Forum Post: Entitlement to 'Living Wage'
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 9:07 p.m. EST by armchairecon1
(169)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why do people feel everyone is entitled to making 50 or 100k/ year (or 137k or whatever arbitrary number that is).
When i changed careers, I was looking to work for FREE for the perfect job so I could go learn the ropes and start my own company.
if you want to make alot of money, EARN IT.
Because if you work in America you should be able to feed, clothe, house, and water yourself at the end of your pay period. Is it really that difficult to understand?
snort
No, if you have labor that others find of value, then you may be able to negotiate the pay to feed, clothe, house, and water yourself.
what exactly is a person entitled to though?
are you guarnateed a 1 br (2?3?) apartment when you turn 18?
Who is to say one cant live with their family, or live with random room mates to save money? (at age 18... 30... 45.... 60... )
Why cant someone eat rice and beans to save money?
What is the baseline for what one 'deserves'?
The baseline for salaries for a 40 hour a week worker would vary according to location since some areas are very popular and it costs more to live there than less popular areas. But at the least, it should be:
however much it takes to rent a one bedroom apartment (or studio in markets where the rental housing is let's say 90% full) with basic utilities like trash, water, gas, and electricity factored in.
however much it takes to eat three, healthy, square meals a day
however much it takes to clothe oneself appropriately for work against the elements
however much it costs to visit a doctor
however much it costs for that person to get to work
and $100 more per month to spend or save as the worker sees fit
Double the minimum wage tonight and you will see unemployment skyrocket.
Why?
Because if you wind up giving up 2/3rds of your waking hours to working and you still can't even feed, clothe and shelter yourself, you are worse off than a slave.
Anybody who works 74 hours per week who makes $541 (at minimum wage) who can't afford food, clothing and shelter must have a crack habit or a gambling problem or something, because $541 isn't a lot of money but it's enough to buy food, clothing and shelter.
A 74 hour work week is not sustainable, or reasonable. The real question is do want to live in a selfish country that can"t justify compensating it's workforce according to their value, or a generous one that promotes prosperity for all!
junior investment bankers work up to 120h a week.
and they dont' even get paid 6 figs.
Do they get paid minimum wage?
some people have done comparisons before.
they used to earn more than mcdonalds workers when they had the big bonuses.
now it's probably about the same.
I earn six figures. I did it by working 74+ hour weeks. Face that.
Unfortunately, for you to make "six figures" a whole team of hard working folks have to slave away at minimum wage. That is exactly the point. 1% wannabes always have romantic memories about their suffering, which are usually exaggerated, to promote the agenda of exploiting others.
I don't depend on a team of wage slaves who earn minimum wage. I'll ignore the insult of you assuming that the only way that I can think of to make money is to exploit minimum wage workers, and instead I'll point out to you the fallacy of assuming that the economy depends on low-skill workers.
I am not part of this 1% who you want to scapegoat. I simply have a decently-paying job. You can't even imagine how a person could make decent money without making it on the backs of wage slaves. But wouldn't it be even worse from your point of view if I didn't need wage slaves at all? If I can just leave them behind in their irrelevance? They can keep whining about how wealthy people have a responsibility to look out for them, splitting hairs over what they should be entitled to get for working the minimum. I don't care about people like that. I work the maximum, and I benefit.
If somebody wants to earn more money, then instead of whining about how they should be entitled to more for doing the minimum, they already now have the option of working harder. Or working smarter. You can either put in more hours or you can invest in yourself and learn new skills so that in the future you can earn more from the same number of hours. Both of those strategies are respectable. But scheming to get more while putting in the same minimum, and not learning new skills, is not going to benefit anybody. Either the worker or society.
i think you are out of touch with the reality of what these low wage workers are dealing with. The companies and individuals that are offering these low wages are expecting maximum productivity for minimum compensation, and in order to keep working these workers try to satisfy these demands. It is my experience that these are not low skilled workers making these compromises. The corruption of the free market in the post NAFTA era has caused these distortions. world trade is coming into balance at the expense of the U.S. and other previously prosperous countries economies. Of course all this will come into balance when all wages (even yours) drop to the level of these third world countries that this agreement tried to be fair to.
High-skill workers don't have to make compromises. If you're talking about a living wage for a minimum wage, then we're not talking about high-skill workers. We're talking about the bottom of the barrel. If you're the low man on the totem pole, then you can either whine and demand more from people higher up on the pole, or you can put your effort into rising up in rank by investing in yourself and learning new skills. Demanding that minimum wage be increased is the former.
If life was lived inside a textbook you would have a point, unfortunately you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't live in a textbook, but I've spent a lot of time over the course of my career reading textbooks. And that's exactly what I'm suggesting people should do, instead of blaming other people for their problems.
Nobody in America should have to work 74 damn hours a week, especially not if they're in school, have a disability or are elderly. I don't want to have to work 74 hours a week. I'd be happy working 40 if I could get it, but I've been on a part-time, 35 hour work week since about 2004 because it allows my employers to skimp me on vacation, any medical benefits, or retirement.
