What about the stupid?

[Hard Truth]

No...moron. You didn't read the part where I wrote, "no one deserves a wage." Wages are based on merit, not on class or categorization. Perhaps if liberals weren't so obsessed with classifying people (white, black, rich, poor, stupid, smart, etc.) people who deserved a wage based on their personal worth would get more.

That does not contradict what I wrote, unless you are now claiming to oppose minimum wage*. (which implies some deserving of at least a minimum pay for their work)

I'll try to phrase this so you can understand better. If you believe that wages are based solely on merit and someone gets minimum wage, that implies that you think that is all they deserve for their work.


*"Hard Truth: Is there a limit to how little an employer can pay such a person before it should be illegal exploitation?

Velvet Elvis: Yes. It's called "minimum wage.""

Apparently when conservative/libertarian positions are restated slightly differently, but more honestly, they are hard for the conservative/libertarian to recognize.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I never read an argument against living wages etc that didn't say that lowest wage working poor deserve to be paid poorly.

Either you're being disingenuous or you haven't been paying attention. What conservatives typically say people deserve to be paid is the wage THEY AGREE to receive in exchange for their labor. They support people's freedom to make their own decisions without meddlers butting into their contracts and negotiations.

The argument is that their bad life choices (ie. dropping out, having a child too early etc, lack of English speaking ability, failing to learn a marketable skill etc.] are the reasons why they are paid poorly

They're paid the wage they voluntarily agreed to accept. Of course, people who are in a position to have no other options than low wage jobs likely made choices at some point that had something to do with where they are now, but there's no point in spinning that into blame or "getting what they deserve."

The argument is that the lowest wage jobs are intended only for teenagers working their first job and only losers continue to work minimum wage jobs later in life.

Minimum wage jobs are for whoever wants to work at that wage (and who the employer is willing to employ at that wage).

In fact, that is virtually the only argument for opposing the minimum wage or other laws helping the working poor.

What other argument is there for opposing regulations to help the working poor?

Actually it helps some of the poor and hurts some of the poor to inflate wages legislatively. You're still trying to spin together an evil straw man of your opponents' argument.

Another premise of my questions that is factually true, but ignored by those who oppose regulations to help the working poor, is that there exists people who work hard at a full time job yet can not afford a decent quality of life. As that infamous McDonald's budgetting information demonstrated, working two full time jobs does not bring in enough money to pay for clothing, heating and health care after paying for the cheapest food and shelter available.

It's not up to you or me to decide what some other guy John accepts for a job, how he spends his money, and all the rest. Nor are we compelled to act to change his life as soon as he becomes dissatisfied with it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I never read an argument against living wages etc that didn't say that lowest wage working poor deserve to be paid poorly. The argument is that their bad life choices (ie. dropping out, having a child too early etc, lack of English speaking ability, failing to learn a marketable skill etc.] are the reasons why they are paid poorly and that they don't deserve anything more than what the marketplace wants to give them. The argument is that the lowest wage jobs are intended only for teenagers working their first job and only losers continue to work minimum wage jobs later in life. In fact, that is virtually the only argument for opposing the minimum wage or other laws helping the working poor.

What other argument is there for opposing regulations to help the working poor?

Another premise of my questions that is factually true, but ignored by those who oppose regulations to help the working poor, is that there exists people who work hard at a full time job yet can not afford a decent quality of life. As that infamous McDonald's budgetting information demonstrated, working two full time jobs does not bring in enough money to pay for clothing, heating and health care after paying for the cheapest food and shelter available.

Once you have accepted the premise that ANY full time employment should provide a "living wage" (whatever that is) you are then forced to decide whether that be wage be paid directly by the employer (via gov't mandate) or supplemented with tax money taken from "the rich" using social "safety net" programs.

Care to define exactly what a "decent quality of life" is?

 

[Hard Truth]

Once you have accepted the premise that ANY full time employment should provide a "living wage" (whatever that is) you are then forced to decide whether that be wage be paid directly by the employer (via gov't mandate) or supplemented with tax money taken from "the rich" using social "safety net" programs.

