This Is Scott Walker's Idea Of A Living Wage

This Is Scott Walker's Idea Of A Living Wage

by Akbar Shahid Ahmed | Huffington Post | Posted: 10/10/2014 11:59 am EDT
Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- "Thousands of workers in Wisconsin make around or just above the minimum wage in the state: $7.25 an hour, the same as the federal standard. But that wage, the workers say, is not enough to live on.

The workers heard back from the state earlier this week: "The Department has determined that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the wages paid to the complainants are not a living wage," the Department of Workforce Development said in a letter obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Department of Workforce Development told The Huffington Post it had no comment beyond its initial statement.

Walker's opponent, Democrat Mary Burke, has championed a higher minimum wage.

Walker's opponents note that his failure to raise the wage has not led to job growth in Wisconsin. Lisa Lucas of Wisconsin Jobs Now pointed to Walker's infamous promise to create 250,000 jobs during his first term.

"Walker promised us a quarter of a million jobs when he took office and that hasn't happened, so clearly leaving the minimum wage where it is hasn't helped job growth," Lucas said.

Studies from national and Wisconsin-based think tanks have suggested that a higher minimum wage would not undermine job growth. Moreover, states that have raised their minimum wages have seen faster job growth than those that have kept their wages constant.

Yet the release from the Department of Workforce Development dismissing the complaint cited analyses suggesting that raising the wage would, in fact, suppress hiring.

Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker, said when the complaint was filed that the governor's focus was on job creation, not on raising current wages. "He is focused on finding ways to help employers create jobs that pay far more than the minimum wage or any other proposed minimum," she said at the time.

"If Governor Walker thinks anyone can really live on $7.25 he is out of his mind," said Jon Green, the national deputy director for Working Families. "This decision wasn't guided by any sense or reason or fairness, but by political payback to Walker's corporate contributors."

Roman Fletcher: Fletcher said he makes $7.50 per hour as a fast-food worker and lives in his car. He donated plasma to try to make extra money, he explained - but then his poor nutrition meant his protein levels were too low for him to do so.

Julia Garcia: Garcia wrote in her complaint that she makes $8.50 per hour as a retail worker. As a single mother of three, Garcia said, she receives food stamps but still often finds herself unable to buy enough food for her family."

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/scott-walker-minimum-wage_n_5961506.html
.....

IMO: We need an immediate temporary tax put on our wealthiest citizens to rectify the inequity of the working class that is now working for low wages that are not enough to pay their bills. Those funds from taxes collected from the wealthy will be distributed among the lowest wage earners until a more credible minimum wage is achieved, which by even conservative figures would have to be $15.00 or more considering the rising cost of living.

Rentals, cost of food, and the rising cost of energy with every bill doubling from a year ago, and many businesses bringing their employees to part time status in order to save money. The inequity in the two classes of citizens has to be tempered down to rational ratios, before anger against them reaches heights of civil disobedience. A temporary tax on the wealthy is an admirable antidote to the suffering of the once viable middle class and the poor.

Governor Walker is merely spewing the republican agenda when he says that a higher minimum wage would hinder creation of jobs, but with no higher minimum wage, no new jobs have been created anyway, so Governor Walker's excuses have already been proven a lie.

We need to get rid of politicians like Walker in every corner, in the woodwork, the gated, plush communities, and the Congress, in America today. Laws that favored the rich corporations need to be repealed and they must learn to pay their fair taxes at the rates that average people pay, have no more incentives, subsidies, perks, and loopholes in their tax bills so that these things can be accomplished in the years going forward for the betterment of our Democracy.

 

You think $7.25/hr is a living wage?

 

Minimum wage was NEVER meant to be a career.

 

I would like some liberal to define what a living wage is.

You never hear them do so because they know that no such thing exists and if they give you a specific it will blow up in their face.

 

Just stop electing members of the two party scam. Stop the cronyism. Stop the banking schemes. Stop the coddling of the too big to fail crowd. Stop the rich/elites tax code from further destroying the ability for individuals to own and run successful businesses that will compete against the too large to fail crowd.

IOW stop voting democrat and/or republican. They are the problem. Giving them your vote and expecting something different is like sticking a butter knife in an wall outlet expecting something different.

 

Why is it that the wealthy are responsible for this?

 

The parties do not define our political system, the political system defines how any party operates. You replace the democrats and republicans with another group and they will act the same way.

 

I think it would be safe to use 'a wage that allows you to get a decent nourishment and stay off the streets' as a definition for a living wage would be suitable.

 

Sadly though, it is now. For what ever reasons MW was crafted, it's taken on a new role in our society. Ignoring what it is now by appealing to supposed reasons for its creation =/= refuting the neccessity of raising it.

Either that or cut welfare (not gonna happen) or lower the cost of education (that would be a close second).

 

The wealthy are the Boogymen of the left. They are responsible for everything bad.

The more you make the more guilty you are.

 

Not a liberal or a democrat but, it certainly doesn't mean living in the lap of luxury the way republicans/neo con artists imply it does.

It is no different than the old saying working for a living implies. IOW the pay should be comparable to the cost of living. An honest days pay for an honest days wages, simply means if you are working 40 hours a week you shouldn't be eligible for government subsidies that provide you with housing/food/etc... Basic necessities.

