Night Strike wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I am NOT, as you claim, demanding that the government support everyone (and when I do, I refer to "other people", not some remote and esoteric "government" as you do). I am demanding that EMPLOYERS pay a real wage, so people do not have to depend on other people to live. You don't like taxes? Then why allow a system where people can work, HARD, for 40 or more hours and still not be able to afford reasonable housing, food and cloting for reasonably-sized families.
Because not all jobs are worth $20 an hour. It's a plain and simple fact.
Which is why I am not even close to suggesting a minimum of $20 an hour.. as I did say several times before.
Then why aren't you suggesting it? If raising it to $9 won't have any negative effects, then why not raise it even higher Raising it to $9 doesn't even get a full time worker out of poverty (since you're crying about so many people not making a living wage), so why do this thing half-assed? Besides, we're going to get there eventually since no one wants to actually address the real problem of inflation.
Oh please.... for the same reason its not truly OK for a CEO to make 20 million, though 1-2 million is sometimes reasonable.
The minimum wage is just that. A minimum.
Per the "not out of poverty" bit.. partly that line is too high, based on an average instead of a minimum standard and skewed by places like San Francisco and New York that need different approaches, besides a national minimum wage. Partly, it is because most families are supported by more than one member, which is reasonable.. that is also why I set MY definition as "able to support oneself and maybe one child", not "a family of four" or any other measure.
Night Strike wrote: Working hard doesn't automatically entitle people to a pay rate that is worth more than their contributions.
Actually, it can.. which is why slavery is illegal. See the assessment of "what people are worth" lies not with all employers. Some employers are plain scum and need the government to say they have to pay a basic, minimum wage.
Please look up the definition of slavery again. Slavery means that you are in servitude against your will.[/quote]
Not entirely, see some slaves really did voluntarily stay with their masters. It is still illegal. Some people voluntarily went to go work in very dangerous conditions.. or as young children. Again, these things are illegal. The minimum wage is the bare minimum, not a ticket to luxury, but a basis that says "if you are working, you get to stay above the poverty line".
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Others may not be entirely scum, but are quite happy to save a buck when they can.. in this case, the main reason they "can" is that the rest of us wind up subsidizing so many low wage workers.
Stop the subsidies and people will either demand more pay or look for different/more work. It's called a free market.
The free market is not the universal panacea you pretend and certainly does not operate for the bottom of the labor market.
You pretend to talk a lot about the free market, but also ignore several things that have to be in place for that to operate. First and foremost is the ability to choose. People at the bottom don't get to choose, not really. Some women can "choose" to not work and stay on welfare becuase they won't get subsidized as much if they work. Sorry, but that is not a real choice. Many others "choose" not to go to school because they are making just enough to prevent them from obtaining any kind of aid.... because aid is based on what you are working now, so someone working 40 hours is expected to continue to do that AND go to school. A deadbeat, to contrast gets put to the front of the line under the theory that they will somehow be able to get off welfare if they get a better education. That last is somewhat true, but most of your "analysis" ignores the first category... large numbers of people, including teenagers who have to support themselves and who therefore are not eligible for educational assistance. Ironically, have a kid.. and they get assistance.
Fixing the minimum wage IS the best way to begin to fix that, not cutting off all support. We got the system we have because poverty hurts people, hurts society. When families don't have any support, kids go hungry and don't grow up well. When people don't have housing or food they often wind up being detriments to society instead of helps...and wind up spending most of their time just surviving so that it becomes even harder to maintain what employment IS available.
Your ideas of how the world work just don't match reality. Your ignorance of subsidies and how they work, versus how wages actually work is evident time and again... every time you get into this topic, but you also make it plain you would rather get your information from whatever conservative ideological source you consult than look at on the ground facts and realities.
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, not incorrect. Your employment doesn't give you the right to dictate my healthcare, nor does it give you the right to decide to pay me a wage I cannot live upon. I realize you think both are OK. I utterly disagree.
Actually, I believe that health insurance should be based on the individual instead of the employer, that way everybody can pay for what they want/need.
False choice, though I agree with individual payment. The problem is that people are not able to correctly assess and interpret what their healthcare needs will be. That is why we have insurance.
Night Strike wrote: And since you STILL fail to understand.....jobs aren't charities. An employer's role is to pay you want you're worth to the company. If that worth doesn't match up to the lifestyle you want to live, then you must find an extra job or a different job.
Oh bull... its "charity" when a CEO makes multi millions for a failing company, not when someone putting in 40 hours a week or more, working hard (and yes, most low wage workers DO work hard, despite your illusions to the contrary!) wants enough to live upon in return.
its "charity" when someone plopping down money they either inherited or gained from other investments expects a gauranteed 15020% return and complains if they don't get it.. without putting in any real effort for their return. THAT is "charity", not someone working, either skilled or unskilled and expected a proportional compensation in return.
Its "charity" when a CEO gets to take millions... but will only pay its research team less than 100K, despite the fact that its really the research team that is holding up the company. Its ALSO charity when companies get to take research, information, even real products like photographs produced with taxpayer funds and make a hefty profit on it without returning more than their basic income taxes in return.
Its charity when so many people get to enjoy living in a safe, healthy country, benefitting from a wide ranging educational and trasportation system as well as a healthy functioning set of ecosystems, but expects to get by with only paying taxes for what he/she thinks are their direct needs.
Its charity when firefighters and volunteer police officers all over the country do the work that in other areas is paid for by taxpayers, but in those areas isn't, mostly just because there is a tradition of volunteerism in those communities.
Those things are charity.. not a worker expecting a reasonable wage for a day's work.