Get A Damn Job!

[Mycroft]

A win-win for whom? Not the average working american that's for sure but for some reason or other the republicans like to keep the top ten percent, the top ten percent. Go figure?

A win-win for the globalists. You are right...not good at all for Main Street America.

But it's not just Republicans. The Democrats are part of that win-win, as well.

There's a reason they are called the UniParty.

Outflank the Uniparty – Article V - Article V Blog

Subtitle: Court and Country. Article V opponents and some proponents view the Article V COS movement through the lens of our national political parties. The time is long past to dislodge oneself from this paradigm. To remain in this mindset is unhelpful at best, and destructive at worst, because...

articlevblog.com

 

[goldkam]

The question has become not 'if' the minimum wage should be changed. Rather it is a question of 'how' reform should occur.

 

[mike2810]

Well, I'll tell you, covid has done wonders for pay rates for retail workers in CT. At my company, starting rates have gone up almost 2 dollars, in the past year. Accross the board. A new hire coming with exp, someone we might have brought on at 13, we now are bringing in at 15. Someone with a specialized skill set, like meat cutting, or forklift operating, might have been 18 or so, now coming in at over 20. And the folks already employed and now "underpaid" have solid leverage to ask for more. I haven't denied a single request for pay increase this past year. Hell, one woman just got an extra 7k per year added to her salary.

This tells me that my company, and others like it...can AFFORD to pay more, but haven't, because we haven't HAD to. Till now.

Are the retail companies currently at full staffing levels ? In AZ, they are not. Especially in the food business.

 

[Deuce]

Yes they are. There are plenty of help wanted signs around where I live, and they all are paying $15.

A help wanted sign does not indicated someone has trouble filling positions.

The manager putting up a passive-aggressive rant about nobody wanting to work is an indication of this sort of trouble.

 

[ModG23]

Absolutely. The entire tipping situation is getting out of hand. Tipping has been morphed from a kind gesture to staff for their service into a necessity for them to put food on the table.

I agree. They shouldn’t have to rely on tips to make an hourly wage.

“Low wages are the most common reason people cite for leaving food service work. But in one recent survey, more than half of hospitality workers who've quit said no amount of pay would get them to return.

That's because for many, leaving food service had a lot to do also with its high-stress culture: exhausting work, unreliable hours, no benefits and so many rude customers.“

 

[KevinKohler]

Are the retail companies currently at full staffing levels ? In AZ, they are not. Especially in the food business.

Nope. And we're scraping the underside of the bottom of the barrel, in terms of quality staffing.

 

[Glitch]

Face it $33,000 a year is NOT enough to live on ....... $64,500 would be enough to live on and that will not allow for a second home in the mountains or on a lake.

That depends on where you live and your expenses. I could live off of $33K, but that is because my home and vehicles are paid for and my only expenses are property taxes and utilities. Everything depends on one's geographical location and their monthly expenses. There is no single value for what someone can live off. It is going to vary by individual. For example, you are going to need more money living in the coastal areas than if you would living more than 300 miles from the coast, because that is where 80% of the population wants to live. You are going to need more money if you pay rent, have a mortgage, or a vehicle loan to pay off.

Minimum wage was established by Democrats as a payback to unions for their support. Since union wages are based upon the minimum wage, a Union welder who earns four times scale will get a $1/hour increase for every $0.25/hour increase in the minimum wage. It is nothing more than a scam and payback for political favors rendered.

People are paid rock-bottom wages when they have absolutely no marketable skill to offer. Which typically means high-school students, and those who are brand new to the workforce. People who have even just a year of experience now have a marketable skill and can demand more than minimum wage. Nobody works for minimum wage their entire life, just when they are brand new to the workforce and have no skills.

 

[ModG23]

That depends on where you live and your expenses. I could live off of $33K, but that is because my home and vehicles are paid for and my only expenses are property taxes and utilities. Everything depends on one's geographical location and their monthly expenses. There is no single value for what someone can live off. It is going to vary by individual. For example, you are going to need more money living in the coastal areas than if you would living more than 300 miles from the coast, because that is where 80% of the population wants to live. You are going to need more money if you pay rent, have a mortgage, or a vehicle loan to pay off.

Minimum wage was established by Democrats as a payback to unions for their support. Since union wages are based upon the minimum wage, a Union welder who earns four times scale will get a $1/hour increase for every $0.25/hour increase in the minimum wage. It is nothing more than a scam and payback for political favors rendered.

