A question about lowest-income workers, for Conservatives/Libertarians

[Fletch]

When they spout nonsense like this: "The best idea is for these people not to be stupid to begin with. It's for people not to drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, not knock up some girl or get knocked up, work the low-wage job while you're in school, getting an education, get some experience, get some promotions and *THEN* move out on your own and do all the other things. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hardly our fault you have stupid people being irresponsible."

Are you saying that is bad advice? Am I to believe that you advocate that "people drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, knock up some girl or get knocked up, not work the low-wage job while you're in school, fail to get an education, or some experience?" Is that the kind of advice you give your kids?

Then yes, I hate them. Saying everyone with a low paid job is a stupid, drug addicted, high school drop out is stupid and inaccurate.

That is not what he said. Your hatred is damaging your ability to read and comprehend it seems.

 

[Tonawanda]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

A fair question.

The one word answer is JOBS. It's supply and demand. More jobs and fewer workers equal higher wages. Employers would have to pay better wages to better attract employees.

I consider myself a conservative, but believe a minimum wage and many other state and federal laws to protect workers are necessary. However, they are not designed to provide a livable wage to everyone. They should be entry level jobs.

Most people start at entry level jobs. With an education or skills, and experience, most will improve their value to employers and increase their wages accordingly.

 

[Panopticon]

The best idea is for these people not to be stupid to begin with. It's for people not to drop out of high school, get involved in drugs and gangs, not knock up some girl or get knocked up, work the low-wage job while you're in school, getting an education, get some experience, get some promotions and *THEN* move out on your own and do all the other things. That's how it's supposed to work. It's hardly our fault you have stupid people being irresponsible.

And, outside conservalalaland, reality continues to happen.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You make the false assumption that a single, low (minumum) wage job should yield enough income to reside alone (or support dependents) in a very high cost of living area. Several options come to mind to remedy this situation, and I have used them all: 1) share living quarters using co-tenents/roommates, 2) get another low wage job, at least part-time, e.g. pizza delivery and 3) learn from this and gain more education/job skills to improve your productivity and thus your pay rate.

 

[RDS]

Do away with the minimum wage and let the market forces decide.

 

[MaggieD]

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

My serious answer is that it's not my problem. It's theirs. If you can't survive on a minimum-wage job, get a new one. Not qualified for anything but a minimum wage job? Get roommates. Other people who can't survive on their minimum-wage jobs. Move in with your parents, your sister, your friends and share expenses.

Unless one is handicapped, mentally ill or retarded, there is little excuse for not being able to support ones' self.

The formula for success is available for everyone. *Education*Motivation*Work Ethic*Ambition* Those who don't accept what's out there for them have no right to shove the blame on others and expect a different, miraculous outcome.

 

[betteramerica]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

I appreciate this post and I think it is a good question and point! These low income families and people are put into a hard position with the 1. Lack of jobs 2. Lack of pay for minimum wage jobs. What I think part of the solution to this problem is (or at least the first step) is helping at the source. And in this case, their source of income is the companies they work for. So the best option is to lower taxes for the people hiring these people (esp. small businesses) and that way the businesses will in turn raise wages as needed... We hope. And I know that is a lot to hope for but the alternatives are devastating... Increasing the minimum wage would put a huge burden on businesses that rely on low-income workers to keep their companies running. And yes, well the big company's CEO's will be selfish and take millions and refuse to increase pay, well maybe. But that is their prerogative. A business cannot run without them, so we can't put the guys making minimum with the weight of the guys making millions as CEO's. You can say they deserve equal treatment all you want, yes they are both human, but you need to come to term with realizing that the people making millions have done millions of dollars worth of work for the company.

 

[Baralis]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

I believe the bolded is where our opinions take different directions. I do not feel that just because you are employed and work that you are entitled to a comfortable life nor necessarily are able to take care of yourself without shared resources. A cashier at your local 24 hour mart for example isnt a job that I would consider valuable enough to garner a "livable" wage much less a comfortable living.

I think our expectations simply increase with each generation. We are now a wealthy nation and as a result our citizens have come to expect wealth with little effort. In past generations is was not uncommon for households to consist of 2-3 family generations all living under the same roof consolidating and sharing resources to survive. Now people expect to work unskilled menial jobs and make enough to support themselves and sometimes a family too. We are just becoming spoiled imo.