Care to define exactly what a "decent quality of life" is?

I don't support government subsidies for low wage workers, as is done for employers like Walmart and others.

My position is that a full time worker should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) Paying someone so little that they can not afford these basics is immoral exploitation and should be illegal. Attaining these basic necessities should not require working 80 hours per week and a full time worker shouldn't have to sleep in his car or on the street. If a worker is worth paying, they are worth paying enough.

I don't buy the argument that a worker taking an insufficient wage is making a free choice. In most cases they are desperate and taking the only option. We can see from other countries that desperate people will work for pennies a day in horribly dangerous jobs when they have no real choice.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't support government subsidies for low wage workers, as is done for employers like Walmart and others.

My position is that a full time worker should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) Paying someone so little that they can not afford these basics is immoral exploitation and should be illegal. Attaining these basic necessities should not require working 80 hours per week and a full time worker shouldn't have to sleep in his car. If a worker is worth paying, they are worth paying enough.

The solution, for your desired "local" minimum wage, seems obvious - have your local gov't raise the minimum wage. One of two things will happen: either the law will be wonderful creating the desried outcome or the employment rate will drop locally as people flock to surrounding areas that offer lower prices for the same goods/services.

 

[solletica]

Can't address all your questions (there's like a dozen) so I'll go with unionization. Unions are breaking company's and not letting them compete in a global market not to mention what they are doing to state and county budgets. They do more harm than good, cost more jobs than they create and end up lowering peoples wages when they lose their good factory job and have to go to work flipping burgers.

Unions can't do anything until a company signs a union security agreement. The notion that they have the power to enforce their will without consent is just another limbaugh cliche.

 

[Hard Truth]

The solution, for your desired "local" minimum wage, seems obvious - have your local gov't raise the minimum wage. One of two things will happen: either the law will be wonderful creating the desried outcome or the employment rate will drop locally as people flock to surrounding areas that offer lower prices for the same goods/services.

That is done in many places and it can be an acceptable solution for workers as long as the areas with lower wages also have a lower cost of living.

The downside that might need to be addressed is that it can lead to more urban/suburban sprawl as employers move away from the city to get cheaper workers. (also lower rents and other factors effecting the cost of doing business) Sprawl requires that everyone drive more, destroys natural areas and has many other negative environmental impacts.

Sprawl would be less likely if the big employers (and housing developers) truly paid the cost of their move to the new area-the cost of providing them with roads, water, police etc. Unfortunately, short sighted local politicians find an advantage to the extra income for their governments (and campaign contributions/bribes) when a major employer comes in and they don't charge them for all the real costs. The employers play localities against each other to get breaks on the real costs they incur and politicians don't care if the deal actually costs more than it brings in in the long run. This suggests that these decisions can not be made on a strictly local level. All the consequences need to be taken into consideration.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is done in many places and it can be an acceptable solution for workers as long as the areas with lower wages also have a lower cost of living.

The downside that might need to be addressed is that it can lead to more urban/suburban sprawl as employers move away from the city to get cheaper workers. (also lower rents and other factors effecting the cost of doing business) Sprawl requires that everyone drive more, destroys natural areas and has many other negative environmental impacts.

Sprawl would be less likely if the big employers (and housing developers) truly paid the cost of their move to the new area-the cost of providing them with roads, water, police etc. Unfortunately, short sighted local politicians find an advantage to the extra income for their governments (and campaign contributions/bribes) when a major employer comes in and they don't charge them for all the real costs. The employers play localities against each other to get breaks on the real costs they incur and politicians don't care if the deal actually costs more than it brings in in the long run. This suggests that these decisions can not be made on a strictly local level. All the consequences need to be taken into consideration.

That is already being done as many choose to live in the lower cost suburbs and work in the better paying cities. This is especially evident upon retirement, as many then move to lower tax, lower cost areas as working (wages) is no longer a prime consideration.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Unions can't do anything until a company signs a union security agreement. The notion that they have the power to enforce their will without consent is just another limbaugh cliche.

