50 per hour.
Clemens and Wither found significant, negative consequences for low-wage workers. From 2006 to 2012, employment in this group fell by 8 percent, translating to about 1.7 million jobs.6 The job loss in this low-wage group accounted for 14 percent of the national decline in employment during this period.7

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-jobs/ &cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#38b5f9828344

 

Do you recall which of your posts has it all laid out? Let me look over your entire plan. Maybe there is a magic fairy that hands out cash.

 

Ha! No, you have to go through all 49 pages of this thread to get it all. Good luck with that, Robert. My replies are sprinkled all across these 49 pages. Sorry.

It's pretty simple, really. I think that if you work full time, it is because somebody needs you to do that work, even if it is low-skill work. It is still needed. In return for that full time work, I think that worker should be able to minimally survive independently. This means shelter, clothes, food, and a doctor when needed. Nothing extra, no new cars, no expensive brands for clothes, no traveling to Vegas on vacation, cooking at home instead of going out, etc. Scrimping, budgeting, and penny pinching, but independent.

The alternative is collecting welfare, or in other words, your money that you earned.

And the people who hate my idea think I'm a commie in their midst. A pinko subversive. And yet, they are the ones who are by default defending the welfare state, while I am defending the idea of going to work.

 

Actually I do have a say in the matter, I voted for Trump and he won. Illegals will no longer be able to drive down wages in America.

 

Certainly does. More jobs today than 40 yrs ago. Economy has trended up since our founding and min wage has been around for over 70 years.

 

Who pays more to the worker? Frankly, when the employer pays more, they may cut wages, by laying people off. I think many Democrats assume if you run a business you get rich. That would be great were it true. Also, companies who wish to hire, might simply do without. Also it differs if the worker is overhead vs productive.

 

I'm not anti-regulation?

I'm for minimizing government and this includes non-sensical regulations. I'm going to say that all regulations start out with good intent, however, after a while they begin to pile up which means we have lost focus. Yes protect humans and animals, and wildlife, and trees, and the air and water, etc. And, if we're going to have regulations then enforce them!

 

'A living wage' seems like such a simple concept, but at the same time it seems to be out of the grasp for many of our citizens. Have you stopped to think about HOW this has happened ? Actually, before HOW, can we recognize that positions where asking "would you like fries with that . . ." Were never meant to be full time jobs for adults ! They became so after various administration, of both parties, allowed and even facilitated the outsourcing of US manufacturing to foreign countries. AND THEN tried to convince the American public that adding part time jobs in the service industry, actually constituted an up tic in the employment numbers (at this point ask yourself, "am I really that gullible?).
I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to visit two countries with very high minimum wages, Australia and New Zealand. The min. Wages were $15-$17, which I'm sure sounds great . . . Until you look at what those min wages did to the cost of living. An hour's wage will get you little more than a happy meal at Micky D's. Housing . . . Forget it !
In summary, we don't just need a living wage . . . We need to bring back manufacturing jobs that justify a living wage.

 

Regarding the bold above, where in the Constitution or other government policy, including at state and local levels, does it state that people have a 'right' to earn a certain amount of income?

IMO this is called meddling, just like religion and politics meddles in society, making judgment calls, forcing their opinions/doctrines on others. If you truly cared so much about people not earning enough why don't you encourage these workers to obtain more skills and education to increase their value in the workplace?

 

You need to look at some anti-alternative facts; http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

If you actually immerse yourself in facts, or scientific projections, you will see that population growth IS NOT a liberal or conservative issue.

Amazing that you believe the US teeters on the brink of disaster if the US cannot "achieve extreme efficiency in government and business"? We're not doing a very good job in the USA but we're not destitute! The US remains the most powerful nation on Earth in myriad areas...

 

Australia does not have millions of immigrants pouring in.

 

No it shouldn't. Rich areas should not be subsidized by the government or use minimum wages to keep minorities and the poor out, like Seattle and many ultra white cities of ultra white governmental politicians use to keep out poor and minorities, while pretending to be liberals.

 

We have taxation because governments at all levels tax everything for their operating income! Politically we can't have 1 or 2 taxes so we have thousands of them. How they are applied might be for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and grins or to control something. I'm not sure what I prefer but I would like full disclosure of how much taxation is actually created?

Regarding a business, just as an individual, once 'taxable income' is established, I think both should be taxed since both are reaping the benefits of the USA...

 

Let's pretend you force the MW to $15/hour, no matter if this is done in one year or five years. Obviously this will force all wages to increase and will force higher inflation and cost of living. What do you propose society does for the 62 million receiving SS, and who knows how many millions more that do not earn an income, including millions of kids who are consumers, all of which must then deal with the higher cost of living?

And, once the dust settles will we have solved a problem or just kicked the can down the road...