And yes, I apply for other jobs, additional jobs, wherever I see a help wanted sign. I troll he state employment site looking for something in my area since a government job is the only decent work out there.
Many of the investment bankers on Wall Street who you guys are jealous of work 80-100 hour weeks.
http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/why-you-actually-work-so-much-as-an-investment-banker-yes-even-in-a-recession/
You can earn more, per hour, working at McDonald's, but then you're not investing in your own future:
http://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/investment-banking-salaries-mcdonalds/
What a piece of shit you are!
Why is an employed American without benefits or retirement looking for a better job a piece of shit?
That wasn't me? Someone has hacked my screen name? Scary and sorry.
Some of that 2/3rds of your life is commuting time which is uncompensated.
In addition, you asked "WHY" should any worker be able to feed, clothe and water oneself after the end of a work week.
You apparently think it is okay for someone to work 40 hours plus 2 hours a day commuting time and not be able to do that. The slave at least is ensured a minimum of food, clothing and shelter.
I answered you as to why that is not okay - it leaves the worker in a worse position than a slave, without the rape & beatings of course.
The phrase "living wage" isn't typically used to denote a salary of 100k; usually it means the minimum one must earn per hour to be able to support oneself. Minimum wage as set by the government often does not satisfy even basic needs and millions of minimum-wage workers are forced to rely on food stamps and other programs to get by. The demand for a living wage is one for a wage which provides for the bare necessities ie food, housing. Even a "living wage" is far from a lifestyle of luxury.
what exactly is a person entitled to though?
are you guarnateed a 1 br (2?3?) apartment when you turn 18?
Who is to say one cant live with their family, or live with random room mates to save money? (at age 18... 30... 45.... 60... ) Why cant someone eat rice and beans to save money? What is the baseline for what one 'deserves'?
baseline is.. one deserves a job.
there are jobs out there if people are willing to work it..
the question is, are the willing to put in the effort for the pay the get in return?
(if they were, we wouldnt need illegal immigrants... ie: for farms, foreign doctors for family medicine positions, etc)
The stats say that for every job there are 4 unemployed people, the stats do not count the underemployed who also apply for that job. IF the job is awarded to an underemployed person there is still one job for 4 people and moves one person from the ranks of unemployed into the ranks of underemployed.
These numbers are based on the national unemployment figures and do not reflect local situations.
Many here have said create a business. Great idea! With what funding? Unemployed or underemployed means no funds to create the business with and business isn't created without capital.
I read where the suggestion is to consume rice&beans as a steady diet, yet rice and beans is a starvation diet if eaten on a consistent basis, essential nutrients are lacking, so now we have a malnourished worker or job seeker.
Get a job, there are jobs out there, does not take into consideration physical capability or mental capacity, or even emotional ability, all required to be an effective worker.
Let's bring age discrimination into it, how many 50+ year old displaced workers are likely to be hired? After all, older workers while more likely to show up for work will also show up for work sick resulting in less productivity.
Get a job...three words...makes it all sound so easy.
A living wage is whatever it takes to put a roof over your head, pay some utilities, and buy healthy groceries, and not much beyond that. If you work 40 hours a week in this country I think you deserve at least this much.
If you want cable, wifi, a cell phone, or anything extra, you might have to get a second job.
Doubling the minimum wage would do this.
For all those who think we should eliminate the minimum wage I would ask you to take a good look at how well that is working in Mexico.
I think most people who work 40 hours per week can do all those things you say, even if they make minimum wage. The problem is that too many things from that second list you mention, the luxuries if you will, are given priority.
Where does the money you get to do nothing come from?
Dude, they're not wanting to make a lot of money. They're wanting a world that doesn't destroy itself, a world worth living in. And yes, people ARE entitled to have a place to sleep without danger of getting arrested (or worse).
These aren't big demands and they are doable with little effort. What blocks it from happening? EXISTING PROPERTY LAW and governance.
what exactly is a person entitled to though? are you guarnateed a 1 br (2?3?) apartment when you turn 18? Who is to say one cant live with their family, or live with random room mates to save money? (at age 18... 30... 45.... 60... ) Why cant someone eat rice and beans to save money? What is the baseline for what one 'deserves'?
Well, personally, I would say a person should NOT be subject to arrest simply for sleeping. But most city ordainances generally prohibit it.
Fine people for littering, or making noise, and so forth -- things which actually cause a disturbance, but sleeping?
Here in the Northeast, living with a roomate is still going to cost 500 per month just for rent and you'd be lucky to find a situation like that, many of the listings are for 600, 650, 700 per month for apartment SHARES.
When your paycheck is 290 a week BEFORE taxes, which is what minimum wage pays, you now have your room rent taking more than 50% of your after-tax salary.
Food for the month plus commuting costs take up another weeks pay.
So, roughly, you have one weeks pay per month of about 250 left for clothing, medical care and other incidentals.
