(US) Do you support a $15 minimum wage?

[feek61]

Agreed. Basic clean shelter, food, and utilities should be within reach of any person working 40 hours a week. Allowances should also be made for providers of families, with each being workable on a case by case basis.

So by this logic a 16-year old bag-boy working 40 hrs at the grocery store should be able to afford shelter, food and utilities? Really? That has never and will never be the case. The thing about entry level positions is that they are not meant to be careers. These positions by their very nature are designed to only give a person a start and then they should move up to better positions.

This whole argument is absurd. Where do you think the money is really coming from for the increase? Increased wages mean increased prices for goods & services - nothing changes.

 

[Jayson1]

So by this logic a 16-year old bag-boy working 40 hrs at the grocery store should be able to afford shelter, food and utilities? Really? That has never and will never be the case. The thing about entry level positions is that they are not meant to be careers. These positions by their very nature are designed to only give a person a start and then they should move up to better positions.

This whole argument is absurd. Where do you think the money is really coming from for the increase? Increased wages mean increased prices for goods & services - nothing changes.

The money comes from giving people more money to put back into the economy. You don't think that if you gave that 16 year old boy more money he won't spend it?
Also I do think he should be able to afford shelter and food by working which I thought would be a good thing for the economy because you have to buy shelter and food. Which means more money being spent in the economy. That doesn't even deal with the issue that in modern times that 16 year old boy might actually be a 36 year old man since more adults are being forced into those kind of jobs.
Also if prices go up then you just raise wages up to constantly match it. I think the whole idea that prices will go up and hurt people only works if you raise wages and then wait another 10 years to do it again.

Jason

 

[Amaris]

So by this logic a 16-year old bag-boy working 40 hrs at the grocery store should be able to afford shelter, food and utilities? Really? That has never and will never be the case. The thing about entry level positions is that they are not meant to be careers. These positions by their very nature are designed to only give a person a start and then they should move up to better positions.

This whole argument is absurd. Where do you think the money is really coming from for the increase? Increased wages mean increased prices for goods & services - nothing changes.

What right do you claim where you can deny a 16 year old the opportunity to save as much money as possible for their future? The concept of an entry level position is outdated in the modern workforce, when a teen would have a starter job, and then move on to a career. Back when wages were decent, and careers often involved working for one company most of your working life, that made sense. It does not work that way anymore. What you propose is age discrimination, because you cannot accept a 16 year old as worthy of adequate wages.

 

[scotthm]

The money comes from giving people more money to put back into the economy. You don't think that if you gave that 16 year old boy more money he won't spend it?

Where do you think that "more money" will come from? It will come from consumers in the form of inflation, which will erase the hoped for additional earning power of that 16 year old (assuming he's even able to remain employed if the cost of his labor becomes too high.)

The concept of an entry level position is outdated in the modern workforce

Not hardly. Everyone can't start at the top.
---------------

 

[nightwind1]

Where do you think that "more money" will come from? It will come from consumers in the form of inflation, which will erase the hoped for additional earning power of that 16 year old (assuming he's even able to remain employed if the cost of his labor becomes too high.)


Not hardly. Everyone can't start at the top.
---------------

I've got no problem paying twenty-five cents more for a Big Mac in order for the employee to make twice what they are making now. And that's how much studies show that doubling the minimum wage would add to the price of the Big Mac.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

And not everyone can be off the bottom of the wage scale. And the people at the bottom will always feel deprived and held down.
---------------

But, wasn't it argued that if all of those at the bottom got their shit together and did something to embetter themselves, and worked hard, they all could be better off? Are you now meaning to say that isn't so? That at least some people could work just as hard as anyone else and still not get off the bottom of the wage scale? Might there be some other things factoring into it, like connections and pure luck?

There you have it. For free-market capitalism to work, at least some people have to lose, no matter how hard they might work.

So by this logic a 16-year old bag-boy working 40 hrs at the grocery store should be able to afford shelter, food and utilities? Really? That has never and will never be the case. The thing about entry level positions is that they are not meant to be careers. These positions by their very nature are designed to only give a person a start and then they should move up to better positions.

