Poll of the Day > "I do not support a livable wage"

(+) Yeah! (+)

wat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPkY-dhuI7w

I would say live within your means, but gotta agree with increasing the minimum wage'

Ramen noodles should not jump from 4/$1.00 to 2/$1.00

I knew then and there we were fucked
---

poor choice of words but she's right
---

arv doesnt support minimum wage as living wage the only people it favors are the ones who never gave a crap till later in life. why should everyone else be punished for that. and what constitutes as a living wage
---

Her logic:

> Don't increase minimum wage and allow companies to pay employees very little
> This will lead to companies making high paying jobs

Sounds good to me.
---

faramir77 posted...

Her logic:

> Don't increase minimum wage and allow companies to pay employees very little
> This will lead to companies making high paying jobs

Sounds good to me.

I don't get why polarising pay grades would be beneficial.
---

Minimum wage workers will always struggle, regardless of what that wage is. Raising it puts more strain on everyone else as well.
---

My issue is when minimum wage raises, but my pay doesn't raise along with it. The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

"I do not support allowing the serfdom to gain economic freedom"
---

ArvTheGreat posted...

the only people it favors are the ones who never gave a crap till later in life.

What does this even mean?
---

mastermix3000 posted...

Ramen noodles should not jump from 4/$1.00 to 2/$1.00

???

they're 5/$1 here
---

Snuggletoof posted...

The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

You're right. That's why your pay didn't go down.
---

Peterass posted...

Minimum wage workers will always struggle, regardless of what that wage is. Raising it puts more strain on everyone else as well.

Not when you regulate companies so they can't quadruple profit margins when minimum wage increases.

Raising minimum wage makes more products capable of selling en masse and generally drops prices, CEOs raising their wages to be proportionately further ahead of their staff drives up prices as cash value is proportionate to how much is in circulation vs stored.

Minimum wage workers only struggle when the minimum wage is below living standard, they are unable to secure sufficient hours or they spend beyond their means.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Snuggletoof posted...

The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

You're right. That's why your pay didn't go down.

Cash value isn't static, when necessities cost more then at the same wage you are recieving lower value.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Snuggletoof posted...

The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

You're right. That's why your pay didn't go down.

Cash value isn't static, when necessities cost more then at the same wage you are recieving lower value.

Necessities don't cost more though.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Snuggletoof posted...

The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

You're right. That's why your pay didn't go down.

Cash value isn't static, when necessities cost more then at the same wage you are recieving lower value.

Necessities don't cost more though.

The argument is typically that when the minimum wage rises, the cost of milk and bread will rise too because reasons.
---

Raising the minimum wage means less jobs and harder interviews. More jobs will be lost because of it. The competition for jobs will increase and it will be harder to hold on to jobs because workers will be evaluated harsher. To me this is a good thing. Keepi minimum low or out right getting rid of it, will increase employee numbers but no one will want to work for so little. Especially since living costs have increased dramatically. But the pay will become more competitive.
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

Necessities don't cost more though.

Uh, yes they do. Which is the reason for minimum raise increase.

Things like rent and gas and food have been steadily increasing in cost for years. Wages should reflect this.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

Snuggletoof posted...

The value of my work didn't decrease just because you have to pay your part-time employees more.

You're right. That's why your pay didn't go down.

Cash value isn't static, when necessities cost more then at the same wage you are recieving lower value.

Necessities don't cost more though.

The argument is typically that when the minimum wage rises, the cost of milk and bread will rise too because reasons.

Weird, for all these years these things have been increasing in price without wages going up. It's almost like inflation is going to do it anyway
---

I know a guy who supported himself and 3 others, (all of which drank and he supported that habit as well) off of 8 bucks a hour. he however didn't have any form of paid tv (satellite cable etc.) no internet, no cell phone, just a home phone, and there was no junk food in the house and aside from beer everyone just drink milk or water.

basically put too many people must have all these unnecessary things in life that nickle and dime them to death. and there is welfare, food stamps and pay by income housing if your wages aren't enough.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The argument is typically that when the minimum wage rises, the cost of milk and bread will rise too because reasons.