A strike is enforcing your will without consent.

 

[Neomalthusian]

My position is that a full time worker should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation.

This is like saying "two people should not have children until they are financially and professionally stable so that they are able to care adequately for the child." I believe that, as does almost everyone, but enforcing that into reality a whole other ball game with potentially profound consequences. Causing that to actually happen requires controlling people's decisions.

Paying someone so little that they can not afford these basics is immoral exploitation and should be illegal.

This would backfire on you very, very badly. Personal finances are none of employers' business. Making wages need-based would result in employers actually avoiding hiring people who need the money most, because if the wage doesn't end up cutting it for the employee, the employer has suddenly broken the law.

No. A wage is in exchange for the specific labor. It is the value of the tasks being completed for the employer, and the willingness of the worker to do those tasks in exchange for that wage. And that's it. What the person does with that money is none of the employer's business.

I don't buy the argument that a worker taking an insufficient wage is making a free choice. In most cases they are desperate and taking the only option.

Your refusal to accept reality doesn't make your version true. People have countless options. Literally too many to count. It is up to them what they want to try. It is up to you what you want to try. It is up to me what I want to try.

We can see from other countries that desperate people will work for pennies a day in horribly dangerous jobs when they have no real choice.

"Real" choice? The choice is real so long as they are not literally enslaved/imprisoned. If they're free to walk away from the job, and to have not accepted the job in the first place, then the choice is very real and very free. Their circumstances without the job does not change the freedom of their choice.

 

[Fenton]

There are people who by no fault of their own were burded with physical and mental handicapps that are insurmountable.

Those individuals deserve some assistance, maybe not all from the Goverment but assistance just the same.

Then there are those who squandered their oppurtunity to become educated, employable, respected and trusted citizens.

Their stupidity is no ones fault but their own, and to think we should subsidize their mistakes through tax payers dollars, that those who made the right choices now have to share in the irresponsible behaviour of those who acted foolishly is one of the most corrupt, bankrupt and arbitrarilly irresponsible concepts that they're responsible for.

Liberals have always pushed for this Universal Societal sharing of the mistakes of the individual just as they've pushed for the Universal Societal " sharing " of the results of hard work, good choices and responsible behaviour.

Those who have profited from making intelligent decisions are demonized and offered up as examples of the innate inequity of our system.

The only thing that's guaranteed in this society is the oppurtunity to make free choices, even bad ones. It's clear that for some that responsibillity is too much to bear so they construct false narratives and make accustations NOT to level the playing field, but to justify handouts and a free ride.

Its dispacable.

Its part of the new generation, this concept of " what can this Country do for me ". It's hard to believe there are in any great number people over the age of 7 that walk around with a full blown entitlment attitude but " HardTruth's " a great example.

Unfortunately these people are allowed to chose our path with the last two Presidential Elections and the damage to our Country is telling.

 

[solletica]

A strike is enforcing your will without consent.

Wrong . When an employer signs a union security agreement, they are consenting to allowing any employee to refuse to work, as there is no requirement for an employee to show up to work in the contract.

Employers who sign such an agreement are permitted to terminate any employee they wish in accordance with the terms of the contract, including all of them. They just can't hire non-union employees once such an agreement is signed.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Liberals have always pushed for this Universal Societal sharing of the mistakes of the individual just as they've pushed for the Universal Societal " sharing " of the results of hard work, good choices and responsible behaviour.

Those who have profited from making intelligent decisions are demonized and offered up as examples of the innate inequity of our system.

The only thing that's guaranteed in this society is the oppurtunity to make free choices, even bad ones. It's clear that for some that responsibillity is too much to bear so they construct false narratives and make accustations NOT to level the playing field, but to justify handouts and a free ride.

Its dispacable.

A cogent and searing criticism. Well stated.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Wrong . When an employer signs a union security agreement, they are consenting to allowing any employee to refuse to work, as there is no requirement for an employee to show up to work in the contract.

Employers who sign such an agreement are permitted to terminate any employee they wish in accordance with the terms of the contract, including all of them. They just can't hire non-union employees once such an agreement is signed.