Problem is both sides are dishonest and lying about what it means or implies. It's just more smoke and mirror conquer and divide psycho babble, IOW something to argue about.

 

I don't blame the wealthy, I don't blame anyone. I focus on finding solutions. Prefereably ones that can be implemented.

People should be trying to level up and make more, I think that we, as a nation, should try to make that easier.

 

What neo-socialist "progressives" need to do is put their money where their mouths are. All of you can pool your own money together and then redistribute it at your own expense to all the people you think aren't making a "living wage".

Since that will NEVER happen, everyone who isn't happy with their wages should do what I did when I wasn't happy with my wages - find a better paying job. Failing that, you can invest in your education or skills and learn a trade that will command a greater salary. It's quite simple. If I can do it, so can you.

As for the economically illiterate "progressives" who are responsible for jacking up your taxes, HC costs, energy costs, getting your hours cut and otherwise costing you more of your hard-earned money, stop voting for them.
.

 

Oh, my god. I'm stunned. Agent thinks we need to raise taxes. I don't know what to say. Guess what, Agent? Are you aware there are people earning $250,000 a year who can't pay their bills? I know liberals don't make any connection between what you spend and what you earn but there is, for people with at least a double-digit IQ a very important connection. That's not really a standard to decide on public policy or raising taxes. Are you aware that some people can live on what they're making because they chose to have five kids? I had one of those who insisted I should help. My offer to help by giving him a vasectomy with the stapler didn't seem to please him.

Hang in there, Governor Walker. Don't let the nitwits intimidate. The Huffington Post gets one issue right a month and this one wasn't the issue for October.

 

They are the political system the plutocracy supports and therefore protects. No other party can replace them since they are the only one the system supports. Even if everybody voted for Ralph Nader (which is not likely) the democrat or republican who gets the rich/elite nod will win. I doubt if there has been a legitimate election in this country, EVER!

 

Here ya go:

An analysis of the living wage using updated data from 2013 and compiling geographically specific expenditure data for food, childcare, health care, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities, finds that:

The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than 3 full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 68-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Across all family sizes, the living wage exceeds the poverty threshold, often used to identify need. This means that families earning between the poverty threshold ($23,283 for two working adults, two children) and the median living wage ($51,224 for two working adults, two children per year before taxes), may fall short of the income and assistance they require to meet their basic needs.

The cost of housing and childcare for families with children exceeds all other expenses. In the United State, a typical family of four (two working adults, two children) spends 21% of their after-tax income on childcare and another 21% on housing. Faced with tradeoffs, a second working adult must earn at least $11,195 on average in order to cover the costs of childcare and other increased expenses when they enter the workforce. Single-parent families need to work almost twice as hard as families with two working adults to earn the living wage. A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 125 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage.

The living wage varies based on the cost of living and taxes where families live. Families of four (with two working adults, two children) in the North ($56,179) and West ($53,505) have higher median living wages before taxes than the South ($49,167), and Midwest ($48,496). Within region, the largest variation is between Southern states, where the living wage ranges from $45,655 in South Carolina to $69,820 in the District of Columbia.

 

Yet somebody making $7.25 an hour should be able too? All I can say is if you can't live on $250,000.00 a year, you are living way above your means and you probably need to pull your head out of your ass.

 

How about taking charge of your life instead?

I know. What a crazy idea.

How you vote isn't going to determine whether or not you become successful in life. If you believe otherwise, prepare to spend the rest of your life living under a bridge.

 

If Democrats would stop raising taxes on everything it might have been a living wage.

 

So now we have a different definition of a living wage: a wage that will support a family of four, not just the wage earner.

Why just four? Why not set it at the amount required for a family of eight or even ten?

Minimum wage is a living wage for an individual starting out, building a work history and learning new skills. If you want more out of life, such as starting a family, then you need to work beyond that starter job. Develop new skills or learn a trade and work up to an income that will support a family.

 

because it fits the meme

 

Using that as the baseline for your definition of a "living wage", then, what particular jobs should provide a "living wage" as defined as 'a typical family of four (two working adults, two children)'?

A fast food workers job which is most probably envisioned and a business and cost model built by the companies upon entry level young single people performing the work.

So, every job should provide for a family of 4 (two working adults, two children)?

 

"Everybody gets to be a doctor or lawyer. If you're making minimum wage, you're not trying hard enough at life. Yadda...."

Meanwhile, there are millions of people earning minimum wage at the only kind of job they can get. It's their career and welfare must seem like a tempting alternative when their careers are getting them nowhere.

 

Can you give us an example of a recent example of Democrats raising taxes?

 

I've never understood the idea of 'Just do better'. Like it's as simple as that. It completely misses the notion that a lot of people in these situations are working as hard as they can, and are stuck where they are.

Yes there are those who milk the system for their own benefit. I have no issues with finding ways to make it harder to cheat the system (only allow certain purchases with EBT cards at certain places. Don't allow them to be used as ATMs for cash, that kind of thing). But to always paint those who work minimum wage jobs as lazy bums who don't work hard is ridiculous.