What is this "living wage" garbage? What moron thought this up?

[AndrewR]

I've been hearing a lot about this lately. Didn't a California city pass a law requiring a living wage of some obscene amount for all workers within its city limits?

They have a similar problem in France with the high cost of employment taxes levied by the government to pay for all their social programs. What happens? Businesses don't hire workers because they can't afford to. Then, UNEMPLOYMENT.

Isn't it brilliant when you give power to people without the foresight to contemplate the results of their feel-good actions?

 

[GoldenBear]

a) The min living wage around an area like San Jose and SF is $13-$15/hour or something.
b) France isn't as prosperous as California.
c) There is no letter c).
d) There will always be employers around here that'll pay the min living wage.

 

[AndrewR]

<< a) The min living wage around an area like San Jose and SF is $13-$15/hour or something. >>


So be it. If a local restaurant has to pay $15/hour to a dishwasher, then they won't hire a dishwasher. It's that simple. Since when did the idea of having two jobs become such an abhorrent prospect? I've done it as have millions before and currently.


<< b) France isn't as prosperous as California. >>


If this idea catches on, California won't be as prosperous as California.

 

[Moonbeam]

California will become the richest nation in the world just as soon as it mandates people work for nothing. Kids will grow up healthier too when both parents work for nothing 24/7. Life should really be miserable for most people so they learn value and the meaning of honest work.

 

[yellowperil]

Businesses can afford to pay living wages if they raise prices. Unfortunately in this country we are more interested in living cheap than eliminating poverty. This is evidenced in the policy aim to keep unemployment at ~5-6% and inflation rates at 2-3%. This is reversed from the goal of most Western European nations.

 

[Amused]

<< Businesses can afford to pay living wages if they raise prices. Unfortunately in this country we are more interested in living cheap than eliminating poverty. This is evidenced in the policy aim to keep unemployment at ~5-6% and inflation rates at 2-3%. This is reversed from the goal of most Western European nations. >>



YP, are you really that short sighted?

We raise the minimum wage to this mythical &quot;living wage.&quot; (never you mind that NO ONE can ever put an actual number on this)

Prices of basic goods, foods and services go up, along with unemployment, i.e., inflation. Already the new &quot;living wage&quot; is devalued dramatically.

The middle class can no longer afford the lifestyle they once did because food and basic services have skyrocketed, and demand more pay as well. More prices go up.

Those making this so called &quot;living wage&quot; are RIGHT back where they started as everything costs as much in proportion to their wages as it did before.

Meanwhile, nevermind that most minimum wage earners are kids, people starting over, or students and stay at minimum wage jobs a short time before moving on to better paying jobs. Anyone stuck in a perpetual minimum wage job has only themselves to blame.

EVERY TIME we have raised the minimum wage, this has happened. Yet we not only continue this folly, we want to expand on it. Why?

 

[jhu]

we should do away with money as a medium of exchange and relinquish all control to me and my lieutenants.

 

[yellowperil]

Yes, I agree, the middle class (and upper class) would no longer be able to live the lifestyle they once did. They would have to pay their fair share instead of cheap prices which were artificially set. No longer would you have people working menial jobs underpaid, underbenefited. Right now in this economy we reward the paper pushers, the people who do the least amount of work with the most amount of money. Most of them got to where they are by being lucky. 55% of the people and families on the Forbes 400 have inherited their way to the top. People at the bottom who try to work themselves out of poverty have nowhere to go. They're born into poverty. They're born into environments with little hope. Try taking the povery line (which is set by political rather than scientific standards) and working out costs of living. In 1998 the poverty line was $16,660 for a family of 4 in the U.S. This assumes the family spends 1/3 of its income on food. When you work out conservative numbers for costs of living (rent, utilities, transportation, insurance), each person in the family gets ~$3.50 for food per day. 36 million people in the U.S. live like this.

I am referring to wages that are just above minimum wage but not enough to subsist without difficulty.

For more of my (choose one: red, Nazi, gestapo, commie, Anti-American, bleeding-heart) thoughts on this matter view this thread

 

[jmcoreymv]

Just another piece of info, capitalism CANNOT function with full employment. The optimum unemployment level for capitalism to sucede is at about 5% unemployment.