People are paid rock-bottom wages when they have absolutely no marketable skill to offer. Which typically means high-school students, and those who are brand new to the workforce. People who have even just a year of experience now have a marketable skill and can demand more than minimum wage. Nobody works for minimum wage their entire life, just when they are brand new to the workforce and have no skills.

You are so wrong. Many people were laid off at the beginning of the recession and if they were older they had to take min wage jobs. Healthcare is a big expense for employers so if you are over 55 the chance you will either get a buyout if you are union or just laid off.

 

[noonereal]

No, they don't actually. You need to read United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) and get a clue.



Which is why FDR completely replaced all nine Supreme Court justices between 1937 and 1943, because that is what leftist fascist socialists do. Anyone who disagreed with FDR or was an obstacle in achieving his goal, was removed.

LOL, why don't you try not paying your FICA and then tell this to the judge.

 

[noonereal]

That depends on where you live and your expenses. I could live off of $33K, but that is because my home and vehicles are paid for and my only expenses are property taxes and utilities.

same here and I could not possibly live on $33,000. Property taxes alone would take half that income.

Of course I live in a civilized state with many conveniences.

 

[bluesmoke]

Not so. Let’s say someone who was working full-time for $15/hour ($600/week) now gets $10/hour ($400/week) in state UI benefits plus $7.50/hour ($300/week) as a federal UI bonus - that makes them paid $17.50/hour ($700/week) not to work and leaves them able to make tax-free cash doing (off the books) side jobs (like mowing lawns or babysitting).

The employer must offer at least $2.50/hour ($100/week) more (than $15/hour) just to have them break even - more if that removes their chance to keep making tax-free cash doing (off the books) side jobs and adds commuting expenses plus ‘windshield time’

Define a “living wage”.

What is so right about paying someone more in UI benefits than they got while working?

See post #15.

A living wage (LW) is a wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living (Cost of Living or COL).

A standard of living is the amount and quality of goods and services available to a given population, such as in a regional area, incl basic material factors such as income, gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy, and economic opportunity.

It would be the COL by region that would be the “min wage” since costs vary enough by region, not just state, to make a diff in the standard of living and thus what should be the min wage. Wages would be adjusted annually by COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment).

A living wage would put many earners above the max allowable income for gov benefits and thus lower that cost to the govt.

An example of what some part of a LW system might look like in terms of hourly wages:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Given a $15 MW, a number of regions' LW would be less.

More in UI benefits would be right if only to achieve a LW level of income.

"See post #15."

Why are you so against those with the least at one time in history getting, what few of them, a small break in the worst of times?

Let's say rich people and large corps, on the premise of them investing in business and employment growth, because they're the job creators and benefactors of the employee, growth that incl higher wages, are given one of, if not the, largest tax breaks in history, but keep all the $ for themselves to add to their own already record wealth and those at the bottom get nothing. Oh, wait, that did happen with the Trump/Republican tax break that gave the whole pie of a tax plan benefit to the rich and large corps and the rest got the crumbs from the pie pan. And you nit-pick those at the bottom of the income level getting a few bucks during an economically crippling pandemic that those of higher income levels and large corps have hardly felt, at all. And you further complain when they take a bottom-of-the-barrel cash job of mowing lawns and baby sitting, as if that's going to have them ripping of the system and driving Cadillacs and sipping fine wine. When that's always been shown to be what hard work and "get a damn job" is all about. What a piece of work.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A living wage (LW) is a wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living (Cost of Living or COL).

A standard of living is the amount and quality of goods and services available to a given population, such as in a regional area, incl basic material factors such as income, gross domestic product (GDP), life expectancy, and economic opportunity.

It would be the COL by region that would be the “min wage” since costs vary enough by region, not just state, to make a diff in the standard of living and thus what should be the min wage. Wages would be adjusted annually by COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment).

A living wage would put many earners above the max allowable income for gov benefits and thus lower that cost to the govt.

An example of what some part of a LW system might look like in terms of hourly wages:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Given a $15 MW, a number of regions' LW would be less.

More in UI benefits would be right if only to achieve a LW level of income.

"See post #15."

Why are you so against those with the least at one time in history getting, what few of them, a small break in the worst of times?