 

[UtahBill]

I'm not necessarily against social programs or top down solutions, but I've yet to find a social cure all.
They don't exist.

To a degree, we just have to come to accept that some people, will be poor indefinitely, regardless of what programs exist to help them.

Most of my siblings are either takers or coasters.....one sister is well off from a lifetime of hard work, and I am doing very well, but the other 3 are just the opposite. The other sister is a taker, literally. She has lost jobs by stealing from her employer, she has tried to scam local churches for their charity, until she found out that all those churches, even of different faiths, share information with each other about who is being helped.
Oldest brother is retired military, retired at age 37 and made no effort to build on his skills, or even live near a place where he could use his skills, and over time lost his chance at a good job. Other brother spent 9 years in the military, got out and went home to live with his mommy. Never even worked that one more year that would qualify him for social security, so the VA will be giving him a 'pension' at age 65. If he hadn't inherited the family shack when our parents passed, he would be homeless.
How do we change people's attitudes about taking care of themselves? Certainly making life easy for them is not conducive to self sufficiency.
We should help those who cannot fend for themselves at a subsistence level, but the lazy MUST be required to work for their welfare.
I spent a few days in NYC just before hurricane Sandy. Certainly the welfare class could be put to work picking up the litter on the streets.

 

[UtahBill]

But they can, it's just that people find a level of comfort within them and choose not to go further.

my oldest brother likes to say, "if it was good enough for my folks, it is good enough for me".....which is why he lives in a doublewide trailer on ground he rents at age 74.....
IMO, each generation is responsible for its own, meaning self, once you become an adult, and the children you produce.
Don't be a burden on society, don't create an environment where your kids will become a burden on society...
If your idea of being a parent is limited to making babies, please stop making babies.
The country can't survive without a minimal amount of tax payers.

 

[Fletch]

My serious answer is that it's not my problem. It's theirs. If you can't survive on a minimum-wage job, get a new one. Not qualified for anything but a minimum wage job? Get roommates. Other people who can't survive on their minimum-wage jobs. Move in with your parents, your sister, your friends and share expenses.

Unless one is handicapped, mentally ill or retarded, there is little excuse for not being able to support ones' self.

The formula for success is available for everyone. *Education*Motivation*Work Ethic*Ambition* Those who don't accept what's out there for them have no right to shove the blame on others and expect a different, miraculous outcome.

This is, of course, the right answer. If you want to insure you long term well-being you have to be willing to make the short term sacrifices that make that possible; namely, educate yourself, learn a trade, work hard, postpone marriage and having kids, and be willing to put forth the effort necessary to have a marketable skill that someone else is willing to compensate you for. The problem is that we have erected another option that allows people to skip those virtues and be rewarded for their vices. That being the empowerment of the state to mandate that employers provide a wage and benefit that an individual has not earned. Compelling me, by force of law, to pay a man more than he is worth for the labor he provides rewards incompetence, ignorance and sloth at the expense of the competent the educated and the hard working. If I were forced to pay a "living wage" to any employee no matter how worthless, stupid and unreliable he is, it is the other employees I have that have to take up his slack. And because the worthless employee is being overpaid, the productive ones are underpaid. So all you have is a system that rewards vice at the expense of virtue.

It will always be easier to elect into power those officials who will compel employers to overpay worthless help than it is for the worthless help to make himself into something of value.

 

[Dezaad]

I believe the bolded is where our opinions take different directions. I do not feel that just because you are employed and work that you are entitled to a comfortable life nor necessarily are able to take care of yourself without shared resources. A cashier at your local 24 hour mart for example isnt a job that I would consider valuable enough to garner a "livable" wage much less a comfortable living.

I think our expectations simply increase with each generation. We are now a wealthy nation and as a result our citizens have come to expect wealth with little effort. In past generations is was not uncommon for households to consist of 2-3 family generations all living under the same roof consolidating and sharing resources to survive. Now people expect to work unskilled menial jobs and make enough to support themselves and sometimes a family too. We are just becoming spoiled imo.

Why not? Why shouldn't the cashiers get a livable wage for themselves?

