UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i don't have wealth, i couldn't sniff that place without my wife's wealthy family inviting me.
Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
i don't have wealth, i couldn't sniff that place without my wife's wealthy family inviting me.
tightpockt
Well-Known Member
A person should be paid whatever they agree to work for.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Just watched a news type show a couple of days ago about an engineer for Google who makes "six figures". They didn't give the exact amount, but at least $100K per year. The place he rents is evicting him because they plan to raise the rent to $4,000 per month.
Does this Google engineer make a "living wage"? He can't afford the rent in Silicon Valley.
Does this Google engineer make a "living wage"? He can't afford the rent in Silicon Valley.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The minimum wage doesn't prevent anyone from making more, it prevents employers from paying workers less
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that employers have a monopoly on employment, so if there were no federally mandated minimum wage, they would likely pay employees much less (like they did before the minimum wage was implemented). There will always be people who need a job in a capitalistic system, that means employers will always hold the leverage when it comes to the price of wages because the supply of workers will always be higher than the need for them. Lower wages leads to stagnation; people don't buy things they can't afford > the economy depresses, everyone suffers. With a strong middle/lower class, people can buy things, the economy grows and everyone prospers.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Suppose you are selling weed. Good, high quality weed, and your buyer says I will pay you $0.05 an ounce? Now what? You have to sell it to him at his offered price, right? I mean, that IS how competitive markets work, right?
Is it possible that the market sets the value of your weed, and you might be able to sell it for $400.00 per ounce or $1200.00?
Suppose you have an ounce of sand in your bag and your customer sees that you are selling him dirt instead of high quality weed. He HAS to pay you $1200.00 for your ounce of dirt, right?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the answer is clearly that full time workers should have to stand in line for food stamps because our resident white supremacist sys so.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If we're using this analogy, the only buyers you have are offering $.05/oz. Buyers = employers in this analogy, in my example no employer will pay you above $.05/day meaning no buyer will pay you more than $.05/oz for your weed
If I was starving (like many minimum wage workers are today), I would absolutely sell an oz of my weed for $.05, and that's the problem
tightpockt
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I don't think the government should have a say in what an employer and employee contract. People have choices of employment and generally minimum wage is for jobs that require minimum skill and effort. Add skills + more effort = more money.
If your an adult with a fully capable mind and body you're totally responsible for yourself. Not the government and not your employer.
Also, businesses want to get what they pay for and those people with minimum skills will be priced out of a job.
Edit: after reading your post I missed your first sentance which is the most important. Employers absolutely DO NOT have a monopoly on employment. Having another person hand you a check at the end of the week is not the only way to make money and nobody is stopping anybody form being resourceful. There's plenty of ways to make money, the idea that punching a clock at some factory or fast food joint is the only option for someone who's making minimum wage is flawed.
Last edited:
gunnar&carey
Well-Known Member
Everyone is right to a point i think we are all very open to the idea of minimum wage and just veiw it differently i think more pay for everyone $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This, again, assumes poor people = lazy. As if the only thing keeping people from financially prospering is themselves. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are many variables that come into account that determine the wage an employer provides.
This assumes that people start life with equal opportunity, which, again, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact that we're not necessitates regulation, that is, if you believe everyone should have equal opportunity. I do, so that then your criticism would be correct; that poor people are poor because they're lazy. If someone is poor because they're lazy, good luck receiving any sympathy from me. If you're poor because you're unable to work to provide for yourself, I welcome you with open arms into my house of mediocre prosperity, because nobody should suffer because they're unable to work.
So, in your opinion, what should we do with minimum skilled workers who are unable, not unwilling, to get job training to increase their skill level to receive higher wages?
The overwhelming majority of workers will not start their own business, I was only referring to said majority since that's the point of the discussion; the living wage. Entrepreneurs likely do not fall into the category of requiring a living wage to survive
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What's the story behind your wife's wealth if you don't mind me asking? Did you John Kerry yourself into some empire or what?
tightpockt
Well-Known Member
I never said lazy, I just said more effort. Yes it's true that some people start life at a disadvantage but that's on every level.
I'm at a disadvantage than someone born into a wealthy family, that just means if I want to be wealthy I have to try a little harder than him/her, it's unfair but who said anything HAS to be fair. I would like to make a lot more money but it would require more effort on my part.
