Question:
Should every job in the US pay a "living wage"?
2014-11-07 11:30:17 UTC
Where would all that money come from?
216 answers:
2014-11-08 15:18:09 UTC
Every full time job with maybe a few exceptions should be paid a living wage which is enough for food, shelter and expenses. A living wage has nothing to do with a wage scale where some jobs pay more than others but helps people get off welfare or other programs where some people stay on assistance because they are better off than working for minimum wage. The money would come with the increased spending from all those making a living wage vs a minimum wage. It has been stated that Walmart would have to increase their prices by only 1 per cent to pay all their full time employees a living wage. If you really knew most of the tax cuts only help the well off and not the middle or lower class. Tax cuts do not create jobs just more money for the rich.
☦ICXCNIKA ☦
2014-11-07 12:53:08 UTC
I'll be honest I'd love to live in the world where the fry cook at the local fast food joint made enough money to pay the rent if they worked full time and getting a job was just a matter of turning in an application. This is the reason I support tax, tort, regulatory and monetary reform and ending subsidies- especially the agricultural price support programs which were designed to jack up the price of food. I've heard quite a few claims the $1.6 minimum wage in 1968 would be worth between $10 and $21 in today's money. This claim in my view points to two problems neither of which are the minimum wage is to low. The first is the dollar has lost a lot of value the second is excessive regulations are hurting the average consumer. Either by jacking up the cost of running a business and hiring people or by making it more difficult to start a business and thus allowing big companies to gouge the consumer as they can rest assure some ma and pa company can't open up and charge 50% less.
The First Dragon
2014-11-08 17:14:34 UTC
Not necessarily. Not all workers need to make a living. Some need to earn only half a living, some are working just for extra money, and some are working mainly to gain experience.

However, the reason the current "minimum wage" may not be enough to live on, is that the government keeps devaluing the money. A dollar today will not buy what a dollar would buy 10 years ago.

In a way, this answers the question of where all the money would come from. The government is engaged in making extra money right now. There are too many dollars, so that each dollar is worth less.

After all, the paper bills and metal coins are only tokens that we agree to use as currency. They have almost no intrinsic value.

I remember the days when the quarters and dimes were made of silver. And as for the paper money, you could demand that the government give you a dollar's worth of silver in exchange for a dollar bill.
sophieb
2014-11-07 21:09:06 UTC
to me the words "living wage" mean a wage a person can pay their rent, electric, water, food and transportation on, and that does not describe the "starter jobs" that are for students like fast food and restaurant type jobs as well as jobs like baggers at the grocery store. Those jobs are for pin money and the $200 rent that most parents require from their young person (whether they are 13-17 or 18-23).



The "living wage" jobs are the jobs people get after having some experience and training (training either from past jobs like an apprenticeship, or from schooling like an AA or a automotive test, or beautician schooling, etc.). Those jobs come with three levels (low medium and high for each job) and the person starts at low or medium and works up to the highest from job performance, experience, responsibility, etc.



Jobs should not be given like $10.10 or $15 as a minimum wage as that defeats the purpose. But what's happening today is that since the 2008 economy bust not enough jobs in certain fields have been created (people have not re-educated in technology, not enough manufacturing jobs have been created, jobs promised on construction of bridges and such have not come to fruition) and people have waited way too long for the better jobs that haven't come so that's why they're demanding higher wages. And this is why we're looking for a change of president so that large corporations and businesses and small businesses could be created (some by lowering the corporate taxes, some bringing in branch offices from other countries, and some new tech jobs being started, and small business startups, as well as fracking and manufaturing jobs being brought back home, etc.). Until those things happen people will still depend on welfare for survival (either by no job or underpaid jobs).
nursienurse
2014-11-08 15:37:29 UTC
Every one who works a 40 hour work week and has a good work record should get a 'living wage'. At a lower paying job ( garbage men home health aides, fast food workers and those only working a few hours a day), these workers will not get as much as a college graduate. Most college graduates are never going to get paid a much as their counter parts that graduate from Yale, Harvard and Princeton. Its a shame that people who work as home health aids and spend more time with the patient and do more for the patient aren't receiving more pay for this thankless job. The largest amount of money goes to the people who are sitting behind desks and in some instances could not or would not do the job that the people under them do.



Other people have mentioned the ability to manage money which is needed for everyone to live within the income they bring home. Many people do not save anything for the future so when they retire they may have to resort to living with elderly parents to make ends meet.



Unfortunately, there isn't a solution for everyone. Everyone has to live within their means and this is very difficult for people who want the latest TV, I-phone, car or laptop. My son-in-law wanted to buy a new gun every month instead of paying the mortgage. So now he doesn't have a house or a wife but has 75 guns which was his priority. If your priority is to make a living wage, it might mean working more than one job to get it. This is what people used to do to pay bills, buy that second hand car they needed to get to work. They didn't have enough time to watch TV or make phone calls but they were paying into retirement systems and social security so down the road they would be able to retire with the same income they made when they were working.
A conscience
2014-11-07 17:57:06 UTC
"Where would all that money come from?"

A basic understanding of economics tells you that money is a just a tool used to exchange goods and services. In modern society, money is just a number associated with an identity. It represents how much goods and services that identity can take from society. So giving people more money is as simple as changing the number being added to their account.





Figuring how much each person deserves to take from society is more tricky...

Everyone should have the right to live and sustain themselves if they are doing something productive for society. However, we can't give the garbage man the same pay as the theoretical physicist. Why? Because then there is no incentive for people to put in the extra work required to become a theoretical physicist! Because humans are lazy and selfish, the only way for society to progress is to financially encourage people to pursue jobs that aid in said progression.



If you think about it, the garbage man arguably contributes more to society than the typical theoretical physicist, but because his job is so easy to do, it does not merit higher pay. 90% of the people on the planet can collect garbage and dump it into a truck. <1% can handle theoretical physics.The salary of an occupation is not determined by the occupation's merit, but by the resources and effort someone needs to put in to get to the job in the first place.



With that established, the issue of minimum wage is simple:

Everyone should at least be paid enough to lead healthy lives. However, jobs that require very little skill and prerequisites should not pay so much that the employees are satisfied with their lot in society.

People living off of minimum wage *should* be complaining. Complaints means there is a huge incentive for them to get a better job. At the same time, these people should not be sleeping in the streets and making bad decisions out of desperation.

This crucial balance cannot be achieved in a nation-wide statute. Minimum wage laws will need to passed on a local level since the cost of living varies across the nation.



Unfortunately, someone always has to be at the bottom of the food chain, and those people are usually the ones who can't haul themselves any higher up the economic tower. As a result we have worker unions, protests, etc.
?
2016-07-22 18:04:35 UTC
2
Brandon
2014-11-07 11:36:19 UTC
Fun fact: Everyone job IS a living wage. Working full-time at McDonalds can allow you to get a cheap renting place and put some cheap food on the table and some cheap clothes on your back. All cheap, but you'll survive. However, these minimum wage workers at McDonalds also want IPhones, nice places to live, the ability to go out to fancy restaurants, and nice elegant clothes. I'm sorry, but if you want that you gotta step up your game and get a better paying job. If you make every job have a wage where people can afford whatever they want, you provide no motivation for people to move up to the next level. Why bother going through med school or even getting a degree when you can have a successful life buying whatever you want while working at Wendys?
Lifeline
2014-11-07 18:11:39 UTC
No, t hose whom study and earn a degree should earn a higher financial reward over those whom decided to drop out and now see that they wasted their time and now hate that they earn a meager wage---McD's pay a hourly wage because it is a sort of training job but it is not to be considered a 'living wage' job for a person whom is married and with kids...those whom are asking for a $10.10 or $15 hourly wage need to consider that it is not a job where these amounts can be paid--the wages are based on profits..to pay a higher wage, McD would need to increase their Dollar Value Menu which would lead to people avoiding stopping there for a quick burger or drink...



A "living wage" comes from a career and not a job at a local fast food joint.....
KarenL
2014-11-08 16:47:59 UTC
Could someone define in dollars, "What is a Living wage?" I know attorneys whose salary is in the six figures and they have no control over their spending and are always in debt. I have met immigrants who refuse to accept "food stamps" out of pride and who between the adults work 3 jobs and they are seeking to buy a business. So should not the market rule, letting people buy and sell their labor at a market price. The government may have a role in informing the public what is the average wage is for most job titles. They can even give the mean median and mode along with the sample size and Std Dev for each job. But in a free economy they should not set wages or prices.
Philip
2014-11-07 13:55:25 UTC
This is a simple economics question once you get past the politics of the term "living wage." The money for any wage increase would come from the pool of money to pay workers. If wages are required to be higher, then there are fewer jobs. It is that simple.



I recently moved from a state that had a mandatory state minimum wage that was tied to the CPI to a state that follows only the Federal minimum wage. In the first state, check out lanes in retail and grocery stores were being automated so that one employee could manage 8 checkout lanes at once. Only one lane might have a check out clerk for that personal service and most consumers chose to check themselves out. In the second state, I have yet to see a single one of these stations.



A business facing steep increases in wages and health care will invest in technology to reduce labor costs. a "living wage" would be great for those employed but not so great if you are one of the ones that are replaced by technology.
BillDict
2014-11-07 11:34:08 UTC
No. Every job should pay what it's worth. If someone chooses an easy job with minimal responsibilities, then they should earn minimal money. If you want more money, do like the rest of us and take on more responsibility and more work.



No one owes you a living. The problem is that so many able-bodied citizens choose to live off of taxpayer-funded programs instead of supporting themselves. They often have a better standard of living than someone working in a low-paying job. So, I understand their anger and frustration.



The solution is NOT to give these lowe-level-job people a raise. The solution is to cut off the leeches. End the hand-out programs, and the government can cut taxes and make life easier for the working people.



.
Texas Mike
2014-11-07 11:38:01 UTC
Not possible of course because no one can define a living wage. Some people live fine on a little some don't. For instance a engineer friend of mine [making a lot of money] in Houston loved not spending much money and actually went without air conditioning in the summer...electric bill $12/month. He was fine with that. How does that factor into a living wage?
shipwreck
2014-11-07 11:33:27 UTC
No, some jobs aren't worth enough to support a family which is what some call a living wage. Minimum wage should be enough for a high school student or an adult living with other people. Renting a room in a house or sharing a studio apartment with another adult, not enough to raise children.

If you raise it too much jobs like giving food samples or walmart greeter would go away so people working a little to get extra income would have no jobs.
Timothy
2014-11-07 21:15:02 UTC
We have a system that was very easy to stand to begin with. Employee wants job and Employer works out a deal. Employee doesn't like how Employer is treating him.. he threatens to leave. Employer desperately needs Employee so he increases his pay. In other cases when Employer is too cheap or greedy to properly pay and take care of Employee, then too bad for him... his business fails. And that's the end of it. Since when did anyone think that it was necessary to add a third party to this equation, to regulate that actions between two consenting people i.e., the worker and the boss. You can't "create" jobs by raising the minimum wage... it doesn't stimulate anything, rather just shuffles money around. People need to stop thinking in just employee-terms and start thinking in boss-terms, as well.
?
2014-11-07 12:05:04 UTC
Correct. According to the law of averages in all aspects. Nature's law..too, that gets messed up by not staying regulated on average. Too much and too little are not just right. People pay a 10% donation into our gov org and recive back on that our shelter, food, water allowances adequately. That's the law. As it is, the rich more, and the poor, less. The rest of us do w/o. Real nice like, right?! Even that out to an equal (tie), fair living wage, and that's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you still have half your check left. The same with the businesses where everyone counts the same, instead of one person. That's the law.
2014-11-07 13:23:07 UTC
From 2001-2007 100% of our economic gains went to the top 10%. 100%



If worker pay had kept pace with CEO pay over the past 20 years, the minimum wage would be around $30/hour right now.



Where would all that money come from? Where did it all GO? THAT’S the question. GW’s massive cash grab for the elite, that’s where it went.



21 MEN earned $19 BILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR. And they’re paying a LOWER TAX RATE THAN I AM!!!!



Wake up.
2014-11-08 11:46:53 UTC
Yes. There should be a level playing field. Big corporations have a greater advantage at stashing their profits overseas, to avoid paying their fair share. Cut out these shenanigans, so small and middle and sole owners compete on an equal footing bit big corporations.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38938.htm

"The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We’ve had 75 years of complaints from big business—when the minimum wage was instituted, when women had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We’re all going to go bankrupt. I’ll have to close. I’ll have to lay everyone off. It hasn’t happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated, business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.



Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle, our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers, look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of job growth by small businesses are San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage? San Francisco and Seattle. The fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn’t a risky untried policy for us. It’s doubling down on the strategy that’s already allowing our city to kick your city’s ***.







It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an hour, which is now the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person’s income do you think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway, and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she’s not going out to eat at restaurants. Not browsing for new clothes.