Edit: FIXED

 

[Amused]

<< Yes, I agree, the middle class (and upper class) would no longer be able to live the lifestyle they once did. They would have to pay their fair share instead of cheap prices which were artificially set. No longer would you have people working menial jobs underpaid, underbenefited. Right now in this economy we reward the paper pushers, the people who do the least amount of work with the most amount of money. Most of them got to where they are by being lucky. 55% of the people and families on the Forbes 400 have inherited their way to the top. People at the bottom who try to work themselves out of poverty have nowhere to go. They're born into poverty. They're born into environments with little hope. Try taking the povery line (which is set by political rather than scientific standards) and working out costs of living. In 1998 the poverty line was $16,660 for a family of 4 in the U.S. This assumes the family spends 1/3 of its income on food. When you work out conservative numbers for costs of living (rent, utilities, transportation, insurance), each person in the family gets ~$3.50 for food per day. 36 million people in the U.S. live like this.

I am referring to wages that are just above minimum wage but not enough to subsist without difficulty. >>



Jobs are paid on ability to produce, not the amount of labor one does. Paper pushers get more than ditch diggers because everyone can dig a ditch, but not everyone can do accounting, or other complex business tasks.

The 36 million number is deceiving. First off, these are not 36 million people living in families of four, they are simply 36 million people making 17 grand or less. Most people making money at the poverty line ARE kids, people starting over, and students. The vast majority of them will NOT stay there, they will move on to better jobs and be replaced by NEW kids, NEW people starting over, and NEW students. Very few are perpetually in poverty, and if they are, who can they blame but themselves if they are of able body and mind?

And don't give me the &quot;environments with little hope&quot; routine. More than enough people climb from poverty to middle class every year to make that excuse absurd.

 

[Amused]

<< Just another piece of info, capitalism CANNOT function with full unemployment. The optimum unemployment level for capitalism to sucede is at about 5% unemployment. >>



Um, did you use the wrong word somewhere, because that doesn't make sense

 

[bonkers325]

damn $13-15
i thought the min was $5-$6

 

[yellowperil]

Where would the paper pushers be without the ditch diggers? The only difference is that they're allowed more opportunities than the ditch digger. The common paper pusher lives a pampered life. When you can set the qualifications for being a paper pusher just outside the reach of those who were 'born to dig ditches', you can rationalize discrimination with the most arbitrary of reasons.

AmusedOne, open your eyes. Not everyone is a Howard Roark living in New York, designing our own buildings with unlimited freedom. Someone had to build the buildings that Mr. Roark designed.

 

[Ameesh]

<< Where would the paper pushers be without the ditch diggers? The only difference is that they're allowed more opportunities than the ditch digger. The common paper pusher lives a pampered life. When you can set the qualifications for being a paper pusher just outside the reach of those who were 'born to dig ditches', you can rationalize discrimination with the most arbitrary of reasons.

AmusedOne, open your eyes. Not everyone is a Howard Roark living in New York, designing our own buildings with unlimited freedom. Someone had to build the buildings that Mr. Roark designed. >>



thats a load of crap, if you want to better yourself there is no better placto do it then the united states. if you think paying a janitor $15 an hour plus health beneifits is gonna solve anything youre a myopic dummy.

 

[yellowperil]

Pull your head out of your ass, Ameesh. The United States has 2-3 times the poverty rate of most European nations. I'm comparing relative poverty, not absolute poverty. So yes, maybe you can scrape together a living here better than in a third-world country. But that doesn't justify descrepancies caused by the macroeconomic structure.

 

[yellowperil]

The problem is that this country requires heroics to get out of poverty. We make it hard for millions of Americans who are trying earn a sustainable living. We make it difficult for immigrants, for the poor, for the elderly, for the mentally ill, and for women to sustain themselves. The cause lies in how we view such problems. If we continue to view problems as having individual causes, we will continue to have inequality. If we shift the cause of problems to the structure of society, because people do not choose to be born rich or poor (did you?), and do not choose who they were born as, maybe we can start addressing the fundamentals.

 

[Amused]

<< Where would the paper pushers be without the ditch diggers? The only difference is that they're allowed more opportunities than the ditch digger. The common paper pusher lives a pampered life. When you can set the qualifications for being a paper pusher just outside the reach of those who were 'born to dig ditches', you can rationalize discrimination with the most arbitrary of reasons.

