Well it sounded good. ..
-
Deserve?
WSS
Are worth? Should earn? However you care to phrase it.
Actually I was wondering why somebody deserves more or less. If people are crying about not being able to take care of family with one person earning a minimum wage that would be a different situation than a kid working part time, woulldnt it?Are worth? Should earn? However you care to phrase it.
Is the idea that minimum wage should support one person or four people?
Not to mention the fact that a job weeks or months or years to learn should be worth more than one you can begin today from square one.
WSS
-
BTW, there's no correlation between minimum wage and unemployment, across the US.
If you take the minimum wage and unemployment percent and run a correlation, you actually get weak negative correlation, but that is in large part due to some states having no minimum wage. So take that out and you get a correlation figure of 0.06. For context, it can go from -1 to +1, strong negative to strong positive correlation. A figure of 0 means no correlation.
See the graph below for a visual demonstration.
-
Uh okay. So what's your point again with the graph?
And why does it make what I just said right or wrong?
WSS
-
Uh okay. So what's your point again with the graph?
And why does it make what I just said right or wrong?
WSS
Uh okay. So what's your point again with the graph?
And why does it make what I just said right or wrong?
WSS
Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
-
Uh okay. So what's your point again with the graph?
And why does it make what I just said right or wrong?
WSS
Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
No problem Chris. I thought you were responding to me.
I would guess, however, that if I owned a shop and needed a little bit of help raising my cost by 50% would be something of a hardship.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
For instance I've considered hiring a guy for fifty bucks a night to help me set up run sound etc, stuff that I do myself now.
I'd be hard pressed to pay the 50 bux but wouldn't even think about 75.
But even that is a smaller jump than from 7:50 up to 15.
WSS
-
To be fair, a jump from $7.50 to $15 is crazy. The problem is, $15 (or $12, or $18 or whatever) is where it should be now, and the problem is it hasn't been raised for a long time. If there were a law that stated national minimum wage would increase with cost of living year on year, starting from somewhere everyone agreed was acceptable, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
-
Uh okay. So what's your point again with the graph?
And why does it make what I just said right or wrong?
WSS
Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
I'm not the one beating the drum for the idea that you should be able to take care of a family on minimum wage.Didn't read what you said, was in response to the idea that higher minimum wage means higher unemployment.
To your point, you would have cal up in arms about such an idea - that you could earn more money just by squirting out kids, how very liberal of you. For me, I don't think it should be tied to how many people you need to support, it should be enough to comfortably support one person when working 40 hours per week.
But Cal is a good example, however many tomatoes he sells is his salary. With his bad knee he might choose to hire somebody to help but that means his salary is decreased by that much. So I assume he will get his teeth and limp through the tomato patch.
But realistically we give out food stamps and medical care to people who would earn only minimum wage, so there's a perk.
And depending where your living expenses vary by a wide margin.
WSS
-
And if cal were to go out of business for not being able to sell enough tomatoes, we would all mourn for him, but that's the capitalist model that the US and UK are built on.
-
FWIW, I would certainly not be against farmers receiving some kind of stipend from the government to see them through the hard times. We will always need food and we need that job to pay well enough that people want to do it, while not pumping up the cost of living at the same time.
-
Having the job skills of existing and having functioning hands should make people want to gain skills that make them capable of earning more than a minimum wage. The problem is that we do have a lot of people with zero ambition to get out of that type of work and then complain when they aren't paid how they feel they should be.
-
I think this will just push more towards automation. You are already seeing it in places where food ordering etc. is covered by a kiosk and not a person.
-
Not everyone can rise to the top. Society will always need people to clean toilets, flip burgers, mop floors, stack shelves. Someone needs to do it.
-
And if cal were to go out of business for not being able to sell enough tomatoes, we would all mourn for him, but that's the capitalist model that the US and UK are built on.
-
I think this will just push more towards automation. You are already seeing it in places where food ordering etc. is covered by a kiosk and not a person.
I think this will just push more towards automation. You are already seeing it in places where food ordering etc. is covered by a kiosk and not a person.
Yep there are a few chain restaurants with those electronic pads on the tables. I refuse to use them and if the manager says I have no choice I will go somewhere else. I'm not Che Guevara but...
WSS
-
I'm all on board with automation of anything possible (without downgrading functionality) btw. We're trying to move here towards driverless trains on the underground, and a 24-hour system (currently 6am to 12am, roughly), and you should see the ridiculous fuss kicked up by drivers. Sorry, but it's a business and I'd rather the whole system not be subject to people going on strike, people being ill, and I'd rather the cost be lowered so that the money can be invested elsewhere.
The unions here though are so powerful that we have to reach these compromises, which is why after tapping in with my travel card, I still have some jobsworth checking if I've tapped in. It's a real pain in the arse and people are just afraid of losing their cushy jobs. Drivers on the underground earn £50k; it's a closed market, you can only apply to be a driver if you already work for the company in some way (ticket office or whatever) as the unions insisted jobs be posted internally initially; they have insisted on endless 'training' for pushing a stop/start button, which in turn means they can demand more wages; and they claim more wages because they work in the dark (tunnels) for however many hours a day. Well sorry, but all that is solved if we use driverless trains. But the government, even the supposedly right wing government, is kowtowing to their demands at every turn. 'Night tube' was supposed to be live in September. It's still not live, and they're still striking to stop it happening.
</rant>
-
Sounds like we are in agreement on our opinion of the labor unions.
But in non union situations I'm glad to pay an extra nickel a gallon of gas or a few bucks in a tip for human service.
WSS
-
I am surprised the subways in London, a major league city, don't run all night
WSS
-
Minimum wage needs to be higher, but $15 maybe too much.
We mainly need more full time jobs with benefits rather than part time jobs. A flat tax plan that removes all incentives for offering those said benefits seems like a good way to go. (Pink font)
-
Not everyone can rise to the top. Society will always need people to clean toilets, flip burgers, mop floors, stack shelves. Someone needs to do it.
Not everyone can rise to the top. Society will always need people to clean toilets, flip burgers, mop floors, stack shelves. Someone needs to do it.
Well then they don't need to throw a fit when they realize that cleaning toilets isn't a lucrative career.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login