Or if you're not being deliberately manipulative in your choice of words, the argument is that when you raise minimum wage, companies have to pay their employees more, and thus will raise the prices of their goods and services rather than being forced to eat that new extra cost themselves.

And when people follow that by suggesting "That's why we need laws to prevent companies from raising their prices, force them eat the cost, fuck big business!", the argument usually points out that a) smaller businesses can't necessarily eat the excess costs and are driven out of business, thus eliminating jobs entirely and raising unemployment, and b) larger businesses will either seek loopholes to bypass legislation (basically screwing over the general public/taxpayers in some way), or will relocate entirely to less developed nations with more lax business laws that they can exploit (thus eliminating domestic jobs and raising unemployment).

You can agree with the logic or not, but it's often quite well thought out in terms of complexities and consequences regardless. And while you can certainly accuse some people of parroting back the "party line" without actually understanding how economics, business, law, or politics work, the same is generally true of both sides of this argument - and pretty much every other political argument besides, and especially so online where 99.44% of the people you see discussing any issue don't actually understand anything about it.


---

It was just a flub of a response, but her overall point is there.
---

faramir77 posted...

Her logic:

> Don't increase minimum wage and allow companies to pay employees very little
> This will lead to companies making high paying jobs

Sounds good to me.

It's actually useful for people trying to start a work history, which can benefit at-risk youths and individuals with a history of unemployment. Plus you have to remember that it's not like every company just pays the minimum wage anyway. Therefore getting rid of the minimum doesn't mean all jobs default to the bottom because, if that was a legitimate issue, all jobs would pay minimum wage.

Peterass posted...

Minimum wage workers will always struggle, regardless of what that wage is. Raising it puts more strain on everyone else as well.

This, tbh, since it means the costs of everything else will rise despite the rest of society not seeing any improvement in their wages. And even on the bottom rungs, it's somewhat detrimental when you consider that people who got raises, etc, will see that raise vanish with a minimum wage hike.
---

Which option would you prefer:

1. Execute the poor
2. Livable wages
3. Universal basic income independent of work
---

Lokarin posted...

Which option would you prefer:

1. Execute the poor
2. Livable wages
3. Universal basic income independent of work

wut if ur poor and depressed!?! O_o
---

Smarkil posted...

It was just a flub of a response, but her overall point is there.

That people don't deserve to live if they work?

Lokarin posted...

Which option would you prefer:

1. Execute the poor
2. Livable wages
3. Universal basic income independent of work

Soylent Green WOULD solve a lot of problems.


---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I know a guy who supported himself and 3 others, (all of which drank and he supported that habit as well) off of 8 bucks a hour. he however didn't have any form of paid tv (satellite cable etc.) no internet, no cell phone, just a home phone, and there was no junk food in the house and aside from beer everyone just drink milk or water.

basically put too many people must have all these unnecessary things in life that nickle and dime them to death. and there is welfare, food stamps and pay by income housing if your wages aren't enough.

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.
---

Kana posted...

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.

My grandparents don't have either and they are fine
---

Peterass posted...

Kana posted...

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.

My grandparents don't have either and they are fine

They're old and retired the fuck do they care
---

Jen0125 posted...

Peterass posted...

Kana posted...

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.

My grandparents don't have either and they are fine

They're old and retired the fuck do they care

Proof that It's not necessary to have either in 2017
---

Well if you don't leave the house ever I guess maybe it's less necessary
---

Kana posted...

Well if you don't leave the house ever I guess maybe it's less necessary

I mean, people got by years leaving the house without either

For jobs nowadays though employers pretty much expect to be able to reach you on the go

Kana posted...

It's 2017.

---

Kana posted...

Kana posted...

It's 2017.

"It's this year guys! Debate over!"

Peterass posted...

