Reply With Quote
I think it's how much you keep - that's accounting for taxes (for you Bernie fans).
There are people, for which there are no incentives to do better. For whatever reason. But IMO a 40 hr work week should cover their (modest) bills. Someone's gotta do those jobs, and I think it's ridiculous our tax money right now is compensating them for what their employers won't.
I think it's how much you keep - that's accounting for taxes (for you Bernie fans).
Well, the way I see it, anyone worth hiring at a higher rate has already worked two years or more part time while in high school and now has work experience and references to get a higher paying job when they are out of high school. Who's fault is it if the think they are too good for minimum wage? Why are people even having kids when they only have a minimum wage job, or not even that?
Society is out of control. It used to be known as wrong not to have kids until a couple was married, and not to be married until there was a future. What is wrong with all these irresponsibility that people accept today as normal?
Well... Normal today is really ed up.
Minimum wage at 40 hrs is barely adequate for a single person to live. It usually requires having a working roommate. Forget trying to raise kids on it. After FICA and federal tax, minimum wage pays just under $14k annual. About $1123.63 monthly.
Most reasonable people recognize it as a stepping stone to a better job. Anyone (who thinks they are) too good for a minimum wage job, is too damn stupid to understand how life is. An employer will hire an employed minimum wage worker before hiring an equally qualified unemployed person. So... apparently this stupid lazy ass worker who is too good for a minimum wage job, is too good for any job!
Exactly. Life is rarely black and white.
Is it societies responsibility to take up the slack of losers?
Have to do something to make people realize how pathetic they are to expect society to give them free passes. Shame needs to be ins uted again. People these days don't even have the decency to feel ashamed of the burden they place on society.
Honestly, there is a nuget of truth in thia comment, but it doesnt address the issue. Until you find a happy medium, someone goes down hard. You cant just take parents down without ing their children up.
That's why I advocate having their tubes tied if irresponsibility lead to requiring subsidies. This way, there isn't a 2nd, 3rd... etc... need for subsidies.
i don't disagree with the fact that society is out of control in that regard. Too many babies out of wedlock. But not paying two people enough on minimum wage to support said child only makes these worse. For them, and the rest of the tax/payers.
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ages-kill-jobsMinimum Wages Increases Adopted in 2015*
Emeryville, California $15 (by 2018)
Los Angeles $15 (by 2020)
Portland, Maine $10.68 (by 2017)
Kansas City, Missouri $13 (by 2020)
Birmingham, Alabama $10.10 (by 2017)
St. Louis $11 (by 2018)
Palo Alto, California $11 (by 2016)
Johnson County, Iowa $10.10 (by 2017)
Los Angeles County $15 (by 2020-21)
Mountain View, California $15 (by 2018)
Sacramento, California $12.50 (by 2020)
Lexington, Kentucky $10.10 (by 2018)
Tacoma, Washington $12 (by 2018)
Bangor, Maine $9.75 (by 2019)
Minimum Wage Increases Adopted in 2014
Las Cruces, New Mexico $10.10 (by 2019)
Santa Fe County, New Mexico $10.84
Sunnyvale, California $10.30
San Diego $11.50 (by 2017)
Oakland, California $12.25
Berkeley, California $12.53 (by 2016)
Richmond, California $13 (by 2018)
Louisville, Kentucky $9 (by 2017)
Chicago $13 (by 2019)
San Francisco $15 (by 2018)
Seattle $15 (by 2017-2021)
Sources: Bloomberg, U.S Labor Department
*New York adopted a $15 minimum for state and fast-food workers by 2021
sameAs I have noted before, higher minimum wages transfer wealth from shareholders and business owners to workers. But they do something else. When lower-income workers get raises -- especially those receiving minimum wages -- they will spend almost all of it. That increase in consumer spending stimulates the economy. By comparison, the well-off are much less likely to spend each additional dollar of income and are more likely to save it. Although that might boost the pool of investment capital, it does little to boost the economy short term.
The real test will come when the U.S. slips into recession, as it inevitably will. That might reveal whether a higher minimum wage acts as a safety net for low-wage workers -- or prevents them from getting jobs during a slowdown.
"Too many babies out of wedlock"
an increasing number of legit, solid couples are not getting married and having kids. Society using official marriage to keep couples together is less useful (50% marriages end in divorce anyway), so the utility to society is decreasing. Then there is this:
Understanding the Marriage Penalty and Marriage Bonus
http://taxfoundation.org/article/understanding-marriage-penalty-and-marriage-bonus
Must be Federal, not local, indexed to inflation and regional CoL.
The Birgmingham AL city minimum, IIRC, is being banned by Repugs at state level. Repugs always ing people at every turn.
impossible given the current composition of Congress and GOP dominance of state legislatures, so it falls to the cities.Must be Federal, not local, indexed to inflation and regional CoL.
burdened. Baby boomers and the military are the burden. The poor don't get much of .
You sound like an Amway rep frankly. Look down on the poor and call them lazy but pay service to the man. Good minion.
Excuses excuses in my view.
Minimum wage is not a living wage. Never was, and never should be.
People simply need to be more responsible.
I'm less concerned about the "out of wedlock" part as I am both parents being responsible. Times have changed, but financial responsibility is a fact of life regardless of under what conditions people live under.
Wow.
You sound like an Amway rep frankly. Look down on the poor and call them lazy but pay service to the man. Good minion.
There you go, showing your stupidity again...
Over half the budget is medicare, social security and DoD. It is what it is.
You sound like someone who has bought into Amway promotion. They tell people that they are not successful at Amway because they do not work hard enough. You espouse a slave's mentality.
Where have you read that minimum wage never was a liveable wage? Because I've read the opposite.
I'm not suggesting that everybody working those jobs can't or shouldn't try to advance their careers to earn more. But at the end of the day, I still believe a bar has to be set in terms of what the lowest paid possible full-time worker should earn.
Anyway, not sure prolonging the discussion really accomplishes much seeing how there are several fundamental points of disagreement b/w you and I. The one which I'm most uncompromising on is the belief that having a child is not a privilege but a right. That two people at the lowest professions--there, perhaps, through no fault of their own (ie maybe the hamburger flipper just genuinely isn't cut out to manage the joint, or become a computer technician, etc.; maybe his cashier wife at the Dollar Store isn't cut out to be store supervisor, nurse, nutritionist etc.)--should have the right to have a child and whose joint income should cover their bills. Otherwise we're talking about socially engineering, Darwinian Capitalism, in the truest sense. I'm not for that, and never will be. It's simply an evil belief in my view.
It always seem strange to me how birth rates plummet as wealth increases. I guess when you're in poverty your kids don't live as long, so have as many as possible to pass on your genes?
When you live in poverty, because you can't buy anything, you have kids. It sounds bad, but kids for them compensates for the what they can't buy. There's more, like having more kids means more potential income when kids becomes of age to work. At least that's my theory. Those are the two main reasons IMO.
Deal reached to boost California's minimum wage to $15, avoiding ballot box battle
Lawmakers and labor unions have struck a tentative deal to raise the statewide minimum wage to $10.50 an hour next year and then gradually to $15, averting a costly political campaign this fall and possibly putting California at the forefront of a national movement.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-minimum-wage-deal-20160326-story.html
As always, CA out front in national trends, while slave, red states remain retrograde, low-wage, low-info, anti-labor, right-to-work-for-less.
And yet California is broke. Imagine that.
You lie
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions