It's not about the minimum wage it's about life.

[tres borrachos]

What any given person wants isn't really germane to how society should be organized.

Which is why sane people reject the nonsense you propose.

 

[Kal'Stang]

All this hoopla over "$15.00/hr LIVING WAGE!!!" and "Business will quit hiring!!" and "Just get more skills get paid more!!" it all misses the point. It's not about the wage. Not really.
It's about the choices made with the money you have. You can't live off 8.50 an hour? Why? 12.50 an hour? Why? What are your life choices and priorities that made such an amount "unlivable?"

Stop, before you say anything about it's not fair poor people can't... SHUT IT. That line holds no weight with me. LIFE, isn't fair, deal with it.

Now, back to my point, you can in fact survive off 8.50 an hour, 10, 12, 14 an hour. You can make this work for you. But you have to make smart choices, yes you will end up making some sacrifices but that, that is life. All this "Living wage" crap says to me really is "We shouldn't have to make smart choices, we should get what we want!" To which all those talking about the costs to businesses are making the wrong points:

"Great, you claim you need $15/hr because you just can't live off current min-wage. Is there some magical property about a few more dollars that's going to make you suddenly moneywise, sacrifice to achieve your wants and live a better life? Or will you just increase the amount of bad choices and now that you've gotten more you'll instead of making right choices just demand more and more...?"

Cause really, that's what this is about, responsibility. 15hr is a nice income, I won't lie. But is it the income that's the problem or the choices and priorities that are the true problem?

A "living wage" isn't about luxury items. It's about making enough to pay just the bills without having to get help from the government. In today's world that means: Rent or house payments along with tax on that property if you own it, phone bill, electricity, heating bill, water bill, car payments, car insurance, car maintenance, health insurance, some jobs require internet service so that's another bill, clothing, food, some basic necessities like toilet paper etc etc etc. All of those things are needed in today's world for most people. Unless you live in a city where there's public transportation, in which case you just have to pay for that transportation and the car payments that I mentioned don't apply. Everything else does. That is what most people are wanting when they say that they should be getting a "living wage".

Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[jonny5]

Necessary in a moral sense. What ought to be is more important than what would be nice.

Using others as nothing but a means to an end is what is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Animals use other animals for meat, as a means to an end. An employee uses an employer as nothing more than a means to an end of subsistence. Why is the employer doing the same thing wrong?

 

[Paleocon]

Why is it wrong? Animals use other animals for meat, as a means to an end.

Humans are moral agents, animals do all sorts of things that are not acceptable among humans.

An employee uses an employer as nothing more than a means to an end of subsistence. Why is the employer doing the same thing wrong?

You're going to need to justify this statement, unless the employee is defrauding the employer through laziness, I don't see how it is that he's treating him as an object.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Yes, that's why they have one. You're conflating between needing/not needing and having/not having.

Coupled with what you said earlier, that someone's need for a job creates a job, then I don't understand how we have unemployment at all, since, you know, everyone needs a job.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Coupled with what you said earlier, that someone's need for a job creates a job, then I don't understand how we have unemployment at all, since, you know, everyone needs a job.

Thank you for repeating that, Gonzo. That is what I meant when I told Palecon that you appeared to be using a combination of sarcasm and irony in your reply to him.

It kinda reminds me of a cartoon my wife once left for me. She knows I'm nuts about golf.

In the cartoon, the woman is saying to her husband (all decked out in golfing duds)..."So let me be sure I understand this. The fewer times you hit the ball...the better it is in golf."

The guy says, "Yup."

And she says, "So why hit it at all?"

If "the need for a job" actually created jobs...we'd be flooded with jobs right now.

 

[Paleocon]

Coupled with what you said earlier, that someone's need for a job creates a job, then I don't understand how we have unemployment at all, since, you know, everyone needs a job.

Because in reality the fact that a need exists doesn't make it filled. I doubt you really don't understand that.

 

[pinqy]

So, the number of jobs increases in response to the need, yes?

Coupled with what you said earlier, that someone's need for a job creates a job, then I don't understand how we have unemployment at all, since, you know, everyone needs a job.