I am not so arrogant as to believe that my own good position in life is all to my credit. In fact, I would say the vast majority of it was luck, starting with the luck to have been born smart. Stupid people never piss me off as much as smart people who think that it is by their own doing that they happen to be smart.

Every solution offered by anti-poor posters in this thread have been ones that assume everyone has the same ability to be accomplished; Except for the extra nasty ones, which would simply let the poor starve.

I am happy to say, I don't isolate myself from poorer people. I have some as friends, and because of that, I know that many are good people and hard workers who just don't see how life works. Almost all of these are too stupid to know that they don't know what they need to know.

I am all for welfare to be workfare and what all. But every job should be one that comes with a livable wage.

 

[MaggieD]

Compelling me, by force of law, to pay a man more than he is worth for the labor he provides rewards incompetence, ignorance and sloth at the expense of the competent the educated and the hard working. If I were forced to pay a "living wage" to any employee no matter how worthless, stupid and unreliable he is, it is the other employees I have that have to take up his slack. And because the worthless employee is being overpaid, the productive ones are underpaid. So all you have is a system that rewards vice at the expense of virtue.

If, miraculously, WalMart began paying their sales associates $20 an hour with bennies? Those people working there now would be out of work. For that amount of money, they could hire professionals; they'd still have lines around the block for the jobs; and those former $10 associates? They'd be pickin' berries in a field somewhere.

 

[Dezaad]

my oldest brother likes to say, "if it was good enough for my folks, it is good enough for me".....which is why he lives in a doublewide trailer on ground he rents at age 74.....
IMO, each generation is responsible for its own, meaning self, once you become an adult, and the children you produce.
Don't be a burden on society, don't create an environment where your kids will become a burden on society...
If your idea of being a parent is limited to making babies, please stop making babies.
The country can't survive without a minimal amount of tax payers.

How is your brother a burden on society?

 

[Dezaad]

If, miraculously, WalMart began paying their sales associates $20 an hour with bennies? Those people working there now would be out of work. For that amount of money, they could hire professionals; they'd still have lines around the block for the jobs; and those former $10 associates? They'd be pickin' berries in a field somewhere.

Did someone suggest a wage of 20 an hour?

 

[Baralis]

Why not? Why shouldn't the cashiers get a livable wage for themselves?

I am not so arrogant as to believe that my own good position in life is all to my credit. In fact, I would say the vast majority of it was luck, starting with the luck to have been born smart. Stupid people never piss me off as much as smart people who think that it is by their own doing that they happen to be smart.

Every solution offered by anti-poor posters in this thread have been ones that assume everyone has the same ability to be accomplished; Except for the extra nasty ones, which would simply let the poor starve.

I am happy to say, I don't isolate myself from poorer people. I have some as friends, and because of that, I know that many are good people and hard workers who just don't see how life works. Almost all of these are too stupid to know that they don't know what they need to know.

I am all for welfare to be workfare and what all. But every job should be one that comes with a livable wage.

I feel they contribute so little to society imo, granted not all cashier jobs are equal. My aunt worked night shift at a little out of the way 24 hour mart and it was not uncommon for a hour or two to go by without a single customer coming in. She was basically paid to sit a wait most of the time which, to me at least, isnt something that should earn a great deal. These jobs are jobs you take to make a little extra cash and not something someone should expect to making a living on.

 

[MaggieD]

Did someone suggest a wage of 20 an hour?

I'm pointing out that minimum wage jobs attract minimum wage people. A WalMart Sales Associate should be seen as a stepping stone. If someone thinks they're going to make a career out of being a WalMart associate, they're sadly mistaken.

 

[UtahBill]

How is your brother a burden on society?

which one? the married military retiree who chose a minimalistic life for himself, makes babies and then does nothing for them?
or the one who never married (a good thing), never held a job once he got out of the military, gets by on a VA disability (hearing, rated at 50%) and the generosity of friends.
Neither of them has paid income taxes in decades....

 

[Dezaad]

I'm pointing out that minimum wage jobs attract minimum wage people. A WalMart Sales Associate should be seen as a stepping stone. If someone thinks they're going to make a career out of being a WalMart associate, they're sadly mistaken.