AmusedOne, open your eyes. Not everyone is a Howard Roark living in New York, designing our own buildings with unlimited freedom. Someone had to build the buildings that Mr. Roark designed. >>



The key difference here, is that if needed, the paper pushers (i.e., talented business executives) COULD dig ditches, as that takes no skill. But the ditch diggers could not do the job of the executives.

We are NOT all born genetically equal, YP, only equal under the law. No matter how much your PC crap would have you believe, not everyone is capable of handling complex business matters. In fact, the more one can produce, the more one is worth. The ditch digger has NOTHING to do without the people who make the project happen.

Ditch diggers are a dime a dozen. Failed CEOs and executives are a dime a dozen. Successful CEOs or executives are 1 in hundreds of thousands.

It's not discrimination, YP. It's reality.

If you advocate paying everyone equally, you remove the incentive to produce, take risks, and use one's talents. Then you're left with a bunch of ditch diggers, and no one willing to take the responsibility to make the project happen.

Socialism died, YP, or did you miss that?

BTW, &quot;paper pushers&quot; are not pampered, YP. They suffer from extraordinary amounts of stress and have no on the job physical outlet for them. Just as many business execs die on the job from heart attacks as ditch diggers, YP.

 

[Amused]

<< The problem is that this country requires heroics to get out of poverty. We make it hard for millions of Americans who are trying earn a sustainable living. We make it difficult for immigrants, for the poor, for the elderly, for the mentally ill, and for women to sustain themselves. The cause lies in how we view such problems. If we continue to view problems as having individual causes, we will continue to have inequality. If we shift the cause of problems to the structure of society, because people do not choose to be born rich or poor (did you?), and do not choose who they were born as, maybe we can start addressing the fundamentals. >>



YP, that is such crap. I grew up in a lower middle class family who struggled to put food on the table for five kids. I had a crappy LA public school education, and was left with no means to go to college. I WORKED my way into college, and through college, and started my own business with no help from anybody.

No, I'm not extraordinary. I don't have a huge IQ. I'm not heroic. I simply WANTED it, and was willing to WORK for it and take risks. I was not stupid enough to have kids before I was financially able to care for them. I did not become addicted to drugs. And I did not expect anyone else to do it for me.

 

[yellowperil]

Don't give me any of that genetic crap until you can conclusively prove it. The argument that some people were born to dominate over others is the same argument used to send millions of innocent people to torture and death.

Why do we value paper pushers so much? What makes them so valuable over others? On the other hand, who built your house, made your clothes, paved the roads you drive on, produced the food you eat, and digged the ditches so your house wouldn't flood?

BTW, yes, there are paper pushers who get to the top without any outside 'assistance', but they are the exception rather than the rule. Unless you yourself have succeeded from a position of poverty without any assistance, without social support, I don't think you're in a position to judge.

 

[Amused]

<< Don't give me any of that genetic crap until you can conclusively prove it. The argument that some people were born to dominate over others is the same argument used to send millions of innocent people to torture and death. >>



Oh BS, YP. Are you claiming that EVERYONE has the ability to play the guitar? That EVERYONE has the ability to be a national sport star? That EVERYONE has the ability to understand complex math problems? That everyone has the ability to be an award winning actor? That everyone has the ability to invent the lightbulb? (I HOPE you get the idea by now)

Employees are a commodity, YP. The more talent the job requires, the more rare the qualified person is. Rarity means that person can demand more for the job, simply because without a person with this extraordinary talent, the project could not get done.

This has nothing to do with Hitler, Eugenics, or any of that crap. Some people are just more able to do certain things than other people. The rarity of that talent dictates how much they're worth.

So stop going off the deep end, YP. I already said everyone was equal under the law.


<< Why do we value paper pushers so much? What makes them so valuable over others? On the other hand, who built your house, made your clothes, paved the roads you drive on, produced the food you eat, and digged the ditches so your house wouldn't flood? >>



YP, I;m not going to repeat myself. Without the executive decisions, and investments to build those things, those people would be out of a job. The houses would not get built, the clothes wouldn't get made, the roads wouldn't get paved, and the food wouldn't make it to market.