This whole argument is absurd. Where do you think the money is really coming from for the increase? Increased wages mean increased prices for goods & services - nothing changes.

First off, I don't think a 16-year old should work 40 hrs, period. But if he did, yes, he should absolutely be paid as well as anybody else would, and as @Jayson1 has already mentioned, there are a lot of actual adults working these kind of jobs, and that's not even new.
Now, as we don't have bag-boys in Germany, I only this kind of job from American media, and you know who comes to my mind when I think of that job? Morgan Freeman at the end of "The Shawshank Redemption", when he got out of prison. He worked that very job, and his character Red is well over fifty at that point. And that scene was set in the 1960s. Your argument has been dated for about fifty years.

Let's come to the idea of entry level jobs. As you say, these kind of jobs were meant to a temporary thing before the real career starts and the money comes flowing in (I'm over-dramatizing here, obviously, to make a point). But, how many good-paying higher level jobs are there? Enough for everybody? If not, then at least some people are stuck at "entry level" jobs. (See the "Anybody can get rich, but not everybody" argument.)
Now, these people who simply cannot get upgraded to a better job will have to work in these kind of "entry level" positions for their whole career. Are they not supposed to be able to afford shelter, food and utilities?

Where do you think that "more money" will come from? It will come from consumers in the form of inflation, which will erase the hoped for additional earning power of that 16 year old (assuming he's even able to remain employed if the cost of his labor becomes too high.)

The concept of tying the minimum wage to inflation is not new, is part of the political debate (with a bipartisan majority of the U.S. population, even a majority of Republicans, in favor of it), and has been mentioned a few times in this thread already.

That you still use this argument, an imaginary problem with such an obvious solution, implies that you don't have any better arguments.

Is this implication wrong? Do you have better arguments? Because you're welcome to share any.

Not hardly. Everyone can't start at the top.
---------------

Everyone can't get to the top.

 

[Amaris]

But, wasn't it argued that if all of those at the bottom got their shit together and did something to embetter themselves, and worked hard, they all could be better off? Are you now meaning to say that isn't so? That at least some people could work just as hard as anyone else and still not get off the bottom of the wage scale? Might there be some other things factoring into it, like connections and pure luck?

There you have it. For free-market capitalism to work, at least some people have to lose, no matter how hard they might work.



First off, I don't think a 16-year old should work 40 hrs, period. But if he did, yes, he should absolutely be paid as well as anybody else would, and as @Jayson1 has already mentioned, there are a lot of actual adults working these kind of jobs, and that's not even new.
Now, as we don't have bag-boys in Germany, I only this kind of job from American media, and you know who comes to my mind when I think of that job? Morgan Freeman at the end of "The Shawshank Redemption", when he got out of prison. He worked that very job, and his character Red is well over fifty at that point. And that scene was set in the 1960s. Your argument has been dated for about fifty years.

Let's come to the idea of entry level jobs. As you say, these kind of jobs were meant to a temporary thing before the real career starts and the money comes flowing in (I'm over-dramatizing here, obviously, to make a point). But, how many good-paying higher level jobs are there? Enough for everybody? If not, then at least some people are stuck at "entry level" jobs. (See the "Anybody can get rich, but not everybody" argument.)
Now, these people who simply cannot get upgraded to a better job will have to work in these kind of "entry level" positions for their whole career. Are they not supposed to be able to afford shelter, food and utilities?



The concept of tying the minimum wage to inflation is not new, is part of the political debate (with a bipartisan majority of the U.S. population, even a majority of Republicans, in favor of it), and has been mentioned a few times in this thread already.

That you still use this argument, an imaginary problem with such an obvious solution, implies that you don't have any better arguments.

Is this implication wrong? Do you have better arguments? Because you're welcome to share any.



Everyone can't get to the top.

