-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Minimum 15 dollar wage. Meet back burner.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
If you're arguing for a higher minimum wage, you won't get an argument from me.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the point you made that I asked you to back up, though.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
Because they are just starting out alot of companies struggle in the early years because of costs, adding more pressure would seriously jepordise them remaining open. It's the same during covid the little guy just doesn't have the money to last, unlike big companies like tesco.
I'm trying to say that if u increase a persons monthly wage so high that the shops have to increase their prices to stay open have u really benefited the average person. They earn more, but that have to spend more survive.
There are a lot of these sorts of issues that sometimes can be better understood by looking at them "from the other side," so to speak.
Minimum wage goes up, "oh, no," we cry, "prices will rise,too." Yes, that is so, but since very few people actually earn the minimum wage, prices won't go up that much, and since so many, many more people can afford a small increase, what's the deal? Well, I'll tell you: the majority (who can afford a small increase) don't want to pay a small increase, and are therefore happy to let some people suffer for their own convenience
Unemployement, if it gets too low, can cause real competition for workers, and when you have to compete for workers, you might have to pay more for them (this is called "market economics"). So once again, it is better for the majority of us to keep some of us unemployed (thus miserable, unfulfilled, etc.) for our own convenience.
If everybody has good access to medical care, and medical care is not an unlimited commodity (there are no unlimited commodities), I might have to wait long to have my lacerated eyelash attended to! Oh, no, how horrible! Thus, yet again, it's much better for a whole lot of us if some people don't have access to enough health care to even take care of their sick children, so that we don't have to wait an extra hour for a bandage.
Now I ask you: what would Jesus say?
Minimum wage goes up, "oh, no," we cry, "prices will rise,too." Yes, that is so, but since very few people actually earn the minimum wage, prices won't go up that much, and since so many, many more people can afford a small increase, what's the deal? Well, I'll tell you: the majority (who can afford a small increase) don't want to pay a small increase, and are therefore happy to let some people suffer for their own convenience
Unemployement, if it gets too low, can cause real competition for workers, and when you have to compete for workers, you might have to pay more for them (this is called "market economics"). So once again, it is better for the majority of us to keep some of us unemployed (thus miserable, unfulfilled, etc.) for our own convenience.
If everybody has good access to medical care, and medical care is not an unlimited commodity (there are no unlimited commodities), I might have to wait long to have my lacerated eyelash attended to! Oh, no, how horrible! Thus, yet again, it's much better for a whole lot of us if some people don't have access to enough health care to even take care of their sick children, so that we don't have to wait an extra hour for a bandage.
Now I ask you: what would Jesus say?
Wasn't being disingenuous, just being less than assertive.
The definition of socialism is social ownership of production not state ownership. Not everyone agrees on that definition.
Massive government control is not obvious in socialism but it seems the direction many are heading.
This would already be law without Republican obstructionism.
Isn't this typical for Republicans - oppose an effort of the Democrats and then blame them for not succeeding against Republican lock-step obstructionism?
When it eventually becomes law, expect the Republicans to take credit for it. This is a Republican congresswoman who voted against the bill, and now wants to try to say that it was her bill:
Republicans shamelessly take credit for Covid relief they voted against
And this:
"Before the House gave final approval to a $1.9 trillion stimulus package on Wednesday without any Republican support, Speaker Nancy Pelosi admonished Republicans for their opposition to the measure, declaring, "It's typical that they vote no and take the dough." As if to make her point, Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, tweeted approvingly just hours after the bill passed about the $28.6 billion included for "targeted relief" for restaurants. Wicker celebrated the fact that, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, "independent restaurant operators have won $28.6 billion worth of targeted relief." The Mississippi Republican added, "This funding will ensure small businesses can survive the pandemic by helping to adapt their operations and keep their employees on the payroll." The online missive neglected to mention that he voted against the bill"
Do these people ever stop slithering?
True the wage increase is not a problem for me. I see it as a problem for those still earning minimum wage. It will be much harder for them to pay the increased costs than me.
