Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Self Employed v Employers

Posted 2 years ago on July 14, 2012, 9:53 a.m. EST by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Employers that pay minimum wage, have employees that collect from social programs. Minimum wage is not a living wage. A person with kids and a 40 hour per week job is maxed out on time. This demographic is using all the time in a day to work and care for their families. Therefore there is nothing you could ask of this demographic that would change this arrangement. If you tell yourself education is the fix, imagine college grads working the drive-thrue or a cell phone kiosk. That isn't realistic either.

As long as a 40 hour work week does not pay a living wage, the self employed and businesses that pay a living wage or above will continue paying taxes to cover social programs that are exacerbated by these low wage employers. As a society we need to make this a front and center talking point. We need this in the face of every tax payer and especially the self employed.

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

what a great idea, im going to only hire at minimum wage and keep welfare forms for my employees to fill out then finally my small business will get some government aid!

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

What would you consider to be a living wage? I realize it is specific to ones' geographical location but what would be about average nationwide in your opinion?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Consider that the GDP per capita in the U.S is $48,000 a year. Roughly half the people work, so that puts average compensation per worker near $100,000 a year. If you calculate by hours worked it's really closer to $120,000 per worker because many low wage earners do not work full time.

Let's use the lower $100,000 figure as average, but turn the tables. What should the employer receive? And justify why.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

A 40 hour work week should be enough to cover the following, for one adult and one child without government assistance.

Transportation Food Clothing Housing Taxes Applicable insurance policies.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26790) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A 40 hour work week used to cover housing, car and expenses and a savings account for at the time ( average family size ) a two parent family of five children. This was during the 50's.

Also - one adult worked a job for money - one worked a job taking care of the family's needs.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So, let me ask - is the living wage for an individual or for a husband and wife or for a husband and wife with one child, etc.

One thing that people like to post is "I can't make it on minimum wage with my family".

My answer to that is you shouldn't be having a family on minimum wage. Furthermore, if you do have a family you need to make sure you have at least 2/3 of your salary in the bank as back up and at least $25,000 in the bank prior to having a kid.

Today it costs around $220,000 to rear a child to the age of 18. So divide that out by 18 and what do you get - $12,000 per year cash needed to raise a kid.

So unless things change about people wanting kids on mimimum wage thinking they should be given more of a priority then a person single who doesn't have kids where is the fairness?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

My answer to that is you shouldn't be having a family on minimum wage

This is a favorite "I'm better than you" argument. Biological/Human reproduction is not nor will it ever be at the mercy of economics or some schmuck like yourself declaring who is worthy. I'd like to whoop your ass then tell you that you shouldn't talk shit unless you can back it up. See the similarity in logic? We can all be uncivilized and pompous, it doesn't mean anyone should listen.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well good sir, that statement regarding people who shouldn't have children living on minimum wage has nothing to do with "I'm better then you" attitude.

It has all to do about being responsible for actions of people whom think that it's someone elses fault because they can't support their faimly making minimum wage.

And BTW with regard to your comment about "whoop ass" it's easy to make a commet like that on the internet and be real brave behind the keyboard.

It all changes when you have to confront a person "face to face" so, you had better keep that in mind the next time you decide to impose your "whoop ass" on someone - just goes to show how immature you are.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

You assume all minimum wage parents started out that way. Secondly, if the idea of confrontation made you uncomfortable, that was the idea. Your suggestion bares roots in eugenics. Look it up, Hitler.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Why are people not able to make it today is it because prices went up, people made less or people wanted more?

It's a combination of the three but the one that stands out the most is "people wanted more".

If you compare what families had back in the 50's compared to what families have today you will see a big difference.

If you compare the government resources made available to the public back in the 50's compared to the govermnent resources made available to the public today, you will see a hugh increase.

Now if you can say inflation played a big part which it did but there are a lot of things available that costs way less today then they did in the 50's.

Wages played a big part of the problem but lets see if we can determine why.

Lets take the wages of a middle class family today and have them live like a family did in the 50's when it comes to daily living expenses.

You would eliminate the following:

Going out whenever there was the urge, buying designer clothing, owning a Computer, owning a television for every room of the house, no air conditioning, no cell phones just land line phones, no IPODS, internet, texting or any other advance technology not available back in the 50's, not having a car for every member of the family, no lavish vacations to the Carribean - the list goes on and on..

I could continue but I think the point is made that todays society demands more and as a result it costs more.

So, if you income doesn't keep up with your spending well there are consequences to pay and where is it written in the Constitution that everyone should have everything.

That seems to be the normal way of thinking today.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you compare the government resources made available to the public back in the 50's compared to the govermnent resources made available to the public today, you will see a hugh increase.

And this is a good sign?