Republicans and Democrats in Congress can’t shrink government with wishful thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don’t need food stamps. They don’t need rent assistance. They don’t need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won’t need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit."



http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2014/04/#.VF5tIe_FJcs

"Over the years, Pfizer’s aggressive lobbying efforts have taken billions of dollars out of the U.S. Treasury, at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. Its biggest coup was the passage of a repatriation holiday (PDF) in 2004, for which it was the largest single beneficiary and ultimately saved the company a whopping $10 billion. On the state and local level Pfizer has also done very well for itself, receiving over $200 million in subsidies and tax breaks over the past couple decades."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/30/rep-issa-shielding-300-billion-in-tax-evasion/ "The U.S. tax code has long been perforated by corporate lobbyists and corporate tax attorneys whose primary purpose is to circumvent its laws so that their profit-rich companies can avoid paying their fair share to Uncle Sam. In many states, it is a literal race-to-the-bottom for elected officials to offer corporations sweeter tax deals to keep jobs in-state, as illustrated by the Boeing controversy in Washington State earlier this year. Notably, besides getting a state tax holiday, Boeing paid zero in federal income tax on large U.S. based profits last year — along with many other major U.S. corporations such as GE and Verizon. Some of these Fortune 500 companies even get a rebate check! (See “The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes” report from Citizens for Tax Justice. )



And of course multimillionaires and billionaires, by taking full advantage of tax loopholes, deductions, deferrals and other forms of creative accounting, often pay less in taxes than middle-class Americans."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/14/in-the-time-of-the-shadow-bankers/ "manipulates the tax codes of both countries to extract the greatest net tax reduction."
?
2014-11-07 22:02:21 UTC
Think about this: If everyone working in America is paid a living wage, then they have more money to spend. If people have more money to spend, they buy more stuff. If people buy more stuff, DEMAND for stuff goes up. And when DEMAND goes up, the companies that SUPPLY stuff for the increased DEMAND have their profits increase. And when profits are increased, companies can afford to pay their employees more. Also, when DEMAND goes up, businesses have to hire more people to increase the SUPPLY. It's called capitalism. I learned about SUPPLY and DEMAND in grade school.



If a living wage was mandated, and a provision added that said that businesses can't be douche bags and fire their workforce to pay for it, they would see a dip in profits, for about 7 days. Once the first payday with the mandated living wage came, all the workers would be running around with extra money in their pockets, and spend it on things they want/need. Middle and lower class people don't make enough money to be able to save any money. So giving them more money increases profits almost immediately.



Also, since a living wage would pull a lot of people out from below the poverty line, there would be a lot more people running around with disposable income. And, less people would need welfare, so it would save the government money.
?
2014-11-08 12:37:57 UTC
How will living wage be determined when cost of living varies depending on location? You also have to include other factors like the actual expenses per family unit as a whole and per individual. It's not the same for every worker.



In relation to the minimum wage issue, here's an interesting report: http://bitly.com/1n4lqIa .
SeaTurtle
2014-11-07 13:53:09 UTC
What's the point of a full-time job that DOESN'T pay a living wage? We'll still pay for them, in the form of taxes that go to food stamps and other public assistance.



What, you thought you were actually saving money at Walmart? Half their hourly employees get government assistance! So enjoy those low prices, since if you figure in the fact that they're also getting a cut of your taxes, you're still paying about the same as you would if they simply paid their employees better and raised their prices to cover the difference.
2016-03-08 08:38:34 UTC
Teen agers aren't working in fast food the way they used to for two reason, there are fewer of them and older, more reliable workers have taken their place, and now its only part time by a half an hour, no more three and four hour shifts. We shouldn't be paying based on age, we should be paying based on what the job is worth to the company, no matter who is doing it. For adults who have minimum wage jobs and they exist in malls everywhere, and in recreational areas, and landscaping and of course fast food, they often have to cobble together two or three jobs to make ends meet, its not a mortgage, its rent. and its not a family, its themselves. They do have to live an eat. In terms of value to a company, the fancy executive salaries won't be made if the burgers aren't flipped on time and kept fresh and served up with a smile. You underestimate the value of the person behind the counter or on the floor, a good staff can upsell and make you a lot more money, it makes sense to pay the face of your company as much as someone who picks out the paint color for the offices. Without those minimum wage workers there wouldn't be a company.
2014-11-07 16:30:14 UTC
Not much sense in working Your butt off for a job that can't even give You the basic necessities of life. I have all the qualifications a employer wants and needs to do the job's They want Me for. I have the Education and Experience and any other qualifications They require. One of the first things I ask when getting hired is What will the rate of pay be? If it comes up to My expectations I stay for the rest of the interview . If not I leave . As far as I'm concerned My employers depend on Me to make money for Them . If They feel They can find someone better then let Them hire that person. I didn't go to School and bust My Azz off to make someone else rich I did it for My Self.
2014-11-07 11:32:20 UTC
The argument about a living wage is bunk. When are people going to come to the realization that if they want to increase their wages they should stay in school, take college course,s get into an apprenticeship,do something to gain more opportunities in the job market and quit avoiding the fact they need to make it happen, not wait for it to happen . As for poverty, the majority of people on welfare have no intention of getting off it. They know every trick in the book on how to live off the population and find ways to claim just about everything.
?
2014-11-07 11:40:36 UTC
And who decides what that amount should be? Your choice is between the company who is being dictated to or the government that created the bad economic polices that makes a dollar worth less than that. Minimum wage used to be $5.00 an hour in 1982 and I supported a nice apartment, car loan, a wife and a new born child with left over cash to spare! How many people working MW drink, smoke or do drugs? I am curious if this is yet another example of me having to pay for them through increased labor costs passed to the consumer for their bad habits.
Victor Meldrew
2014-11-07 11:34:40 UTC
Well that would eliminate all of the marginal business plans because they could not afford it. I guess you pine for the days when blacks had 100% employment and we could not get enough of them to meet the demands of the Southern Plantations. There are trade offs there and I think that yes we should not mess with jobs that do not pay a living wage when an adult has the job. Make some exceptions for teenagers working jobs while going to school.
2014-11-07 11:38:04 UTC
The moment you make it a "living wage" then it is no longer a living wage. It becomes the bottom of the barrel job in terms of earning. Inflation wipes out the gains.
Coop 366
2014-11-08 00:40:14 UTC
If a job does not pay a living wage, who pays for the difference? We tax payers, that's who! The Conservatives say it will raise the prices, okay but it could lower taxes because of less people on welfare. Tell me why we have to give food stamps to Walmart workers when the Company is making billions of dollars profit besides the money they make off the food stamps. Walmart does not pay enough taxes to pay for a tenth of the cost of our welfare state. That is just one of the companies that operates that way in America.

If you think I lie check the net and don't just listen to what your friends tell you, think for yourself.
?
2014-11-09 20:33:05 UTC
Not possible after all as a result of nobody will outline a remuneration. Some folks live fine on a trifle some do not. for example a engineer friend of mine [making plenty of cash] in Houston precious not disbursement a lot of money and truly went while not air-con within the summer...electric bill $12/month. He was fine therewith. however will that issue into a living wage?
RicoShay
2014-11-08 03:13:31 UTC
Kristine below is clearly missing the point. She doesn't seem to know or understand that very wealthy people pay less in taxes than a middle to low income worker. She also seems to think that people and/or corporations donate to charities out of the kindness of their hearts. While that may be the case for some individuals, the main reason why the wealthy donates is to get tax write offs to keep from having to pay so much in taxes!
2014-11-07 13:20:47 UTC
If we paid "slackers" more money--food, rents, gasoline--the general costs of living would increase faster than wages ever could. So paying more would only be counter-productive. American made products would be too expensive to export and the few manufacturing jobs we still have in the US would leave. The costs of living in the US would destroy middle-America. Sad, but true.
Denver
2014-11-08 15:49:08 UTC
Yes. When an employer pays their employees less than a living wage, the employee has to have food stamps and subsidized housing. This results in us taxpayers having to support the employer's work force. The employer should be paying their work force enough to live on, not relying on taxpayers to provide them with more profits by allowing them to get by with paying insufficient wages.
Oliver
2014-11-09 10:27:27 UTC
job does not pay a living wage, who pays for the difference? We tax payers, that's who! The Conservatives say it will raise the prices, okay but it could lower taxes because of less people on welfare. Tell me why we have to give food stamps to Walmart workers when the Company is making billions of dollars profit besides the money they make off the food stamps. Walmart does not pay enough taxes to pay for a tenth of the cost of our welfare state. That is just one of the c
Jim
2014-11-07 19:11:23 UTC
Yes they should. Businesses' talk about the bottom line but they do not tell you that includes their profit. They can afford it or arrange for the workers to won some of the business out rite. If you get up and take care of your children and older folks maybe pets etc. Then dress and go to work you need to be able to save for a house, insurance, and job stability at the very least. We need the strong unions back..
?
2014-11-09 00:01:10 UTC
That's a nice idea... in theory.