Let's say rich people and large corps, on the premise of them investing in business and employment growth, because they're the job creators and benefactors of the employee, growth that incl higher wages, are given one of, if not the, largest tax breaks in history, but keep all the $ for themselves to add to their own already record wealth and those at the bottom get nothing. Oh, wait, that did happen with the Trump/Republican tax break that gave the whole pie of a tax plan benefit to the rich and large corps and the rest got the crumbs from the pie pan. And you nit-pick those at the bottom of the income level getting a few bucks during an economically crippling pandemic that those of higher income levels and large corps have hardly felt, at all. And you further complain when they take a bottom-of-the-barrel cash job of mowing lawns and baby sitting, as if that's going to have them ripping of the system and driving Cadillacs and sipping fine wine. When that's always been shown to be what hard work and "get a damn job" is all about. What a piece of work.

I agree that COL, thus a rational MW level, should vary by region. That is the best argument against a having federal MW which is higher than that established by the lowest COL region in the nation.

The problem is that you can’t have a regionally variable COL while having a fixed (federal) poverty level or “safety net”benefit levels. The same regional (COL based) variation should be built into the federal income tax code bracket rates, SNAP benefits and Social Security retirement benefits.

 

[bluesmoke]

I agree that COL, thus a rational MW level, should vary by region. That is the best argument against a having federal MW which is higher than that established by the lowest COL region in the nation.

The problem is that you can’t have a regionally variable COL while having a fixed (federal) poverty level or “safety net”benefit levels. The same regional (COL based) variation should be built into the federal income tax code bracket rates, SNAP benefits and Social Security retirement benefits.

Can you give an example of where the LW would be lower than the fed pov level? At a LW, fed/state govt assistance would not apply. I have previously recommended that SS be adjusted to LW for those whose total income in retirement is below LW calculation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can you give an example of where the LW would be lower than the fed pov level? At a LW, fed/state govt assistance would not apply. I have previously recommended that SS be adjusted to LW for those whose total income in retirement is below LW calculation.

The FPL is based on household size and total household income while paychecks are not. Unfortunately, SS is now means tested - for those with “too much” other income, up to half of their SS becomes taxable.

 

[Deuce]

The lefty media's lies never end and they don't even realize how stupid they sound. Here's an article about how Republican Governors cutting off extra federal unemployment benefits aren't really getting these people to go out looking for jobs. BUT these poor people are hurting and can't pay their bills now and are having trouble affording food and other basic living necessities, with just about all employers looking for workers. Well, no duh! Get A Damn Job! The left want to let them keep not working even when jobs are available and pay them enough money to live on.

How GOP governors are hurting their own citizens

Republican governors axing federal jobless benefits have ignored legitimate hardships in their states as millions of displaced workers try to get back on their feet.

www.yahoo.com

Jobs that pay enough to live on are getting filled, dude. There was an ice cream shop that upped its pay to $15/hour and got literally hundreds of applications. An ice cream shop!

You want people to get a job and also want that job to not pay them enough to feed themselves. Why? What makes you think you deserve that product or service if you're not willing to pay for it?

 

[bluesmoke]

The FPL is based on household size and total household income while paychecks are not. Unfortunately, SS is now means tested - for those with “too much” other income, up to half of their SS becomes taxable.

I'm saying the means testing be based on a LW income. SS would be so adjusted for those whose total income was, incl more than SS, below LW. That would eliminate some amount of SNAP and other govt assistance, especially for non-SS incomes. However, I'd be fine with accomplishing the same through distribution of that diff via our tax system, like you described, but as cash, not benes.

 

[Razoo]

The lefty media's lies never end and they don't even realize how stupid they sound. Here's an article about how Republican Governors cutting off extra federal unemployment benefits aren't really getting these people to go out looking for jobs. BUT these poor people are hurting and can't pay their bills now and are having trouble affording food and other basic living necessities, with just about all employers looking for workers. Well, no duh! Get A Damn Job! The left want to let them keep not working even when jobs are available and pay them enough money to live on.

How GOP governors are hurting their own citizens

Republican governors axing federal jobless benefits have ignored legitimate hardships in their states as millions of displaced workers try to get back on their feet.

www.yahoo.com

Millions upon millions lost jobs because thousands upon thousands of business owners went out of business as a result of Trump lying to the nation about COVID 19. Death count over 654,000 as we speak.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm saying the means testing be based on a LW income. SS would be so adjusted for those whose total income was, incl more than SS, below LW. That would eliminate some amount of SNAP and other govt assistance, especially for non-SS incomes. However, I'd be fine with accomplishing the same through distribution of that diff via our tax system, like you described, but as cash, not benes.