Going out whenever there was the urge, buying designer clothing, owning a Computer, owning a television for every room of the house, no air conditioning, no cell phones just land line phones, no IPODS, internet, texting or any other advance technology not available back in the 50's, not having a car for every member of the family, no lavish vacations to the Carribean - the list goes on and on..

The working poor have all these things?

It is apparent that you are not poor nor do you have any poor friends. I'm not saying this as an insult but rather it's my becoming aware that you are not familiar with the reality of poverty and that makes you susceptible to rhetoric regarding poverty. I'm not arguing to give more welfare, I'm arguing to adjust our wage system so that those who work do not have to rely on welfare, so that the self employed are not taxed to cover the social programs that are exacerbated by self serving CEOs and arrogant restaurant owners. The employed should be held responsible for their cost of living and society should ensure that they have the ability to do so. The practice of using low wage labor does not aid society but rather shifts the cost onto society in less visible ways. For every low wage employee, you add one individual to the welfare rolls and remove one individual from the demand side of our economy. That one step forward in reduced product cost is two steps back for the entire economy.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, when I was growning up, I used to pick coal to keep warm in the winter time. When I was a teenager, I worked at a grocery store to buy things I might have wanted along with paying for my dental bills.

Yes, I did have a very responsible mother and father. My father worked his butt off to provide for us - sometimes that wasn't enough and we had to compensate for it.

So to say that I was not poor or grew up with poor people means you know nothing about me.

To say I don't know any poor friends is another indication that you know nothing about me.

You say that a employeror should be held responsible for their cost of living. To make a statement like that indicates to me you have never owned nor operated a business nor have you been involved in what costs are associated with running a business.

I have worked on low income housing projects and I know exactly what it's like for people who live there. The problem is the government can't do a damm thing for them if they aren't willing to do something for themselves.

Try and have a person evicted who is a low income earner and you will be surprised of the thrashing you will get from the judge.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

LMAO, bullshit. Don't think for one second that I am buying that load of crap. I live in an area filled with people who do nothing, live in 5 million dollar houses, and pay their employees so little that a large portion of them rely on food stamp while working 40 hours per week. Don't give me that "Ahhh, poor little employer" shit. Again, you drive home the image that you are sheltered. I am typing this at home, less than a mile from multi-million dollar homes. Get fuk'n real.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well if you don't believe me let me ask you - do you know what "blue coal" is, do you know what a "shift in shanty" is, do you know what a "breaker" is, do you know what a "shaft" is.

Yah, right, I'll be willing to bet you never had to dirty your hands when you were a kid.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm sure you've seen your share of documentaries about poverty. Not one offering by claim will convince me otherwise. I won't bother you with with the boring science that builds my case for what can be summarized by saying that I recognize my kind when I see'm.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You have never during your life have ever experience what poverty is so what makes you an "authority on it"?

Have you ever been to the ghetto, have you ever talked with people expecially the younger people who live there.

Have you ever talked with a grade school kid who is afraid to go to school because he feels threatened?

Have you ever given anyone of those people a helping hand or a kind word?

I don't think you have for if you had, your answers would be directed toward those subjects instead of criticizing me for my comments.

I

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

If being self employed is so easy and profitable, why do you not become self employed?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

because the economy only moves when someone that has money puts money into it

that money is mostly created through loans

one needs permissions to get loans

it's a negative sum game

we live in a debtor economy

[-] -2 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

So? The money is there. All you need to do is to go out and make a product or service that people want or need. It is not like someone has a hoard of cash and nobody gets any unless they dribble a little out.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

only the few have the money to buy the product

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

Doesn't seem to be a problem for TV's or Iphones or cigarettes or beer.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

You apparently didn't actually read the post or you are unable to comprehend. Try again.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You were the one who wanted to throw all the problems you brought up in the face of the taxpayers and the self employed... "We need this in the face of every tax payer and especially the self employed."

Perhaps you should learn how to compose your own sentences or be able to read what you have copied and pasted that was written by others.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

You apparently didn't actually read the post or you are unable to comprehend. Try again.

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

You were the one who wanted to throw all the problems you brought up in the face of the taxpayers and the self employed... "We need this in the face of every tax payer and especially the self employed."

Perhaps you should learn how to compose your own sentences or be able to read what you have copied and pasted that was written by others.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Never said being "self employed" was easy and profitable. But people think that because a person own a business that person is "evil rich and wealthy".

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

I own my own business and I am anything but rich and wealthy. I do my best to not be evil.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

There you go - what I stated was true. However it is not always true depending on the kind of business, the location of the business and most of all the desire for the masses to purchase that product.

On a local level lots of businesses are making it - some better then others.

[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 2 years ago

The masses don't need to buy to be able to make a living. You can survive by serving your community.