In reality, raising the minimum wage would move the jobs overseas to people in sweatshops for 10 cents an hour.
Adam
2014-11-09 07:12:01 UTC
Problem is that many Americans think a living wage means they should have enough to own a Big Screen TV and a Complete Cable Package.
2014-11-07 18:01:02 UTC
What ever happened to working your way up?? Thats how smart people operate. Unless, you're a taker and don't think you should work hard to get more money. Living wage is the stupest thing I ever heard. If you don't like what their paying work harder!
2014-11-07 11:32:06 UTC
Higher prices. But I'm happy to pay an extra quarter for a coffee if the person serving it isn't hitting food banks to survive. It wouldn't take much per transaction for many service jobs to pay them reasonable wages or provide decent benefits.
?
2014-11-08 12:50:04 UTC
Some people are just not going to be able enough to make much money in life because they lack the intellect and/or physical strength, personality, etc., but what we shouldn't do is go on and on complaining about those people. They're doing what they can do with what they've been given. So be it.
gerald
2014-11-07 11:43:23 UTC
well it's what value is placed on that job and the employer has the say standards don't count any more a certain should be worth a certain wage but if someone can gat it done for less they will it's the slippery slope of capitalism a price for everything a value of nothing get it cheaper if you can and if people are desperate they will or have to accept this decision eventually people will be slaves to survive grateful for the scraps an employer throws them
?
2014-11-07 17:05:07 UTC
No one knows what a 'living wage' is.

Some people handle their money a lot better than other people.
?
2014-11-07 18:12:56 UTC
A living wage. You are a moron for even using this politically intended choice of words that is clearly directed to those who wont think for themselves. Try using words like if I work my *** off and show up for work every day will my boss find ways to pay me more so I do not leave. god help us
npublici
2014-11-07 17:18:15 UTC
All you selfish people can argue semantics all you want,but the fact is that most of the money is in a very few hands and it is worse than it ever has been,since wages have been held down.This is not right and is evil.
Barbara Doll to you
2014-11-10 06:46:49 UTC
If they did the new living wage would increase because of increased costs so it wouldn't be a living wage anymore.
Trump The Commie
2014-11-07 11:36:18 UTC
Food for thought:



1/3 of the labor force were in unions in the 1950s highest ever. It has been declining since then.
?
2016-07-09 13:31:23 UTC
The Highest Paying Surveys : http://OnlineSurveys.uzaev.com/?sJWs
The Reverend Soleil
2014-11-07 11:34:33 UTC
Depends -- exactly who gets to define what a "living wage" is, and based on what criteria?
wyldfyr
2014-11-08 11:31:40 UTC
The money would come from CEOs not being able to sock away billions in off shore accounts. Workers would be able to live off of the wealth created by their labor.
?
2014-11-07 11:39:04 UTC
I'd rather not have the value of my time and effort to be determined by the work ethic of some shitbag down the hall. Make yourself worth more than the guy next to you.
jack f
2014-11-07 11:58:15 UTC
No. A job should pay what it is worth to the person doing the paying. Not a cent more. Anything is is wealth redistribution.
K CHERNA
2014-11-07 19:45:06 UTC
Don't forget this: Minimum wage will always be a minimum wage. Change it and all will adjust.
Curtis 1911
2014-11-07 11:32:54 UTC
Yes the living wage should be increased to $100,000 a year for everyone.



This will eliminate all poverty and welfare and homeless people.



The money will come from obama's stash.
Goggles
2014-11-07 13:11:57 UTC
No, but every employee has a chance to learn a trade or become more valuable to achieve promotions and raises.



It has to be about accepting personal responsibility for us to get to where prosperity returns to America.
2014-11-07 11:38:19 UTC
Of course not!!



First of all, that figure is impossible to define. Even on a state level.



It is one og the left's favorite Straw man arguments.
?
2014-11-08 01:10:05 UTC
1/3 of the labor force were in unions in the 1950s highest ever. It has been declining since then.
Elena
2014-11-07 11:30:51 UTC
Money comes from either the businesses profits or the tax you pay x
?
2014-11-09 14:40:26 UTC
Pretty stupid question really. How long do you expect someone to work at a job that will not keep them alive? I guess the answer to that is hire someone new each day.
Biff
2014-11-07 11:32:14 UTC
it would have to be passed on to the enduser/customer in the form of higher prices and some things would wind up being too expensive and therefore would sell less, ultimately causing job losses
?
2014-11-07 11:35:35 UTC
No. The concept (living wage) is bogus on its face
Sallie
2016-07-14 06:21:49 UTC
#1 Highest Paying Surveys - http://OnlineSurveys.uzaev.com/?PdwC
2014-11-08 03:03:48 UTC
Correct. According to the law of averages in all aspects
?
2014-11-07 11:38:38 UTC
yes and it would come from the consumers because it's just wrong to be working and have to get food stamps and government healthcare like Medicaid like seriously you shouldn't even be working if you need Medicaid and food stamps.
2014-11-07 14:15:11 UTC
No, the federal minimum wage should be abolished.
2014-11-20 13:38:52 UTC
should be paid a living wage which is enough for food, shelter and expenses. A living wage has nothing to do with a wage scale where some jobs pay more than others but helps people get off welfare or other programs where some people stay on assistance because they are better off than working for minimum wage. The money would come with the increased spending from all those making a living wage vs a minimum wage. It has been stated that Walmart would have to increase their prices by only 1 per cent to pay all their full time employees a living wage. If you really knew most of the tax cuts only help the well off and not the middle or lower class. Tax cuts do not crea
?
2014-11-11 07:45:03 UTC
No
Smartest Guy in the Room
2014-11-10 13:21:37 UTC
The short answer is no...I worked min wage jobs starting out when I entered the workforce, it taught me real quick that I better have a plan in life...now all these years later I'm a multi degreed engineer and have net assets of just over one million dollars.
?
2014-11-10 07:29:40 UTC
No...
?
2014-11-09 22:13:52 UTC
No
Mr. Wizard
2014-11-09 12:28:18 UTC
What a beautiful Utopian world it'd be: We all live by a uniform societial standard, where the corporate CEO lives the exact same as the burger restaurant fry cook. But that's never going to happen in EITHER a Democratic or Communist society--or even the "hybrid compromise" social model that's been considered.