The result of such a LW based system would be that two workers (working side by side, for the same employer and doing the same job) would be compensated differently based on their (respective) household sizes. In other words, if worker A had no dependents (and no other household income) then they would be compensated less than worker B who had 2 dependents (and no other household income).

 

[911Sparky]

That is precisely the problem - the higher the US MW (entry level wage) gets then the higher the US cost of living gets. The average SS retirement benefit is now about $18K/year - or the full-time equivalent of $8.65/hour. Why should an entry level McWorker have more income than a (fully-retired) senior?

You may be a little out of touch, the McDonalds near me has a help wanted sign offering $15 per hour.

 

[Razoo]

The lefty media's lies never end and they don't even realize how stupid they sound. Here's an article about how Republican Governors cutting off extra federal unemployment benefits aren't really getting these people to go out looking for jobs. BUT these poor people are hurting and can't pay their bills now and are having trouble affording food and other basic living necessities, with just about all employers looking for workers. Well, no duh! Get A Damn Job! The left want to let them keep not working even when jobs are available and pay them enough money to live on.

How GOP governors are hurting their own citizens

Republican governors axing federal jobless benefits have ignored legitimate hardships in their states as millions of displaced workers try to get back on their feet.

www.yahoo.com

THE ANSWER = more economic relief paid for with our tax dollars going to working class americans who will spend the money throughout the economy this energizing the jobs market. The people are the genius behind how to spend their tax dollars.

My goodness politicians are so out of touch and so are conservative robots who love their politicians.

6 months of economic relief checks sound about right.

Why do politicians believe they own out tax dollars after all they are the greatest mismanagers on planet earth?

 

[Razoo]

$15 per hour is less than $33,000 per year. That wage does not go far.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You may be a little out of touch, the McDonalds near me has a help wanted sign offering $15 per hour.

That did not answer the question posed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

$15 per hour is less than $33,000 per year. That wage does not go far.

The average Social Security retirement benefit is $18K/year, which goes even less far.

 

[911Sparky]

Both trickle down and trickle up are hoaxes. When you get rid of the high tax burden of the rich, who pay the very huge majority of income taxes collected, they often expand business more, hiring more people. These people work while the poor stay home doing Playstation 4 on their couches waiting for their government benefits. One set of people WORK, the others just sponge off others while not working.

Your post is wrong on several counts. First, no job was ever lost to a business tax increase. No job was ever created due to a tax cut. Businesses expand when the existing workforce is unable to meet sales demand, and they layoff employees when sales can no longer meet production. Sales occur when customers have money to spend on products and services, so trickle up is a thing. Also the stereotype that poor people sit at home playing video games is ridiculous, while I am sure this happens, the majority of the poor work at low wage jobs, and struggle to make ends meet, even working more than one job. Lack of education is definitely a factor, if you drop out of school finding a lucrative career will be tough, but not every student is cut out for college, so jobs must be available for those who can't get into college but still want to work hard and earn a decent living.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your post is wrong on several counts. First, no job was ever lost to a business tax increase. No job was ever created due to a tax cut. Businesses expand when the existing workforce is unable to meet sales demand, and they layoff employees when sales can no longer meet production. Sales occur when customers have money to spend on products and services, so trickle up is a thing. Also the stereotype that poor people sit at home playing video games is ridiculous, while I am sure this happens, the majority of the poor work at low wage jobs, and struggle to make ends meet, even working more than one job. Lack of education is definitely a factor, if you drop out of school finding a lucrative career will be tough, but not every student is cut out for college, so jobs must be available for those who can't get into college but still want to work hard and earn a decent living.

Many (millions) of those jobs are currently being filled by “undocumented” foreign nationals. Those who can’t ‘qualify’ for various “safety net” benefits have much more incentive to accept (and work harder in?) those jobs.

An employer (job creator) is unlikely to offer more in wages and/or fringe benefits than that required to attract and retain qualified labor. Why would an employer offer $20/hour (or more) if they are able to get (and keep) qualified labor while paying $15/hour (or less)?