Proof that It's not necessary to have either in 2017

They are not in the job market. they don't have to worry about applying online, being denied jobs because hr thinks without a cell phone you will be harder to reach if needed or because you are too hard to contact to schedule the interview before the job is filled, managing their work benefits which has mostly been moved online, working the same 8 hours the bank is open making online banking almost a requirement, educating yourself in your spare time so you can get one of the better jobs people keep belittling you for not having etc.

That said I believe it is possible to live without them, but you are basically saying that the poor don't deserve a good chance at upward mobility just because they are poor now.
---

Kana posted...

Kana posted...

It's 2017.

ah, the john oliver approach

an ad hominim attack designed to make the opposing side seem primitive by stating what year it is, backed up by 0 facts actually relevant to the discussion at hand.
---

Peterass posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Peterass posted...

Kana posted...

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.

My grandparents don't have either and they are fine

They're old and retired the fuck do they care

Proof that It's not necessary to have either in 2017

Because they're not supporting multiple people and they grew up during a time in which minimum wage could get you through college.
---

"I acknowledge that your job is necessary, but don't think you deserve to eat or pay rent."
---

adjl posted...

"I acknowledge that your job is necessary, but don't think you deserve to eat or pay rent."

i acknowledge that your job is necessary, and i intend to pay you for the value of that job, and the value of your labor, anything more and it is actually costing me more to employ you than you are worth.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

i acknowledge that your job is necessary, and i intend to pay you for the value of that job, and the value of your labor,

If a job is necessary, then the value of that job is the cost of having somebody live while performing that job. That's not an avoidable cost, unless you plan to rely on government intervention to keep the person alive, you dirty commie.

Troll_Police_ posted...

anything more and it is actually costing me more to employ you than you are worth.

This just in: Running a business costs money. If employing people doesn't make you enough money to keep those people alive, your business sucks and you can't afford to stay open.
---

Lokarin posted...

Which option would you prefer:

1. Execute the poor
2. Livable wages
3. Universal basic income independent of work

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

BlackScythe0 posted...

Smarkil posted...

It was just a flub of a response, but her overall point is there.

That people don't deserve to live if they work?

...what?

Kana posted...

Cell phones and internet are not unnecessary, dude. It's 2017.

Honestly, even in 2017 the internet is still a luxury. And a cell phone is only a necessity if you don't have a landline.



slacker03150 posted...

Peterass posted...

Proof that It's not necessary to have either in 2017

They are not in the job market. they don't have to worry about applying online, being denied jobs because hr thinks without a cell phone you will be harder to reach if needed or because you are too hard to contact to schedule the interview before the job is filled, managing their work benefits which has mostly been moved online, working the same 8 hours the bank is open making online banking almost a requirement, educating yourself in your spare time so you can get one of the better jobs people keep belittling you for not having etc.

That said I believe it is possible to live without them, but you are basically saying that the poor don't deserve a good chance at upward mobility just because they are poor now.

Except not having personal internet doesn't mean you can't access the internet. More importantly, I'm not sure that cell phone ownership is a consideration for employers since it's kinda assumed these days.

adjl posted...

This just in: Running a business costs money. If employing people doesn't make you enough money to keep those people alive, your business sucks and you can't afford to stay open.

This just in: Wages cost businesses money. If you can't establish a personal value good enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't be entitled to that wage and should be grateful to take whatever they offer.
---

Zeus posted...

This just in: Wages cost businesses money.

Yes, that is what I said. Good job following me this far.

Zeus posted...

If you can't establish a personal value good enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't be entitled to that wage and should be grateful to take whatever they offer.

This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business.

Again, if a position is necessary, then it is necessary for a person in that position to be able to live. This is not a cost that can be avoided. Then current paradigm is to pass off that deficit to the government, relying on welfare programs to shore up sub-par business ownership. That's not a great paradigm, because it exists as an inefficient half-measure between a livable wage and a basic guaranteed income. Either establish a livable minimum wage and refocus welfare efforts on supporting businesses that are struggling to maintain those wages (dramatically reducing administrative costs because there are much fewer employers than there are employees), or establish a basic guaranteed income such that minimum wage laws are no longer required to ensure that workers can live (also dramatically reducing administrative costs because it simplifies the welfare process).