<< BTW, yes, there are paper pushers who get to the top without any outside 'assistance', but they are the exception rather than the rule. Unless you yourself have succeeded from a position of poverty without any assistance, without social support, I don't think you're in a position to judge. >>



YP, I AM in a position to judge, because the policies you advocate will directly affect me. If one person can climb out of poverty, so can any other able bodied person. It's hard work, yes, but it CAN be done.

FYI, after my father died, and my Mom booted me out of the house because I refused to work, and expected everyone to do it for me, I was on the streets with nothing but a high school diploma. I DID start with nothing, YP.

BTW, your excessive use of the term &quot;paper pushers&quot; only shows you have no idea what is involved in an executive job, or any job that doesn't require manual labor.

I'll bet you're under 20, and have never had a real job. Am I right?

 

[Ameesh]

<< Pull your head out of your ass, Ameesh. The United States has 2-3 times the poverty rate of most European nations. I'm comparing relative poverty, not absolute poverty. So yes, maybe you can scrape together a living here better than in a third-world country. But that doesn't justify descrepancies caused by the macroeconomic structure. >>




i am not rich yet, in fact i came from a fairly poor family , immigrants, my parents worked in new york for a combined salary of $75 a week. (thats both of them in the late 70's) if you work hard you can get ahead, look to asian immigrants the od well all the time and they do their best to up lift thier children. Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Indian etc.. all of them push their kids soo much and they push themselves too, stop protecting the lazy. (my last point is that you should compare absolute poverty, they have it way better here)

 

[hans007]

the living wage is the stupidest thing in the world. its basic economics. look if you pay a lot you charge high prices. if you charge high prices people need to pay more, so effectively their income is less. thus they will want their wage increased again.


basically this is what leads to inflation in the first place. the living wage and arguably the minimum wage are just stupid

 

[kaiotes]

link to the minimum wage of $13/hr in CA?
i'd go get a job if its at 13/hr

 

[GoldenBear]

<< I'll bet you're under 20, and have never had a real job. Am I right? >>

Yeesh. That's such a lame ending to a post with otherwise good points..

I'll bet you're under 20, never owned a business, and live with your parents? Prove me wrong.



<< link to the minimum wage of $13/hr in CA?
i'd go get a job if its at 13/hr >>

Min LIVING wage is different than min wage.

 

[yellowperil]

This is my final post for tonight, and I probably won't be able to post again until mid-next week.

AmusedOne:

The idea of genetic superiority has *not* been conclusively proven, or even proven successfully to a significant extent. But let's take your argument and assume that some people are born better than others. Are they more deserving of resources than those who aren't? Let me ask again: Did you choose to be born the way you are, in the time and place you were? If you were &quot;born&quot; better, do you deserve more? And why? I guess under your scheme, people with Down syndrome don't deserve a damn thing. And who knows what people are capable of accomplishing? Did they think Albert Einstein was going to succeed early on in his life? Did they think Michael Jordan could play basketball early in high school? Some exceptional people need a little support to bud. Not everyone busts out of the womb with a sharp business acumen.

Executive decisions, investments, that's all fine and well. But let's look at comparable worth. How many times over does an exec earn over Joe Blow? Does that mean his labor is worth 3x over Joe Blow because Mr. Blow is expendable? Regardless of whether you measure self-worth by income level, Joe Blow's still gotta eat, and he needs a minimum income to do it.

I am 20 years old. My parents came to America from Korea with $500 on a loan. They earn below the poverty line. Before entering college I went to the doctor twice in my life, both on medical emergencies. Like you, I went to a poor public school. I don't own a car, I go to state uni on full scholarship and grants. Etc, etc, you get the picture. I don't know what you mean by a 'serious' job. I worked in several supermarkets in high school. On my lunch break I talked to cashiers, stockers, and baggers. I found that not everyone has the supporting parents that I have. Making it big is just a dream for them, because no one in their family history has done it. If they wanted to, they wouldn't know where to start. No resources to go to school, no time (have to support a family), and no one they know who could give them that ability. I guess my point is that not everyone's born with the innate ability, or the know-how, to succeed. In fact, most people don't. It is learned. Where to learn if no one's around to teach it?

Ameesh,

Please read my thread here. If you think poor people are lazy, maybe you're just contributing to the problem.