A livable wage sure would have helped me at 16. I had a full time job working as a bus clerk (guy who cleans up tables at restaurants). Every penny went into helping my mother, who was very ill at the time. My father wasn't making enough money to pay for medication, medical care, and utilities, so I filled in the gap as best as I could. This erroneous assumption that a 16 year old has nothing to contribute but the lowliest of wages because of their age, because for some reason they shouldn't have every right to a decent salary due to that age, is foolish and shortsighted, and it does a lot of harm to working teens.

In short, agreed.

 

[Jayson1]

Where do you think that "more money" will come from? It will come from consumers in the form of inflation, which will erase the hoped for additional earning power of that 16 year old (assuming he's even able to remain employed if the cost of his labor becomes too high.)


Not hardly. Everyone can't start at the top.
---------------

If wages rise with inflation then that keeps things in check but right now we still get inflation only the wages don't go up with it. If we all freeze prices or lower them then I wouldn't mind that option as well.
Let's also not forget that if the system was so great then we wouldn't be having these problems to begin with that are making people complain. We have been doing things the way you think we should do it and many people are suffering because of it. People working 2 jobs and not getting by or people not being able to afford health care is the proof that trickle down economics doesn't work.
As for people starting at the bottom that is fine. People aren't trying to make everything equal just trying to improve things at the bottom because some people are going to always be their. Maybe if you improve it things can be easier for people to rise above it and if not then that is also okay because the bar for what it means to be poor has being raised.
I also wish people who cared as much about making sure the poor don't get "undeserved income" cared as much about corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich. I just dislike the idea that all of all problems can be linked to poor people who have no power over the government. It's like creating a bad movie and then blaming the janitors who worked on the movie for it's failure. If people are so invaluable they don't deserve higher wages then how can they be responsible for all the problems do to just how unimportant they are?
It seems to me that your making the argument that poor people are a burden on society because they take valuable resources away from the rich and should be content to be virtural slave labor if they aren't one of the lucky ones who are able to pull themselves out of the bad position they have started out in life. A kind of "survival of the fittest" type of world were if you make it that's good and if not then it's okay to treat you like shit because you have failed at what those at the top see as the most important things in life which is making money and maybe even having power over others.

Jason

 

[scotthm]

But, wasn't it argued that if all of those at the bottom got their shit together and did something to embetter themselves, and worked hard, they all could be better off? Are you now meaning to say that isn't so?

Of course not. Believe it or not there are always new people entering the job market to fill those lowest slots that you have hopefully decided not to fill for your entire life.

That at least some people could work just as hard as anyone else and still not get off the bottom of the wage scale?

Sadly that's true. Some people aren't cut out for anything but basic, entry level work, for whatever reason. I don't think there are a lot of them (relatively speaking) but they do exist.

Let's come to the idea of entry level jobs. As you say, these kind of jobs were meant to a temporary thing before the real career starts and the money comes flowing in (I'm over-dramatizing here, obviously, to make a point). But, how many good-paying higher level jobs are there? Enough for everybody? If not, then at least some people are stuck at "entry level" jobs.

If you want a better job create yourself a better job, or at least create your own opportunities. No, everyone cannot do that successfully, but to not even try because you're convinced it's impossible is self defeating, and you can't blame anyone else for that but yourself. And there's a lot of room between entry-level and high-paying jobs that you seem to ignore.

Everyone can't get to the top.

That's not the best place to be anyway, it's too much work for most people.
---------------

 

[Jayson1]

Of course not. Believe it or not there are always new people entering the job market to fill those lowest slots that you have hopefully decided not to fill for your entire life.

Sadly that's true. Some people aren't cut out for anything but basic, entry level work, for whatever reason. I don't think there are a lot of them (relatively speaking) but they do exist.

If you want a better job create yourself a better job, or at least create your own opportunities. No, everyone cannot do that successfully, but to not even try because you're convinced it's impossible is self defeating, and you can't blame anyone else for that but yourself. And there's a lot of room between entry-level and high-paying jobs that you seem to ignore.