Zeus posted...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

It's not really a false dilemma (even without getting into it technically being a trilemma). Those are the three options that exist, with the current paradigm of welfare being an inefficient, half-baked effort at #3. If people don't have enough money to live, they will die ("execute" being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is valid). The two options for paying people enough to live are to mandate that employers pay a livable wage, or to have a third party provide that living wage independent of employers. It really is that simple.
---

adjl posted...

This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business.

Again, if a position is necessary, then it is necessary for a person in that position to be able to live. This is not a cost that can be avoided. Then current paradigm is to pass off that deficit to the government, relying on welfare programs to shore up sub-par business ownership. That's not a great paradigm, because it exists as an inefficient half-measure between a livable wage and a basic guaranteed income. Either establish a livable minimum wage and refocus welfare efforts on supporting businesses that are struggling to maintain those wages (dramatically reducing administrative costs because there are much fewer employers than there are employees), or establish a basic guaranteed income such that minimum wage laws are no longer required to ensure that workers can live (also dramatically reducing administrative costs because it simplifies the welfare process).

Why is this the government's responsibility?

Mcdonalds where I live is desperate for people and have raised their starting wage to 12 bucks an hour. I don't even live anywhere where the cost of living is high. But they can't get anyone to take the position, so pay necessarily goes up until the position is filled. It's supply and demand economics.

Also, if you're making minimum wage past being a teenager, then you fucked up. Make yourself more employable and make more money. It's really not hard to do. The people that have legitimate reasons for being in a shitty position like that (like ex cons and people with disablities) have or should have other programs.

Why would you 20+ and still making minimum wage?
---

Smarkil posted...

Why is this the government's responsibility?

Technically, it could be any third party. The government is the third party that's currently responsible for it, though, and it generally makes practical sense to have the government handle it because the infrastructure is already in place for adjusting the funding as needed.

Smarkil posted...

Mcdonalds where I live is desperate for people and have raised their starting wage to 12 bucks an hour. I don't even live anywhere where the cost of living is high. But they can't get anyone to take the position, so pay necessarily goes up until the position is filled. It's supply and demand economics.

That sort of thing is good, because it means people that are working at McD's do so because they feel the pay is worth the work, rather than because they're desperate and it's better than making nothing. That better balances power between employers and employees.

Smarkil posted...

Also, if you're making minimum wage past being a teenager, then you f***ed up.

That doesn't make food or rent any cheaper.
---

adjl posted...

That sort of thing is good, because it means people that are working at McD's do so because they feel the pay is worth the work, rather than because they're desperate and it's better than making nothing. That better balances power between employers and employees.

So you're agreeing that it's better to let the market handle it than the government coming in and forcing businesses to pay more.

adjl posted...

That doesn't make food or rent any cheaper.

Then I guess they're gonna have to figure their shit out. Start grabbing roommates and eating ramen until they get paid more.

After I turned 18, I went from making minimum wage (then 5.15 IIRC) to making 12.00/hr within a year and I'm fucking dumb and lazy.
---

Smarkil posted...

So you're agreeing that it's better to let the market handle it than the government coming in and forcing businesses to pay more.

Ideally, yeah. When letting the market handle it means people work 40 hours a week and still starve, though, that's a problem. In that case, the system breaks down because employers have too much power (namely, they can manipulate people's desperation to pay them less than they ought to). It's not a free market when wages are an absolute necessity, because prospective employees don't have the freedom of choice that's needed for a market to be free.

That's why I'm a big fan of the idea of a basic guaranteed income. Mandating a higher minimum wage isn't going to be a problem for big corporations like the Walmarts and the McD's that always get cited in these cases, but it is for smaller startups that actually can't afford more than minimum wage for their employees, and that just breeds oligopolies. In contrast, if people are guaranteed to have enough money to survive, there's no need for any sort of minimum wage, and employers can set wages with the intent of being competitive in a proper supply-and-demand environment.

Smarkil posted...

Then I guess they're gonna have to figure their s*** out.