In fact, NO existent human socio-economical living standard will likely work.



We can go Harvard complex with all sorts of confusing mathematical models of economics ( which are designed to hide GREED and confuse laymen ). But the simplest solution to economic woes would be to



a) Get BACK ON the Gold standard; likely another impossibility.



b) DEFLATE the U.S. economy BEFORE "zero point" hits.



Economic deflation, albeit a welcome relief to consumers, would likely NOT end the whispered accusations of "economic discrimination" Obama supporters claim--but never head butt argue publicly.



Finally, you can't claim this as a Democrat or Republican trait: BOTH SIDES work harder at enriching THEIR OWN WEALTH, than giving considerations for US.
vulcan_alex
2014-11-09 12:18:14 UTC
No but perhaps every citizen of the US should be valuable enough to have a better than living wage.
?
2014-12-19 07:43:02 UTC
Stay in school? Tuition is about $60k / yr for a good school.



Who's going to loan someone without a degree or collateral a 1/4 million (for a bachelors no less)?



Tuition keeps going up and the well to do families love the lessened competition.



Not everyone can get a scholarship either.
?
2014-11-15 07:03:53 UTC
x
?
2014-11-14 01:49:44 UTC
x
?
2014-11-13 15:53:11 UTC
No
?
2014-11-11 05:59:53 UTC
Yes, I guess so.
Tyler
2014-11-10 22:34:36 UTC
Yes
?
2014-11-10 22:30:25 UTC
Nope
The Devil
2014-11-10 13:56:24 UTC
Money is just an idea and an agreement on what your time is worth. In order for there to be a real living wage, there must be some price regulation. Whenever it gets out that you have a little more money, the price is raised on what you need. It happened in the gold rush. It happened during the construction of the Alaska pipeline. The "dotcom boom " saw prices skyrocket. This time, people need to learn to be smart with this money that is a so-called minimum wage raise and not just start a buying spree.
Trev
2014-11-10 07:12:42 UTC
no
zendall
2014-11-10 03:11:25 UTC
That is not practical. However the minimum wage needs to be higher than it is. $10.10 would be a good start. It will help the stores and restaurants when people can actually buy their products.
?
2014-11-09 23:12:31 UTC
No
Shadow
2014-11-09 20:56:58 UTC
funny when people talking about minimal wage worker i feel everyone should have a living wage because if it wasn't for this so call minimal wage workers business and society will be lost without them even maybe not the best job or greatest job but they are providing service. Everyone deserve a living wage hell how come a garbage man make more then a teacher. Teacher have to go to college while the garbage man don't need a high school diploma and all he does is dumping trash and drive a truck it doesn't make since.



Not everyone can afford college it cost more than buying a brand new car and still there a strong possibility you won't get a good job and be in debt
alana w
2014-11-09 13:20:20 UTC
Some small "mom and pop" bussiness would have a problem paying a lving wage. But operations that are bigger should pay a living wage. In some cases, it would come out of the companies profits and the CEO's earnings. If people that have a lving wage can live a decent life and pay for medical services and buy food, we all win. Money can be put in the economy that would be normally invested by cooperations and only help them, instead of helping the "whole ecomomy". Some people will raise an arguement about this and blame the poor for their condition. I believe if taxes are spent on companies though roads, city services and other serives, then as Americans, they have social responsibilty to America, not just profit margins.

Alana Winner
2014-11-09 11:21:21 UTC
YES. Every full-time job should pay a living wage. That was the point of "minimum wage."



Look at what happened when Seattle raised the minimum wage. The economy improved. PEOPLE WHO EARN A DECENT LIVING SPEND MONEY. That's what makes the economy work.



Where will it come from? From the bloated profits of the 1%, who already own about 90% of EVERYTHING. That's obscene.
?
2014-11-09 02:03:25 UTC
yes
Jacob
2014-11-09 00:43:43 UTC
No because emplyers cant afford to pay part time jobs that much.
Simon
2014-11-08 22:46:27 UTC
Presumably the money would come from the value produced by the work?!?You people are all insane!
go2seek
2014-11-08 19:46:16 UTC
There is something fundamental wrong with someone determining the wage 'required' by an employer, other than the employer or employee. Every employer has a moral responsibility to pay a justifiable salary or dollar value for the service they hire. Every employee should be reliable and responsible to provide the gain with which to justify their being there. It shouldn't be up to you or me or anyone else to meddle with something we are not a party to.
2014-11-08 14:36:17 UTC
Every job in the US does. People don't need a tv or a phone or new Nike sneakers to live.
Don
2014-11-08 13:01:56 UTC
Minimum wage..Cost of Living Adjustment.."Living Wage"..Watching the the debate of many Americans calling for big companies and small business ..Any one that might hire on a workforce ..calling to people that have the power to give out money because they have and I don't have enough ..help them pursue the promise of the finding Happiness ..Just think we can ..just understand America is hope and America provides opportunity and Americans voice Change..Its a Government of the people...Living wage ..its a thought for change and its People will need opportunity ...in having fundamental right to live as the founding Fathers would like for us to live...a chance to pursue a living wage in peace and harmony that business would prosper and history will see a New America standing proud with its opportunity for the people..never ducking away from a fight no excuse to stand as strong as the Spirit of 76 a proud country....The United States of America! home of a Living wage.!
2014-11-14 08:05:24 UTC
No
?
2014-11-14 02:54:16 UTC
no
QuietChaos
2014-11-11 21:42:59 UTC
Yes why should anyone work their fingers to the bone and go to bed hungry just to make someone else rich?
2014-11-10 20:16:02 UTC
start paying the kids that shovel the snow from your driveway 65,000 a year for christ sake
Red Devil
2014-11-10 08:24:36 UTC
Every full time job should have a starting salary and go up the latter from the start.

As for the Fast Food industry it should mainly consist of school students and re-tired people that just need a little extra income.
DDLAKES
2014-11-10 08:22:20 UTC
Many countries in Europe do that quite successfully.
revsuzanne
2014-11-09 21:09:39 UTC
It used to be that those fast food and broom pushing jobs were the first jobs held by teens to learn how to conduct themselves in a work environment. A lot of us started at simple jobs that didn't even pay minimum wage because it was the "foot in the door" and a first job reference.

Since President Clinton signed NAFTA, which effectively offshored most of our family-supporting jobs (some 50,000+ manufacturing companies left the US), it has gotten to the point where grown adults have had to go to work for fast food franchises where they still have to get food stamps and other assistance to support themselves.

Literally one third of Americans are supporting the other two thirds (who are either on welfare, disability or in prison). This is not sustainable.

Right now, older workers can't find jobs... ageism. College grads can't find jobs in their degree fields.

We need to go back to the way things were back before World War II... tariffs against imported goods, companies wishing to sell here should have their manufacturing here and obey our laws, and take care of the workers who stay with them until they retire by providing a pension plan.