That's not the best place to be anyway, it's too much work for most people.
---------------

Why do you think everyone should have the same dreams when it comes to money? What's wrong with just having a regular job? Also it's silly to think that people at the top work harder than people at the bottom. Whether you are a CEO or a construction worker the amount of hard work can be equal. Are you telling me that manual labor is easy? Many of these jobs ruin your body or can be even life threatening plus you can be forced to work in harsh enviroments and since nobody wants to pay them a fair wage it means you constantly have the mental strain of always having to worry about things like bills and buying food. I'm not saying rich people don't work hard but the idea that only they are working hard and everyone else has it easy seems like a insane notion to have.

Jason

 

[Amaris]

What do you think everyone should have the same dreams when it comes to money? What's wrong with just having a regular job? Also it's silly to think that people at the top work harder than people at the bottom. Whether you are a CEO or a construction worker the amount of hard work can be equal. Are you telling me that manual labor is easy? Many of these jobs ruin your body or can be even life threatening plus you can be forced to work in harsh enviroments and since nobody wants to pay them a fair wage it means you constantly have the mental strain of always having to worry about things like bills and buying food. I'm not saying rich people don't work hard but the idea that only they are working hard and everyone else has it easy seems like a insane notion to have.

Jason

People often have the mistaken belief that harder work = more money. If that were actually so, there would be millions of millionaires in this country. Hell, I'd be sitting on a gold mine. Instead, I work very hard for very little, and yet there are people who made millions today simply by having money in their bank accounts. So the axiom that more work = more money is demonstrably false.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

A livable wage sure would have helped me at 16. I had a full time job working as a bus clerk (guy who cleans up tables at restaurants). Every penny went into helping my mother, who was very ill at the time. My father wasn't making enough money to pay for medication, medical care, and utilities, so I filled in the gap as best as I could. This erroneous assumption that a 16 year old has nothing to contribute but the lowliest of wages because of their age, because for some reason they shouldn't have every right to a decent salary due to that age, is foolish and shortsighted, and it does a lot of harm to working teens.

In short, agreed.

Just to make myself clear about my comment that 16 year olds shouldn't work 40 hrs: In my opinion a 16 year old should still be in school and get a proper education. A 16 year old should most definitely not have to carry the burden of having to provide for their parents. Medical aid should be societies responsibility, not that of a 16 year old. I applaud your effort and your sacrifice, but it is a terrible thing that this effort and sacrifice was even necessary.

Of course not. Believe it or not there are always new people entering the job market to fill those lowest slots that you have hopefully decided not to fill for your entire life.

Sadly that's true. Some people aren't cut out for anything but basic, entry level work, for whatever reason. I don't think there are a lot of them (relatively speaking) but they do exist.

If you want a better job create yourself a better job, or at least create your own opportunities. No, everyone cannot do that successfully, but to not even try because you're convinced it's impossible is self defeating, and you can't blame anyone else for that but yourself. And there's a lot of room between entry-level and high-paying jobs that you seem to ignore.

And you constantly ignore the big picture, as you always argue from an individual perspective. Yes, I may be able to create opportunities, but it's not just hard work and talent that goes into that, but chance as well, and to no small part. I can get a good job, but then that job is taken, and another candidate who was probably just as deserving, is left without that job. Now, he can look for another good job, but there, again, will be others just as deserving up for that same job. There is no surplus in good, well-paying jobs out there, not every qualified and motivated person will get a good job. It's not about me as a person, it's about society.

And by your own admission, there are those who simply "aren't cut out for anything but basic, entry level work". Do they not deserve to be able to afford housing, food and utilities? Is a person, just because they didn't get a proper education, undeserving of actually making a decent living?

That's not the best place to be anyway, it's too much work for most people.
---------------

So, what's your argument? We should not try to better ourselves, after all? Being at the top sucks? Thinking about stocks is such hard work, people should stick to flipping burgers, or working at a construction site, or driving strangers around for Uber? Weren't you the one talking about how one shouldn't be giving up before even getting started?