I don't know that. Why does my 7 year old need a job? Why do my retired parents need a job?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Because in reality the fact that a need exists doesn't make it filled. I doubt you really don't understand that.

But you said that the need creates the job.

 

[Mason66]

But you said that the need creates the job.

Don't you want off this merry-go-round?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Don't you want off this merry-go-round?

Not at all. I really enjoy pinning people to their previous statements.

 

[Cephus]

Not at all. I really enjoy pinning people to their previous statements.

But it doesn't matter because some people, and there are a few of them in this very thread, couldn't care less if their positions are rational, so long as they make them feel good. All you're doing is trying to stick Jello to a wall with a knife. It's a waste of time.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

But it doesn't matter because some people, and there are a few of them in this very thread, couldn't care less if their positions are rational, so long as they make them feel good. All you're doing is trying to stick Jello to a wall with a knife. It's a waste of time.

But it's fun stabbing the jello.

I am seriously entertained by this. I think you are all underestimating the fun I'm having.

 

[Cephus]

But it's fun stabbing the jello.

I am seriously entertained by this. I think you are all underestimating the fun I'm having.

Good for you, unfortunately, people playing with trolls are just encouraging the trolls and that's making the whole forum less fun for everyone else.

 

[KevinKohler]

mike2810;1065732421]So should a kid in school (under 18) living at home make a living wage?

If they bring that level of value to the person they work for, yes.

I ask the same question, why have a minimum wage? If a business does not offer a fair wage, they won't be in business very long. No one would work for them.

Really? You don't study history? I literally GAVE you some quotes from an era in which companies en mass did NOT pay "fair" wages. And we are, right now, at this point in time, in the exact same spot again. Worker productivity is higher now than it has ever been, ever. Yet compensation has been FLAT for, what...the last....20 years? The median income for this country has remained steadfast in the low 40s for as long as I can remember. What's changed, however, is the number of hours people now have to work in order to achieve that median income.

Seems I read that the Labor Department has stated only about 3% of the workforce is at the minimum wage level. Take it what it is worth but someone who wipes down cars at a carwash should not expect to be able to live and support themselves and a family.

Actually, I used to work at a car wash in South Carolina, and I got paid 11 bucks an hour. Over 10 years ago. So, that's fail #1. Fail 2 is implying that elevating a mere 3% of work force would NOT have widespread effects, and generate upward pressure on wages.

 

[Paleocon]

But you said that the need creates the job.

Do you imagine society to be perfectly efficient? I certainly don't, though it appears that that may be the source of your confusion.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Do you imagine society to be perfectly efficient? I certainly don't, though it appears that that may be the source of your confusion.

Given your operating premise that "need for jobs creates jobs," would it not follow that as the need for jobs increases, so too does the number of jobs? After all, the need is the impetus - the creative motivation, if you will - for these jobs to be created. So, increased need leads to increased jobs, right?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Good for you, unfortunately, people playing with trolls are just encouraging the trolls and that's making the whole forum less fun for everyone else.

Then you guys needs different hobbies.

This is my hobby.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

I don't know that. Why does my 7 year old need a job? Why do my retired parents need a job?

According to Paleocon, it's really only married men that should need jobs.

 

[Paleocon]

So, increased need leads to increased jobs, right?

Yes, an increased population will result in their being more jobs.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Yes, an increased population will result in their being more jobs.

So, all things being equal...

...immigration creates jobs.

Sweet. That's good to know.

 

[pinqy]

According to Paleocon, it's really only married men that should need jobs.

Just because he's wrong does not mean you are right. Not everybody needs a job, and labor market analysis is not based on need as that is not an objective measure.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Just because he's wrong does not mean you are right. Not everybody needs a job, and labor market analysis is not based on need as that is not an objective measure.

Oh, that's Paleocon's line, the one about the need creating the jobs and that the need is inherent in the person irrespective of if they are currently employed or not. I'm just leading him down the Socratic path so he can see how ridiculous it is.

My guess is he's not going to get it.