Oh and by the way... $15 an hour is the new minimum wage anyway... you can't keep a roof over your head on that.
?
2014-11-09 17:31:22 UTC
Absolutly not, why should a person working at Mcdonalds, make as much as a person with a skill trade. This is American if you want to make a " living wage" go to school work hard, and you will have a piece of the pie.
?
2014-11-09 08:33:15 UTC
Nope.
?
2014-11-09 07:11:21 UTC
...No, the "paper-boy" gets paid on volume (as do "others" who work on commission) employment is a personal choice...predicated on "ones" Education and qualifications...
2014-11-08 19:08:30 UTC
I would say it depends on the age or if the person is taking care of themselves or not.
2014-11-08 17:08:11 UTC
Capitalism can go **** itself with gold-plated, diamond-studded dildo.
buckeye_12207
2014-11-08 15:32:29 UTC
Put it this way. Have you tried living on less than a living wage ?
Anthony
2014-11-08 15:09:55 UTC
it's a pipe dream, not gong to happen, theoretically it should come from the profit margin but that would dig into the investors profits so rather than spread it around they choose to keep it, If only there was some middle ground
jimmy
2014-11-08 14:46:35 UTC
so..a 15 year old in his/her very first job should make as much as a 30 year old who is supporting a family of 3?..is THAT what you're suggesting?!
2014-11-08 09:47:57 UTC
The problem with living wage or minimum wage is that every time a wage goes up so does the cost of living. And for those making above this amount their wages are seldomly increased to compensate the difference.



Forcing pay increases will decrease amount of labor and thus cost jobs as well, as companies want to make a profit and the top 1% still need to maintain their billions of dollars and the way to do that is to release as little of the profit as possible to employment so they will decrease labor if cost of labor dramatically increases.



In other words it is a catch 22. Raise the wage the cost of living goes up as well. Its an endless cycle.
?
2014-11-08 08:20:21 UTC
NO one likes to works for FREE so, YES
Kojak
2014-11-08 06:50:04 UTC
Where will all the money come from? .....YOU



Every time the minimum wage goes up.....so does the cost of services and goods....your ability to buy not only usually stays the same....it often goes down.....along with the minimum wage going up....often so does unemployment.....

In addition....as prices of US goods and services goes up.....the sales of imported goods goes up while the sales of domestic goods go down.....more money goes overseas .... and the US loses money and increases outsourcing
?
2014-11-08 04:56:16 UTC
Can we at least agree that if US does deserve a living wage, then



1. More people will go without a job and more energy will be expended automating jobs away. As expensive labor costs rise, substitutes will be sought

2. A living wage in rural Maine, versus urban NYC, versus rural Iowa, versus sunny Hawaii are DIFFERENT WAGES.

3. All people will deal with more inflation as the costs of goods and services rise



So, the issue clearly rests with the states.
Captain Obvious, Defender of Snack Pudding
2014-11-08 04:22:11 UTC
Yes. Out of the profit margin, obviously. That is why it is so unpopular with the people hoarding the wealth of the planet.
Gwendolyn
2017-03-05 10:02:02 UTC
1
Josiah
2014-11-15 06:27:23 UTC
No
?
2014-11-14 23:32:26 UTC
No
thebigm57
2014-11-11 23:22:01 UTC
It's to difficult to determine what a "living wage" is. It's also impossible to overcome the GREED factor in the American Capitalist System. My meaning here is ECON 101. If we own shares in a company that makes $5 annually and is paying us $1 dividend consistently and suddenly decides to pay a "living wage" and those earnings drop to $3.50 and they still pay us a $1 what's going to happen to the value of the company? The stock will DROP LIKE A ROCK because earnings went down. The fundamental flaw in our system is that we always want to see RISING earnings from the companies we invest in. Consistent earnings are nice but I guarantee that stock prices move with the ups and downs of earnings. You couldn't ever ask companies to pay a "living wage" as their bottom lines would be severely impacted to the point where continued profitability would be questionable. PEACE!
Dogbreath
2014-11-10 18:45:47 UTC
What do you define as "living"? When did it become the responsibility of the employer to pay more than the going rate for labor? Are they responsible for the price of housing, transportation, and food? No.
Plogsties
2014-11-10 16:16:27 UTC
No. A "stoner" that comes to work and crawls away in some closet to sleep, or doesn't fulfill his/her work responsibility should not get a "living wage".
David
2014-11-10 13:37:38 UTC
Hell no. Who would mow my lawn?
2014-11-09 14:45:26 UTC
You guys don't have that yet. Wow...
?
2014-11-08 23:43:05 UTC
Yes
2014-11-08 22:48:00 UTC
a "living wage" is arbitrary.



maybe i don't need as much to live on as the next guy.
Virgil
2014-11-08 17:36:22 UTC
How is that fair to people who study to attain good marketing skills? Then the less of us that for one reason or another did not finish honing a skill there is still hope at an entry level job with on the job training. A compensation of pay to allow the employer to stay above the profit margin. I have myself worked a second job for nothing to learn a trade. I was younger then and had the required energy.
zeno73
2014-11-08 17:00:52 UTC
You must first DEFINE what a living wage is before anyone can answer this with any clarity.
?
2014-11-08 14:27:40 UTC
The world's economy now belongs to an ever smaller number of interlocked trans national corporations. ALL 'small business' depends on the products produced by 'big business', and all workers depend directly or indirectly on 'big business' payrolls.



The corporate economy demands ever larger profits and ever more 'influence' over governments... influence to the point where they actually are the 'government'... the man behind the curtain. The interests of the corporations come first...and that means low wages for the 95% of Americans who work for hourly wages.



Workers are consider 'factors of production' and the lower the cost of those 'factors' means that wages MUST be kept as low as possible. Government could even this out by providing at very low cost world class education through the university level, very low cost HEALTH INSURANCE, and decent old age pensions for the elderly. Alas, this is not to be because these same corporations have enough 'influence' to keep their tax burden down to pennies on the dollar. This situation has given these corporate giants TRILLIONS of dollars of dead capital useful only to buy up smaller corporations to increase market share. If even a fraction of this cash went to prop up wages or to pay higher taxes so government could subsidies low wage workers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Give this a think...remember algebra 1? What you do on one side of the equation you have to balance on the other side or X will never equal Y. Because of the way the corporate economy has evolved X will never equal Y, so you can kiss the 'living wage' goodbye. The balance will eventually come through some form of social upset with the people in the streets demanding economic, social and political justice. That might take awhile, at least until the middle class is squeezed out of existence... by then the low paid workers will be reduced to peons and coolies with the entire 'middle class' next on the economic chopping block!
jj
2014-11-08 10:41:48 UTC
yesh
?
2014-11-08 08:53:18 UTC
Less food stamps, less welfare, which would mean less taxes.



We'd merely shift a minimal amount that is currently pouring into the hands of CEOs and stock holders.