 

[Amaris]

Just to make myself clear about my comment that 16 year olds shouldn't work 40 hrs: In my opinion a 16 year old should still be in school and get a proper education. A 16 year old should most definitely not have to carry the burden of having to provide for their parents. Medical aid should be societies responsibility, not that of a 16 year old. I applaud your effort and your sacrifice, but it is a terrible thing that this effort and sacrifice was even necessary.

On the plus side, I still graduated.

My father has worked hard, my mother worked hard before she became disabled, and I've worked hard all of my life, and yet we've always lived close to, or right on, the poverty line. There are many factors in why one cannot achieve higher pay, or better living conditions. How hard one works isn't generally one of them. Some of the poorest people also work the hardest, but they are taken advantage of, used, and then discarded by those who profit from their work. Granted, not everyone can be a millionaire, but our system actively pushes people down, or tries to keep them where they are, rather than allowing them to rise up in station and income. Upward mobility has become something of a joke in our capitalist society where people who are wealthy, or believe they're about to be wealthy, insist that anyone can do it as long as they work hard. It is a fairy tale.

A 16 year old shouldn't have to worry about such things, but that is the reality of life down towards the bottom rung.

 

[Refuge]

The money comes from giving people more money to put back into the economy. You don't think that if you gave that 16 year old boy more money he won't spend it?
Also I do think he should be able to afford shelter and food by working which I thought would be a good thing for the economy because you have to buy shelter and food. Which means more money being spent in the economy. That doesn't even deal with the issue that in modern times that 16 year old boy might actually be a 36 year old man since more adults are being forced into those kind of jobs.
Also if prices go up then you just raise wages up to constantly match it. I think the whole idea that prices will go up and hurt people only works if you raise wages and then wait another 10 years to do it again.

Jason

Just curious mostly about the first line. "The money comes from giving people more money to put back in the economy".

Where does that fund originally come from?

 

[scotthm]

Why do you think everyone should have the same dreams when it comes to money? What's wrong with just having a regular job?

I haven't said anything is wrong with a "regular job". One can make a very good living with a "regular job".

Also it's silly to think that people at the top work harder than people at the bottom. Whether you are a CEO or a construction worker the amount of hard work can be equal.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up CEOs and investors as examples of people making a decent living. If you want to make a good living you should have become a fireman. That's where it's at.

And by your own admission, there are those who simply "aren't cut out for anything but basic, entry level work". Do they not deserve to be able to afford housing, food and utilities? Is a person, just because they didn't get a proper education, undeserving of actually making a decent living?

Do you "deserve" to make other work for you? No. Should we work for others? Yes, but it's not necessarily because they deserve it. And remember you reap what you sow, so failure to get an education will impact your life. What people really deserve is to be responsible for themselves.

The concept of tying the minimum wage to inflation is not new, is part of the political debate (with a bipartisan majority of the U.S. population, even a majority of Republicans, in favor of it), and has been mentioned a few times in this thread already.

That you still use this argument, an imaginary problem with such an obvious solution, implies that you don't have any better arguments.

Is this implication wrong? Do you have better arguments? Because you're welcome to share any.

You apparently have a lot of compassion for those working for minimum wage (such as yourself), but very little for the elderly retirees living on a fixed income. And by a fixed income I mean little or no cost of living adjustments to their retirements. There are many many people in this situation and I'm much more in favor of trying to keep inflation low than in trying to give you an excuse to stay in a minimum wage job all your life.

So, what's your argument? We should not try to better ourselves, after all? Being at the top sucks? Thinking about stocks is such hard work, people should stick to flipping burgers, or working at a construction site, or driving strangers around for Uber? Weren't you the one talking about how one shouldn't be giving up before even getting started?

My point was that getting to the top shouldn't necessarily be the goal. Finding the right combination of compensation and job satisfaction will generally make one happier.
---------------

 

[Jayson1]

Just curious mostly about the first line. "The money comes from giving people more money to put back in the economy".

Where does that fund originally come from?