Did someone suggest making it so that they can make a career out of it? Making it so they can scrape by is not the same as making it into a career. Not everyone is cut out to have a "career". What are we to do with those who aren't?

 

[MaggieD]

Not everyone is cut out to have a "career". What are we to do with those who aren't?

What do you mean, "What are we to do with" them? There are plenty of jobs that aren't careers. They don't pay much; but if that's what a person wants? They're out there. A WalMart Sales Associate would be one of them.

 

[Fisher]

Did someone suggest making it so that they can make a career out of it? Making it so they can scrape by is not the same as making it into a career. Not everyone is cut out to have a "career". What are we to do with those who aren't?

"We" are not to micro-manage the affairs of others. Our national economic policies should not be geared toward the lowest end of the service sector economy. Stopping to send non "career" jobs overseas would be a bang up starting point to give people non Walmart options, but that would require we undo the Clinton era policies and be willing to pay a hell of a lot more for the throwaway crap we are addicted to as a nation.

 

[Dezaad]

When others say that sales associate at Walmart should carry a livable wage, you say that it shouldn't be made into a career. I say that making the wage livable isn't the same as making the job into a career. I state that not everyone is cut out for a career (ie skilled fulfilling work that garners a salary enough to support a family). I ask what we are to do with people who aren't cut out for a career. That is, what are we to do with people who weren't born as smart as you?

 

[UtahBill]

When others say that sales associate at Walmart should carry a livable wage, you say that it shouldn't be made into a career. I say that making the wage livable isn't the same as making the job into a career. I state that not everyone is cut out for a career (ie skilled fulfilling work that garners a salary enough to support a family). I ask what we are to do with people who aren't cut out for a career. That is, what are we to do with people who weren't born as smart as you?

get a skilled job, which is what most of us do...certainly working a blue collar job is not usually considered a career....mine was high tech blue collar, and it paid well.
One thing I would like to see, tho, is minimum wage being indexed to congressional salaries. They won't be voting themselves as many pay raises, you can bet on that.

 

[Dezaad]

"We" are not to micro-manage the affairs of others. Our national economic policies should not be geared toward the lowest end of the service sector economy. Stopping to send non "career" jobs overseas would be a bang up starting point to give people non Walmart options, but that would require we undo the Clinton era policies and be willing to pay a hell of a lot more for the throwaway crap we are addicted to as a nation.

Requiring a livable wage is is not "micromanaging" the affairs of "others". And yes indeed "we". We are responsible for and to our fellow man, and they are responsible for and to us. We create the most prosperous society we can which reduces misery to the disadvantaged, and we do have a responsibility to do that.

 

[Mycroft]

I have a question specifically for Conservatives: How do we (as a society) better the situation of the lowest-income earners? In many areas, minimum wage is far too low to provide a livable wage. In my own San Jose, a full-time minimum wage job literally does not pay enough to make rent on a one-bedroom apartment. As I understand it, most conservatives and libertarians are against: raising the minimum wage, social safety-net programs, free or highly discounted higher education, forcing businesses to provide employees benefits, or any other direct government intervention into the labor market. Seeing as how most of the lowest-income earners pay no income tax, tax breaks wouldn't help these workers. Giving their businesses or employers tax breaks would likewise not help these people.

So, Conservatives and Libertarians: Without using the aforementioned government intervention, how do we as a society make sure that lowest-income earners are able have a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt)? I'm legitimately looking for serious answers.

1. "Society" does not equal "government". So, while we, as a society, can do things to help our fellow man, the things you mention are done by the government. I am against the government ensuring that people have enough money to live on.

2. It is not society's responsibility to ensure that someone has "a livable wage (or that they can live comfortably without racking up debt). Neither is it the government's responsibility.

3. When you use general terms like "livable wage" or "live comfortably", you are being dishonest. If you were honest, you would define those terms with precision. Does "living comfortably" include having a cell phone? How about cable TV? A car? Being able to go to a restaurant once or twice a week? Personal Internet access? Is having one television comfortable? How about two? Or three? Would you consider Air Jordans to be a requirement for being comfortable? All of these things cost money and if you want the government (or society) to ensure that everyone has enough money to "live comfortably" then you need to set some ground rules.