Our wealth is becoming more polarized and we have people who are starved, so the rich can have Scrooge McDuck style money vaults. We have poor who go homeless, so rich men can have a seventh home.
Yo-yo
2014-11-08 08:19:49 UTC
What you don't understand is that a hamburger will ALWAYS cost 75% of an hour's wage, no matter what you are paid. Raising minimum wage does nothing except make employers cut payrolls so they can gradually raise prices to the new payment levels. The people who suffer the most from raising minimum wage are people on fixed income who used to be able to buy a hamburger for $5 and now have to pay $8.

The TRUE way to have places pay a "living wage" is to have very low unemployment. Then businesses will fight for workers. Unfortunately this can only be done by lowering taxes and "some" types of politicians will never give up the control that gives them. Sadly young people haven't been around long enough, educated well enough and don't fully understand the situation.
bill
2014-11-08 07:47:36 UTC
Yep, and I want Bill Gates $$$$. No every one isn't the same they aren't educated the same and they don't produce the same...........................
2014-11-08 06:30:02 UTC
No.
?
2014-11-08 06:20:03 UTC
Although everyone needs a job that pays good money, the bosses don't always have enough to provide everyone with high living standards. Of course there are times where the head of a company has a lot of money but chooses not to pay workers fair enough, it is more likely that the boss himself is trying to just make it. Keep in mind that the boss still has to pay all of his or her workers, and pay taxes, his own home bills and other needs, company bills and taxes, and much more. So, sometimes it is quite difficult for the owner to work things out. You should be grateful you're getting paid, however the pay should a "living wage." To what extent? That will vary. But, if I know one thing, if you work hard, it will all fall into place.
?
2014-11-08 05:06:27 UTC
My living wage when I was in graduate school and early into my career was relatively small. I lived in a modest apartment and drove a modest car. Other than the car, I had NO debt. I earned a marketable degree and produced no children out of wedlock.



People are screaming for a "living wage" at McDonalds, but their idea of a "living wage" includes supporting three kids and a host of luxury items. If people stopped producing children they couldn't afford, a lot of poverty would disappear.
Capitol
2014-11-11 22:51:18 UTC
http://www.capitoldaybook.com/
2014-11-10 21:12:25 UTC
No
robin_lionheart
2014-11-10 19:26:15 UTC
Would you rather have sub-living-wage workers making up the difference on welfare?



Walmart finds it quite profitable that our tax dollars pay for their employees' food stamps.
2014-11-10 18:59:54 UTC
yeah
?
2014-11-09 20:00:13 UTC
depends they should have enough money for a a shelter (with atleast 1 bathroom 1 bedroom 1 kitchen and 1 living room) it does not need to be big just enough to move place to place in it and a cell phone for calling. i think that's all that's needed really. also i think you are forgeting THEY CAN MAKE MONEY IF NEEDED.
Rat
2014-11-09 19:28:42 UTC
It's should, but not happen yet.
2014-11-09 19:12:12 UTC
Yes, a living wage means a wage were you are able to pay your rent/mortgage as well as pay basic necessities, like electric, gas and water and still have money left over. 7.25 is not a living wage, any politician who makes such a claim(like Joni Ernst who claimed 7.25 is plenty of money to live on in Iowa despite Joni Ernst having a net worth of 10 mil.) should try living on that amount of money and shouldn't be allowed to access any funds they have in the bank whether its offshore or here in the United States. Unfortunately there are Democrats who are similar to Joni Ernst, like Nancy Pelosi. When asked by Jon Stewart(Daily Show) if politicians should take a pay cut in order to help the struggling middle class she replied with "It would demean the job". In other words, hell no.
?
2014-11-09 15:00:44 UTC
Unfortunately, it would be impossible because poverty is relative to the cost of living, which is determined in part by what amount of money is chasing what amount of goods. Minimum wage workers today make a higher income than middle class Americans did 50 years ago, but they're still worse off.
?
2014-11-09 13:54:59 UTC
We must determine what is considered to be livable first.



However, principle says that the Fed. Jewish Reserve system is deliberately increasing the inflation rate, ever since its inception 1913



If a persons job or work is not worth more money today then it was tomorrow, or 20 years ago, then basically that means the inflation rate is raping the American tax payer.



The reason why they are doing this is because they are trying to promote a socialist system in the united states. THEY KNOW the dollar will go bust. That's what they want to happen, then afterward they will have all of the control of Americas money and wealth after it is all said and done. The tax payers will OWE the Gov. (Fed. Reserve) once the dollar collapses.



Imagine that, they steal or embezzle the money from the American citizens, through inflation and taxes, and then after the dollar collapses, they say, "give us more money to sustain ourselves." Is that a cock sucker? Is that a rat? I think so!
sinic
2014-11-09 11:46:57 UTC
Well....Of course ! ......however......that depends on who is defining... "a living wage"......

.....for some it will never be enough...for some...it's more than they're worth...and they

drag down the productive workers...which costs everyone...worker..boss...consumer....

....one must live within his means....increase his worth...thereby increasing his means...

...if you are not making the money you want...doing something about elevating yourself....

...besides crying about it.......Obama is printing 9,000,000 Green Cards for cheap workers....

.....and they will be "living" with free room and board.....which means they can use their

"payroll check" to pay for that Big Chevvie Pee-up or Dodge Charger...or both................

..................living the American Dream......while the rest of us watch......



...........did you vote for any ##XX@@!! Democrats ? ..............................
?
2014-11-09 06:40:38 UTC
Yes. The money would come by (1) hiring fewer people (which could be done by using more automation and by training low-wage workers, which would help efficiency) and (2) spending by low-income people who would have more money.



The US is the only Western country that has such a low minimum wage. Other countries do just fine by paying people much more.



There is no reason why the US should be a low-wage country. It has always been a high-wage country until recently.
B K
2014-11-09 05:24:39 UTC
Businesses that don't pay their workers enough to live on are unsustainable, and bad for the economy. Business that do it have a high turnover of staff - which is all well and good if the staff are unskilled - but if the employer needs to keep them or develop their skills, then it's an extremely short sighted way of running a business.



Economies that are based on paying workers as low a wage as they can get away with will eventually go into recession. The laws of supply and demand show that if the general population don't have enough money to live on, they tend not to spend money on things that are not essential. If people don't spend, businesses fail, and the economy goes down the plug hole.
?
2014-11-08 23:42:33 UTC
That might be possible in a socialist world but in a capitalist one, it's the top guys who hoards all the profits.
?
2014-11-08 22:45:17 UTC
i think so
a tin cup
2014-11-08 22:28:45 UTC
It sounds simple. 40 hours of work = enough $ to live on. Yet our largest expense is housing, which fluctuates tremendously on home ownership and location. Another large expense is healthcare, which is partly genetic and partly based on activities. How about education? What you'll find is an always unbalanced system. Rather than try and correct it, a floor of standards needs to be enforced, and allow capitalism to take it from there.
Donghee
2014-11-08 19:28:32 UTC
always
?
2014-11-08 16:22:35 UTC
No. If every employer in the U.S. paid a "living wage" (which can differ tremendously around the country), this would include low to no-skill jobs like fast food restaurants or WalMart greeters or something. Sorry, but I don't care that some miniscule percentage of adults depend on these jobs; they should've aimed higher and learned a skill or two. These jobs should be filled by teenagers looking for some pocket money, not adults raising a family.



