{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/27/2016 8:01:44 PM
2
Yeah, they absolutely do deserve to be above poverty level. If a business can't afford to pay full time staff a living wage, they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
English
-
Says who? You? Have fun subsidising the inept. You sound like one of those people on late-night tv ads that tells me I should use less water because some "developing" nation doesn't have as much. How is that my fault? You're completely missing the point. If you're bussing tables your whole life you don't deserve a "living" wage because you're obviously a loser. Plus, what's a "living" wage and who sets it? The state? The Fed? The owner of the company? If the owner says your wage is $5/hour and you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to work there. If a different place pays $20/hour to do the same job then go work there, however something tells me that scenario is highly unlikely unless the government is involved. Since the government doesn't actually produce anything and only take from others they have no problem paying way over value on labor. Who states a "living" wage that's reasonable? $40k/year in one town may be extravagant and $75k/year in another town may be a pittance. What if the person earning $75k/year moves to the town where they only pay $40k/year? The economy and the marketplace are an interesting thing. It always self-corrects over time. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.
-
[quote]Says who? You? Have fun subsidising the inept. You sound like one of those people on late-night tv ads that tells me I should use less water because some "developing" nation doesn't have as much. How is that my fault? You're completely missing the point. If you're bussing tables your whole life you don't deserve a "living" wage because you're obviously a loser. Plus, what's a "living" wage and who sets it? The state? The Fed? The owner of the company? If the owner says your wage is $5/hour and you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to work there. If a different place pays $20/hour to do the same job then go work there, however something tells me that scenario is highly unlikely unless the government is involved. Since the government doesn't actually produce anything and only take from others they have no problem paying way over value on labor. Who states a "living" wage that's reasonable? $40k/year in one town may be extravagant and $75k/year in another town may be a pittance. What if the person earning $75k/year moves to the town where they only pay $40k/year? The economy and the marketplace are an interesting thing. It always self-corrects over time. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.[/quote] the average cost of a studio apartment in new york city is $1782 a month and the minimum wage is $9.00 there if someone worked 40hrs a week at minimum wage they would make about $1440 a month, not even enough to pay their rent let alone utilities and other expenses like food
-
Exactly my point. My mortgage is $600/month. I can't afford $1500/month to rent a tiny apartment and I don't want roommates. Either I work a better paying job or more than one job or I live somewhere else. Socialism can't fix any of this.
-
Do you believe in "job based" income? Ie based on the market, if you're a doctor you should be paid more than a teacher as an example.
-
For sure I do. But I also believe anyone putting in full time hours should be able to live off that. I'm not saying a bus boy should be living in luxury. But they should be able to pay rent and buy groceries. Honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
-
I guess I would ask, who determines that? What has value, what job is worth more than another's, what determines poverty, etc? Is it the government or the free market? Also with that premise which I obviously (no surprise I'm sure) disagree with, who is to say "how much is too much?" So I've been thinking of an example and if it's bad I apologize but it's the simplest and easiest way I can think if it. Let's say I own/manage a restaurant. After paying for all the lights, building, food, etc I am left with $100. I employ a bus boy, hostess, waiter and cook. I take $50 for myself $20 for the cook $15 for the waiter $10 for the bus boy (because I think it's harder work) $5 for the hostess $5 is the state/federal minimum wage. $10 is the minimum to "exceed" the poverty line. If the federal/state government passed a law now requiring all employees be paid a minimum of $10 here are the possible scenarios. A) Pass it to the consumer - I don't want to fire anyone. So I raise the cost of my meals. (Possible negative side effects are less customers = less money = firing someone/bankruptcy) B) Pass on the work - I fire the hostess as I can easily do that myself and keep everyone else's pay the same and the consumer cost the same ($5 for hostess is put into my pay or whatever else I decide) C) Spread the wealth - everyone takes a "cut" in pay to make up the difference for the hostess. D) I take a cut - instead of me making $50 I take a cut to make up the difference. Now if you were a business owner who's goal ultimately is to make money which one is more likely to be chosen. Also comes the question, should the government tell private business owners what to do, how much they can make, etc? Remember the affordable care act. Many businesses just cut people's hours to make it legal for them to not have to give them health care. IF that was unfair the government certainly didn't think so when they wrote the law.