What are you some kinda union organizer or something?:lol:

 

[Hard Truth]

.....

This would backfire on you very, very badly. Personal finances are none of employers' business. Making wages need-based would result in employers actually avoiding hiring people who need the money most, because if the wage doesn't end up cutting it for the employee, the employer has suddenly broken the law...

I am not saying that wages should be based on an individual worker's needs. Rather I advocate setting the minimum wage to a level that a person working full time can meet their basic needs in that region.

I don't believe that a person working in a coal mine for pennies a day is making a free choice, they are just making the best choice out of a few bad options.

To me that is one of the key differences between a liberal and a consertive/libertarian. Liberals recognizes that some people have very few good choices available to them and that there are people who will take advantage of that and exploit them without mercy. The marketplace alone has not been proven effective in curbing such abuses. Minmum wages, laws governing working conditions and a protected right for workers to organize are necessary to prevent exploitation of desperate people. This is not theoretical, the varying quality of life in different parts of the world prove it.

 

[Mason66]

I don't understand why people like this poster thinks everybody needs to be rich.

If the person that he calls stupid can only make mínimum wage, then his life style should be such that what he makes covers what he needs to spend.

Why is what each of have is not enough?

 

[Hard Truth]

I don't understand why people like this poster thinks everybody needs to be rich.

If the person that he calls stupid can only make mínimum wage, then his life style should be such that what he makes covers what he needs to spend.

Why is what each of have is not enough?

Who said anything about everybody being rich? In my view, if someone works full time they should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) That is enough. We live in a prosperous society with plenty to go around, we can afford this, it just needs to be a priority.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Who said anything about everybody being rich? In my view, if someone works full time they should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) That is enough. We live in a prosperous society with plenty to go around, we can afford this, it just needs to be a priority.

Who is "we"? If you choose to give a person something, that's one thing, but to expect everyone to provide for another's support is not what this country is about...

 

[Dubliner]

Who said anything about everybody being rich? In my view, if someone works full time they should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) That is enough. We live in a prosperous society with plenty to go around, we can afford this, it just needs to be a priority.

If a person works full time, they should be paid the amount that said person and their employer agree too. If the person thinks they are worth more than that, they don't have to accept the job. At minimum wage, the person is netting somewhere more than $14,000. A person can live with a roommate(s) to decrease costs of living. Clothes can be bought at Salvation Army/Goodwill for very cheap. Public transportation (at least where I live) would cost $2, although it may very at other places. A single person should be able to live off of minimum wage, albeit they will have to sacrifice.

 

[Mason66]

Who said anything about everybody being rich? In my view, if someone works full time they should be paid at least enough to afford a place to live, decent nutrition, enough clothes and public transportation. (the dollar value depends on location) That is enough. We live in a prosperous society with plenty to go around, we can afford this, it just needs to be a priority.

Who says that cannot be paid with what somebody makes at their mínimum wage job?

 

[Mason66]

If a person works full time, they should be paid the amount that said person and their employer agree too. If the person thinks they are worth more than that, they don't have to accept the job. At minimum wage, the person is netting somewhere more than $14,000. A person can live with a roommate(s) to decrease costs of living. Clothes can be bought at Salvation Army/Goodwill for very cheap. Public transportation (at least where I live) would cost $2, although it may very at other places. A single person should be able to live off of minimum wage, albeit they will have to sacrifice.

Don't forget about the money the government gives them once a year right around April.

 

[Jack Hays]

Who is "we"? If you choose to give a person something, that's one thing, but to expect everyone to provide for another's support is not what this country is about...

Good evening, AP.:2wave:

As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

[Dubliner]

Don't forget about the money the government gives them once a year right around April.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with what you are talking about. Could you elaborate?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Good evening, AP.:2wave:

As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Good evening 2m. I'm not as worried about running out of money as I am about devaluing that precious resource...

 

[Jack Hays]

Good evening 2m. I'm not as worried about running out of money as I am about devaluing that precious resource...

I take your point, but MT's quote is too good not to use.eace