If however as you say few will be affected then why worry. Only the poor will suffer the hardship.
Wasn't sure what expectation you were referring to. The point I made was you can't expect a better life waiting for the government to increase the minimum wage?
I see artificially low minimum wages as an example of "hidden socialism."
When you have workers working for wages that are so low that they qualify for government benefits - so low that the workers couldn't afford to work for the company without that government top-up - you effectively have a government subsidy of that company.... one of those "privatized profits / subsidized losses" situations that's the worst of both worlds.
IMO, it would be better to make every company pay the true cost of their labour. If you wanted, you could even use the savings to the government could be used to fund a business grant program where the money gets doled out based on actual priorities.
I disagree -- it is those earning the minimum wage whose wages will go up when that minimum changes. And consequently, their buying power goes up at the same time.
No - I asked you to explain why raising the minimum wage would actually reduce effective purchasing power.
Meh. I think the minimum wage oughta be increased, but I don't understand the jump to $15.00.
As far as that being a 'livable' wage, it depends on where you are. In some places, that might not be enough. Here, we've done well off of $12.00.
My husband makes a bit more than 15.00. He works for a small business. They would probably stop hiring, and require the workers they already have to work harder. I have a buddy that works at Target. She assumes they'll cut more positions(they've been axing as many as they can since Covid hit, though I'm somewhat certain those at the top of the ladder aren't suffering any).
Personally, I'd like to see the US fix its healthcare mess first. No one should fear for their life because of poverty, or face bankruptcy because they got sick. The cost for medications and general treatment should be realistic and fair.
As far as that being a 'livable' wage, it depends on where you are. In some places, that might not be enough. Here, we've done well off of $12.00.
My husband makes a bit more than 15.00. He works for a small business. They would probably stop hiring, and require the workers they already have to work harder. I have a buddy that works at Target. She assumes they'll cut more positions(they've been axing as many as they can since Covid hit, though I'm somewhat certain those at the top of the ladder aren't suffering any).
Personally, I'd like to see the US fix its healthcare mess first. No one should fear for their life because of poverty, or face bankruptcy because they got sick. The cost for medications and general treatment should be realistic and fair.
Because in my experience, it has.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
We keep hearing that, but we keep finding is everyone does better when employees can afford to eat/shop where they work.
Yeah... I doubt that.
For a time but the markets reacts pretty quickly.
Two factors...
One, they can afford to pay more. If prices aren't controlled and people want something, they will be willing to pay more if they can afford to pay more. Price is not set by cost, price is set by what people can afford to pay/are willing to pay.
Two, if the cost to bring something to market increases, a company will usually find a way to pass that cost onto the consumer.
For example, grocery stores work on very small margins. If labor costs goes up, that costs has to go directly to an increase in grocery prices.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
Except if the minimum wage increases prices because small businesses can't afford them then they are no better off.
Which was explained in the earlier post. Could have saved us both a bit of time doubting it back then.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I have wonder how we could realistically implement such a thing, as generally anywhere you are the city costs more than the country. State by state, this really wouldn't be that easy. California is a great example where it's basically two cities and the surrounding areas driving up the average cost of living on paper, whereas tons of other places here don't require one to pee liquid gold to survive. But, LA at least does have a minimum wage higher than the state minimum, so maybe it's not that hard to figure out.
Well, you're a libertarian, I'm a humanist -- clearly we see things a bit differently.
I'm reminded (oddly) about the ongoing argument that people in prison, if they otherwise meet the vaccination criteria, should receive the vaccine if there's somebody on the outside who hasn't received one. This is one of those places where I have to think carefully, but eventually say, "the prisoner is duly serving his sentence -- if he is in a risk category that warrants it, his right to the vaccine is not less than that of someone who has not committed a crime but is at lesser risk."
I know that a lot of people will disagree with me (probably in somewhat less calm terms than I'm using,
), but I can live with that.