And why should they have to hate their life in the interim? America is not a poor country. There's no reason to expect people to content themselves with third-world conditions, even temporarily.
---

adjl posted...

This isn't about personal abilities, though. It's about the position itself, which employers designate as having a sub-living wage. If an individual working at a living wage doesn't generate enough revenue for the business to cover that wage, by all means, fire them, because that's not sustainable. But if the position itself cannot generate enough revenue to allow the employer to stay in business, the position should not exist. If that's not an option, then the employer can't afford to stay in business.

If you can live on a wage, by definition it is a living wage. The issue is the expectation that you're entitled to a work week not exceeding 40 hours, which is a relatively new concept dating back less than a 100 years.

And if your labor has virtually no value and the expertise is so low that a monkey can be trained to do your job, you can't command good wages. Keep in mind that there are countless jobs in this society which are absurdly low-rung, low-skilled, etc, yet they offer wages well in excess of the minimum. It's not like even unskilled labor can't do better than minimum.

As for your argument about firing somebody, you acknowledge that employment is a contract about usefulness but somehow ignore the fact that it should extend to wages. If you're not useful enough to command a higher wage, you shouldn't receive that wage. More importantly, the minimum wage makes some people with poor (or no) work records unhirable.

adjl posted...

It's not really a false dilemma (even without getting into it technically being a trilemma). Those are the three options that exist, with the current paradigm of welfare being an inefficient, half-baked effort at #3. If people don't have enough money to live, they will die ("execute" being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is valid). The two options for paying people enough to live are to mandate that employers pay a livable wage, or to have a third party provide that living wage independent of employers. It really is that simple.

Except it is a false dilemma. First, because the minimum wage is already livable provided you reasonably cut costs (roommates, etc). Second, and more importantly, because the thing is predicated on the 40 hour workweek. If somebody doesn't make what they need in 40 hours, what do they usually wind up doing? They work more. Even a lot of people who don't necessarily need the money often choose to work more. Coincidentally, raising the minimum wage often has the effect of REDUCING workweeks which makes things LESS livable for workers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-seattle-minimumwage-idUSKBN19H2MV
---

adjl posted...

Ideally, yeah. When letting the market handle it means people work 40 hours a week and still starve, though, that's a problem. In that case, the system breaks down because employers have too much power (namely, they can manipulate people's desperation to pay them less than they ought to). It's not a free market when wages are an absolute necessity, because prospective employees don't have the freedom of choice that's needed for a market to be free.

That's why I'm a big fan of the idea of a basic guaranteed income. Mandating a higher minimum wage isn't going to be a problem for big corporations like the Walmarts and the McD's that always get cited in these cases, but it is for smaller startups that actually can't afford more than minimum wage for their employees, and that just breeds oligopolies. In contrast, if people are guaranteed to have enough money to survive, there's no need for any sort of minimum wage, and employers can set wages with the intent of being competitive in a proper supply-and-demand environment.

The fortunate thing about people's desperation is that they have many different options to choose from. If Walmart doesn't pay enough, then go work for Home Depot. Shop around until you can find something better. In the interim, you can take the low-paying job to help support yourself. It's not supposed to be easy.

UBI requires the money to come from somewhere, and the US government doesn't have the money. We're already at nearly 19 trillion dollars in debt - due in large part to the ACA (which is a form of UBI in itself). If we had a budget surplus - fine, give people free money. That's what states like Alaska do. But we don't. So unless we can afford to give out handouts, the people are gonna have to figure their own shit out.

adjl posted...

And why should they have to hate their life in the interim? America is not a poor country. There's no reason to expect people to content themselves with third-world conditions, even temporarily.

Because you don't have a right to your life not sucking. It's not the governments responsibility to make you happy. That's up to you. And LOL at third-world conditions. If you think 7.50 an hour puts you in the same condition than an African living in Sierra Leone does, then I don't even know what to say. We have chronically homeless people that have internet enabled cell phones for fucks sake.

Work hard and you'll be fine. You might not ever get rich just by working hard, but you'll survive.
---