To me that is almost like what came first, the chicken or the egg. If you say the money comes from the rich business owner then that means he/she was always rich but how can someone get rich if they don't have customers and how can you have customers if you don't have rich people to pay them. Seems to me the whole point of a strong economy is built on people always putting money back into the system, which can't be done if half of the wealth is being guarded like a 1982 tv guide by the most craziest hoarder of all time.
I know people do want to be able to save money but at some point once you have more money than you can spend over 5 lifetimes you got to start considering the fact that what you are doing is insane. Especially in a system that should be their to help you out your entire life via social security and hopefully a living wage for everyone someday.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

I haven't said anything is wrong with a "regular job". One can make a very good living with a "regular job".

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up CEOs and investors as examples of people making a decent living. If you want to make a good living you should have become a fireman. That's where it's at.


Do you "deserve" to make other work for you? No. Should we work for others? Yes, but it's not necessarily because they deserve it. And remember you reap what you sow, so failure to get an education will impact your life. What people really deserve is to be responsible for themselves.

My point was that getting to the top shouldn't necessarily be the goal. Finding the right combination of compensation and job satisfaction will generally make one happier.
---------------

Problem is it can take time to find that job that your both happy with with and pays well and while looking for that job you still got to survive until you find it. You also have to be open to the idea that no matter how much you try you might still flop. I'm sure the Buffalo Bills, years ago wanted to really win at least one of those Super Bowl's and i'm sure they tried hard but in the end they failed. Some people are just going to fail no matter how hard they try and they shouldn't be treated like dirt because of it. Plus I think it' wrong to devalue some jobs to a point were someone can't even survive while doing it? That is one of the reasons why some are afraid to get off welfare. If you work and don't get any reward for it why should they work that kind of job? Only person who benefits from that arrangement is the company because it means they are basically running a legal sweatshop.

Jason

 

[scotthm]

Seems to me the whole point of a strong economy is built on people always putting money back into the system, which can't be done if half of the wealth is being guarded like a 1982 tv guide by the most craziest hoarder of all time.

You seem to have the impression that most of the money wealthy people have is just sitting around in a box somewhere collecting dust.

Problem is it can take time to find that job that your both happy with with and pays well and while looking for that job you still got to survive until you find it.

It seems to me that the problem is largely one of a lack of gumption and perseverance.
---------------

 

[Refuge]

To me that is almost like what came first, the chicken or the egg. If you say the money comes from the rich business owner then that means he/she was always rich but how can someone get rich if they don't have customers and how can you have customers if you don't have rich people to pay them. Seems to me the whole point of a strong economy is built on people always putting money back into the system, which can't be done if half of the wealth is being guarded like a 1982 tv guide by the most craziest hoarder of all time.
I know people do want to be able to save money but at some point once you have more money than you can spend over 5 lifetimes you got to start considering the fact that what you are doing is insane. Especially in a system that should be their to help you out your entire life via social security and hopefully a living wage for everyone someday.

Jason

So the business covers the cost of the increase for minimum wage. Where does that extra money come from within the business? The business profits and or an increase in a product cost? The consumer potentially pays more for the product or service, yes? Or does the business hire less people to keep their bottom line. Would there be a temptation to hire cash in the hand labor?

If a business pays minimum wage can the consumer do away with paying tips and will the government give the business tax breaks so they can adjust to paying their employees more?

 

[Jayson1]

You seem to have the impression that most of the money wealthy people have is just sitting around in a box somewhere collecting dust.
---------------

When it comes to the super rich I think we all know it is because one thing we know is it's not being invested in the economy. That's why you can see a company make record profits and their answer to this reward is to fire more people while giving everyone at the top a raise. Doesn't help that nobody seems to care anymore about stopping monopolies which is supose to be illegal or bribing politicians for more tax breaks or passing laws to end any regulations and of course destroy unions. I guess you could say that they are investing some of their money only it's to Washington to help them pass laws to make it even easier to screw over the poor who have already been put through the ringer by them.
Jason