Do-able if you never want to get married and just want to live a solitary life of sharing an apartment, going to work, coming home and eating.
But if you already have a family and need to support your children, what then? These minimum wage jobs are useless.
If they don't want a lot of money, get a job. If they want a lot of money, get a job.
Property law protects my property.
The law stops no one who is determined. Robin Hood is looking for a target, there your house is. Perhaps someone robs you. Perhaps someone burns down your house. Perhaps someone kills you. These things happen all the time. There are stacks of unsolved cases. My moma always said, "Smile! You can always kill them later!" It always made me smile. It costs nothing to bite your tongue and be polite. Remember that when someone is smiling and being polite, you can't read minds and you never really know people.
I was being polite, and you are right. You can not read my mind. My point was simple, no one is entitled to anything.
I grew up with "why put off to tomorrow what you can do today"
They feel entitled because as children the received participation ribbons.
If you could keep the fruits of your labor, and if you could choose to save, that would put you in control of your personal economy.
The Government has mandated to control your personal economy, and the Government has created the 1%. The Government will protect the 1% at all costs. The 1% is the symptom, our Government is diseased.
The American consumer is the inoculation.
Why would you work for free. you tool? Also, since when does a living wage mean 100k?
people did this for generations.. its called apprenticeship
i did it because the value from learning at that job was greater than any salary i could have gotten at an entry level job.. obviously i dont take a job where i wouldnt learn anything and it was simply a 9-5 mindless grind
Honestly, this is another troll who claims to be a business owner. OWS is trying to encourage people to choose to do business with small businesses. I've met the owners of shops and grocery stores. I find it hard to believe these people are going home and being trolls. I question why they are claiming to represent small businesses and being trolls. Anybody else find that odd? A little too convenient even though Republicans have been trying to convince them their policies benefit them. I don't know any local business owners who want to cut food stamps or programs that help people spend more money with them. They understand their customer base better than that and add up how much of their earnings are dependent on unemployment for laid off workers, food stamps, government housing. They don't run around hiring temps or offering part-time hours rather than offering full time employment or any of the dirty tricks corporations have engaged in. But if a full time job pays people so little, they must go out and get food stamps to feed their children, then people are not being paid anything close to a living wage. Wall Street and Mainstreet have both refused to pay workers what they are worth so they can pocket bigger profits. Ignorant of the fact that people have less and less money to spend outside of paying for food and utilities many small business owners have found sales and profits dropping. Of course corporations like Walmart do not want small businesses to survive and thrive. Trolls will tell you, you get what you pay for, and they don't make big enough donations to compete with corporate interests. Small businesses have been run out business by their big corporate republican "friends". Their problem isn't paying workers too much, just that a corporation can lower prices and operate in the red long enough to run them out of business. For all these reasons, small business owners are fools to do the bidding of the 1% and believe they would fair better with less regulations.
The fact of the matter is that there simply are not enough jobs. And as technology advances (which it does in a rapid rate) jobs will only be replaced by machines more and more.
On the other hand, we DO have the technology and resources to house and feed every single person on this planet.
To keep thinking in terms as 'earning' your living is the same as mass murdering everyone for whom we don't have a job. And why? What reason can you possibly have to want people death who are not as fortunate as you?
I don't think there a right to a "living wage" since money is just a human-made concept, but I don't think any real argument can be made for "right to property" or against a "right to exist" without selling your soul. If the principles of the country aren't working, then set up camp and assert your right to exist.
You're so awesome - work for free - temporarily - with savings, an education and prospects. If you've got a high school educations, are working three jobs just to pay the bills, have and no time or money to improve your prospects, you'd be looking at things a little bit differently. Share the wealth, dude, share the wealth.
Yea, that guy with 100K a year proposal is deluded.
Having said that, I believe the phrase "living wage" came into use when companies would want to relocate to an area and would ask for tax breaks or abatements on the premise that they would bring "jobs" - but the jobs were all minimum wage jobs, back when minimum wage hadn't moved from 5 bucks an hour for a very long time.
Here in the Northeast and in many large cities, you can't support a family on 5 bucks an hour (nor on the current minimum wage of 7.25 per hour.)
Thus people started looking at whether a company provided not just jobs but jobs that one can actually support a family on.
Think about the fact that perhaps fifty years ago jobs like supermarket cashier, gas station attendant etc etc were given to teenagers who just needed extra money. These jobs are now exclusively given to adults who are fully supporting themselves or should be.
If teenagers under the age of 18 could still work at unskilled jobs, I probably wouldn't be so opposed to some kind of reduced minimum wage for them - but companies won't hire them even where it is legal to do so, which in many cases it is not.
What good are jobs if you can't pay the rent with them?
When I worked at McDonald's I made $1.25. Of course, you could rent a really nice one bedroom apartment for $200 a month and gas was 50 cents a gallon. Now, gas costs more than beer, that's pretty bad.
Just have government housing soviet style. Or Chicago projects. Oh those are gone now.