It depends on why you think they are "unable" to get job training. I'm not trying to be snarky it's just that words and definitions matter. If finances are holding them back from getting an education that's something that should be addressed. If it's time or other responsibilities that are making someone "unable" then I don't know..,For a simple answer I would say it all starts with education.
Education should be our highest priority as a nation. Of course those with money will still be able to afford something which is perceived to be a "higher quality" education and will have a 'leg up'. I also don't think you can act punitively against those with more money just to tip the scales in the sense of fairness as it were..
tightpockt
Well-Known Member
Somehow this didn't make it into my reply...regulating "fairness" is called communism.
Because they all have money coming out their ass or something?
Half don't see the 5 year mark.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not quite sure how the old jews earned it. most of the current business on my wife's nuclear family is in apartments and buildings. but the other siblings in the family have some far more lucrative gigs going.
the uy who paid for the wedding we just attended is a frequent guest on CNBC.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Matt Walsh can go fuck himself
This article was shit, for example;
"Instead, I want to talk to those of you who actually consider yourselves entitled to close to a $29,000 a year full-time salary for doing a job that requires no skill, no expertise and no education; those who think a fry cook ought to earn an entry-level income similar to a dental assistant; those who insist the guy putting the lettuce on my Big Mac ought to make more than the emergency medical technician who saves lives for a living; those who believe you should automatically be able to “live comfortably,” as if “comfort” is a human right."
"no skill" - fast food work requires "no skill"?
I'm not really sure what Mr. Walsh means by "no expertise" here, as if running a corporation into the ground like the financial exec's responsible for the 2008 wall street recession did requires "expertise".. but I digress..
"no education"? - as if an illiterate member of society could just walk in off the streets and start working any fast food position without any training or education and provide equal service..
The fact that fast food workers are demanding a salary equal to that of dental assistants is a testament to how unreasonably low wages are, even for fuckin' dental assistants. Yet somehow he thinks the opposite, that dental assistants, who spend vast amounts of time and money training to be proficient in their profession deserve such low wages. This proves that even if fast food workers received as much training and education as dental assistants (who receive vast amounts), Walsh still wouldn't think they deserve a legitimate living wage.
"When I was 20 I moved out of the house and got my first job in radio. Starting out as a rock DJ in Delaware, I made $17,000 a year, or about $8 an hour. I lived off of that, earning a few small raises through the years — having to eat fewer meals, buy fewer things, and, God forbid, even forgo cable and Internet access in my apartment — right up to when I got married at 25."
Notice the implication; that poor people spend their money on lucrative things, and that's why they're poor (but he didn't, that's why he's not...)
Not to mention the fact that this guy is claiming he survived, in 2007, on an annual salary of only $17,000.. that equals $354/week = $1,416/month. "Fair market price" for a 2 bedroom in Delaware in 2007 = $812/mo, sub utilities, sub car insurance/car payment, sub school loans, sub, misc. costs.. come on.. This idiot is lying through his teeth and anyone whose lived on their own knows it.
"Around my 26th birthday, over 10 years after my first job, I landed a position in Kentucky that paid me around $40,000. It was the first time I’d ever made the equivalent of $15 an hour or more. Again, this was after 10 years of working. Of course, our newfound wealth soon had to be split between four people, as my wife became pregnant with our twins within a few months of me starting the job."
The same reasoning is implied; I earned my wealth through a lot of hard work and time, and that since all these poor people are poor, they must not have spent their time working as hard or as long as I did; fuck them!
"After finding out that we were expecting not one baby, but two, I started my website. I wrote every day for six months before I made much more than a dime on it. It wasn't until August 2013 that I earned my first significant chunk of money. By my 27th birthday last year, I was finally making a “comfortable living.”
It took me over a decade to get here."
What do you think that decade would have looked like if you were black, Mr. Walsh, who believes equal opportunity is rampant here in the good ol' US of A...? (you fucking absolute retard)
"You think the jobs I had when I was 16 should have provided me with the comfortable living I just established in my late 20s? Frankly, I think you're delusional.""
Yes, I do, and frankly, I don't give a shit what you think.
EVERY JOB IN AMERICA, I'm not sure if you heard me correctly, so let me restate it.. EVERY GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING JOB WITHIN THE BORDERS OF AMERICA SHOULD PAY A MOTHERFUCKING LIVING WAGE. THAT MEANS, WHEREVER THE FUCK YOU LIVE, YOU ARE PROVIDED WITH A WAGE THAT CAN PAY YOUR BILLS.
Last edited:
