-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
POLL: Do you think we should have a "Living wage" $10/hr Minimum wage?
- Thread starter Keego
- Start date
thebestMAX
Diamond Member
No, do away with it altogether.
Wallydraigle
Banned
Sure, while we're at it let's make sure everybody makes the same amount of money no matter what they do. That would be swell.
What? The predominate effect of raising the minimum wage is an increase in the unemployment rate.
The majority of people impacted by this are not the wealthy or the well-educated. Most people earning minimum wage are high-school educated or below; they're not going to have a safety net to fall back on, unless you count welfare.
Amused
Elite Member
This "living wage" nonsense always cracks me up.
When you raise the minimum wage, the service industry responds by either raising prices, laying off workers, or both.
What does this cause? It causes everything from a Bigmac, to a car wash, to a meal at a restaurant, to groceries, to clothing to go up in price.
What does this cause? It raises the cost of basic living for everyone including the middle class.
What does this cause? A lower life style for the middle class, who in turn start demanding their own pay increases to maintain the standard of living they had before.
What does this cause? Higher prices accross the board. Otherwise known as inflation.
What becomes of those being paid the so called "living wage?" They are right back where they started.
... and around we go again.
BTW, I run a food business. If minimum wage is hiked, I will immediately hike my prices to pay for it. If I find I can't compete, I'll lower the prices a bit and lay off workers.
What I will not do is tighten my already razor thin profit margin.
When you raise the minimum wage, the service industry responds by either raising prices, laying off workers, or both.
What does this cause? It causes everything from a Bigmac, to a car wash, to a meal at a restaurant, to groceries, to clothing to go up in price.
What does this cause? It raises the cost of basic living for everyone including the middle class.
What does this cause? A lower life style for the middle class, who in turn start demanding their own pay increases to maintain the standard of living they had before.
What does this cause? Higher prices accross the board. Otherwise known as inflation.
What becomes of those being paid the so called "living wage?" They are right back where they started.
... and around we go again.
BTW, I run a food business. If minimum wage is hiked, I will immediately hike my prices to pay for it. If I find I can't compete, I'll lower the prices a bit and lay off workers.
What I will not do is tighten my already razor thin profit margin.
Gonad the Barbarian
Lifer
I think they ought to stagger it by age. Maybe something like 16-17 at $4.50, 18-20 at $6.00, and 21+ at 7.50. I'm all for a free economy, but the government has to keep it fair (IE: without a minimum wage certain neighbors from down south would be coming in like crazy and taking jobs away from Americans for $2 an hour - that's your totally free economy).
blakeatwork
Diamond Member
Nope... I think raising the minimum exemption on taxes to the poverty level, or just under, would make more sense. People earning less per hour wouldn't have to be dependent on suplementals to their income, and it would make "minimum wage" jobs more attractive because the money would go further. Eliminating the Welfare safety net makes the most sense, but that would never happen in Canada OR the US unfortunately.
308nato
Platinum Member
That would take more info to answer.
How many in household ? What area of the country ? I know the government has a standard for poverty they use nationwide that only takes number of children into account. But, it also allows you 2 televisions, a computer and 2 cars I think.
Someone's idea of poverty isn't the same as mine I guess.
mithrandir2001
Diamond Member
The problem is that these liberal economic "engineers" think that they can somehow legislate a way to give everybody a neat house with picket fence and two cars in the driveway. You just can't demand-side your way to societal happiness. We cannot provide a comfortable standard of living for every single citizen without taking away the incentives from economic producers to continue making economically desired goods and services. Something has to give.
The only sound and ethically justifiable way to "conquer poverty" is to make sure everybody has the opportunity to learn, grow, work, invest and take risks. A good chunk of our young people receive a horrible education from our government schools; in some districts more students fail to meet the standards of their grade level than pass. If these children won't be able to work effectively in a modern economy, forcing a living wage is throwing a band-aid on the wrong scar.
The only sound and ethically justifiable way to "conquer poverty" is to make sure everybody has the opportunity to learn, grow, work, invest and take risks. A good chunk of our young people receive a horrible education from our government schools; in some districts more students fail to meet the standards of their grade level than pass. If these children won't be able to work effectively in a modern economy, forcing a living wage is throwing a band-aid on the wrong scar.