Employers should be able to pay whatever wages they want. It's the responsibility of the employees to decide whether or not they are worth more than their employer pays. If they are, then they should either leave the job for something better, or start a union and demand higher wages for employees. Requiring employers to pay a "living" wage (again, very subjective) will hurt employment in this country even worse when we are already being outsourced to death.
Dd
2014-11-08 12:59:28 UTC
Rick, every job in the World, take it off the bankers and fund management.
?
2014-11-08 09:33:55 UTC
Those who have it would have to pay more for the service they receive from those who dont have it.

The unjust laws would have to be repealed.

The attitudes of those who seek to perpetuate it would need to change.

Honest people would have to be elected and perceived as electable.

Then citizens would have to vote for them.

When injustice ceases- it would happen naturally.

Since human beings are involved, it keeps going away from this.

Ever since the invention of lying.

Who was the first liar???
?
2014-11-07 21:07:40 UTC
No
?
2014-11-13 23:27:32 UTC
x
2014-11-13 18:29:50 UTC
no
Corbin Young
2014-11-12 06:47:58 UTC
If minimum wage increased, companies will have to increase their prices to balance their bottom line. So if Mcdonalds started paying everybody at least $15 an hour, a large Ice team would probably be about $3.00, a regular cheeseburger about 2.50. An average value meal would be over $10.00. So in the end, everyone would still be in a similar situation. It will affect gas prices of course. Along with going to the grocery store and buying a loaf of bread for $8.00
remoserjr107
2014-11-11 01:27:16 UTC
It depends on what is really a living wage.....!!
LuvMyNails
2014-11-10 07:40:02 UTC
Yes they should. It seems to create more poverty and more social service programs if we do not.
2014-11-10 00:33:35 UTC
No
?
2014-11-09 10:59:06 UTC
If every job paid a living a living wage, the cost of living would go up and then everyone would need even more money. It's sad, the state that we human beings live in. Taxes would grow ever higher and most people except for a few elite would have a tough life.
?
2014-11-08 23:57:35 UTC
Yes, minimum wage is not enough.
Gfdfg Sdfsdf
2014-11-08 18:18:28 UTC
Obviously they should. The cost of food, a shitty apartment, and healthcare puts you pretty close to a minimum wage income. But then you have to think how the people are getting to work? That's not free. How about clothes? Toiletries? Heating? Electricity? Seriously, increasing the minimum wage by a few dollars is going to be great for the working poor.



The difference between 15 million dollars a year and 14 million dollars a year does not affect the life of a CEO, but how the difference between 17k a year and 25k a year for over a 100 people.



Not everyone has an opportunity to go to college whether they don't have the financial resources, they don't have the opportunity, or they simply aren't very smart. Not everyone is as amazingly hardworking, smart, and talented as the people answering here.
?
2014-11-08 17:37:28 UTC
Why don't you say what you mean instead of posting a phony question.
Jeffersons
2014-11-08 15:28:12 UTC
No, we should all work for free or at the most pennies on the dollar like most people are doing right now.
?
2014-11-08 15:18:00 UTC
First off, that would be impossible unless this country had a system based on communism. In a capitalist country, that simply can't happen because not every business can provide a living wage to all workers. The only way it could happen is if every group made loads of more money, which they can't due to the fact that they would have to raise the prices on their products and services, which would turn people away from them even more.



That, and it would also require taxes be raised as well, seeing as how many jobs are also government funded, and the source of the money that they get paid comes from taxes.



Ultimately, my answer to this question is no. Taxes would be raised, prices of products and services would be raised, and we would be seeing more outsourcing and we'd be seeing less stuff made here and more made in China and other foreign countries (seeing as how its cheaper for companies to pay workers there).



While it would be fair for easy jobs to earn enough to pay for housing and everything else, every job making a living wage is a bad idea due to the damage it would cause. Sad, but true.
Hiệp
2014-11-08 14:49:26 UTC
no
bobskiroof
2014-11-08 09:50:40 UTC
Only Corporations making the Mega money and Ma & Pop stores (if any will be left soon) Corporate chains in every industry took over Grocery ,Fast food, Hardware, Upper fast food, Pharmacy, Textiles, Service stations, everything and they are getting richer which I don't blame them but you have to have some kind of balance or we will be 3rd world, Rich and one step from poverty or already there.
2014-11-08 08:36:28 UTC
yes
GRAB THEM BY THE WHAT?!
2014-11-08 03:11:39 UTC
Every job should pay a living wage...Where would the money come from??? You know corporations are making RECORD profits year after year, right? Maybe they should pay fair wages and they would still make a healthy profit. Corporate greed is eroding the middle class.
?
2014-11-08 03:02:36 UTC
In Australia no one hardly ever tips because we are paid well by the employers and receive a wage or salary enough to live on . Tipping should be good gesture only not for survival like in the USA, ive heard horror stories where bar staff work for as little as $5 an hour
?
2014-11-07 21:28:03 UTC
Yes! Because if every job in the United States paid a living wage, the American People would have money to spend and as a result a demand for America Products would demand that Americans be put to work the results of which would be that American Industry would have to generate the desired products resulting in money being generated not only in the pockets of the American People but in the coffers of American Industry, generating a WIN, WIN situation all round.
?
2014-11-07 17:35:21 UTC
Every full time person should be making at least $12/hr,. It's no concern of ours why. Just like CEO's that make millions tells us. The fact that we don't respect our workers is leading to the down fall of America.

It's a race to the bottom and we all are effected by it. Will we need jump nets soon?
?
2014-11-07 17:04:05 UTC
Yes let every worker get paid fair wages enough to pay rent and also take care of expenses.

No wealth hoarding by the wealthy.

These scum keep everything for themselves.
?
2014-11-13 02:43:04 UTC
x
iftikhar
2014-11-12 07:25:59 UTC
i dont know
brookie
2014-11-09 19:19:52 UTC
sure
BIOgirl
2014-11-09 17:07:07 UTC
YES
?
2014-11-09 12:35:19 UTC
no i dont think so
Summertime
2014-11-09 09:31:27 UTC
Yes. How can anyone survive if they don't?
?
2014-11-09 01:46:08 UTC
yessssssss
?
2014-11-08 23:43:18 UTC
Yes
?
2014-11-08 22:45:07 UTC
Yes
?
2014-11-08 20:13:12 UTC
if we kicked out the 40 million illegals American citizens might actually be able to find a job.
Justin
2014-11-08 18:02:22 UTC
To live or not to live, that is the question. When does living become insufferable? It will be then that these corporations will find out what a proper wage is. Used to be you could raise a family on a single income.. LOL
2014-11-08 14:52:26 UTC
No
?
2014-11-08 12:17:50 UTC
If you work for minimum wage don't ever expect to earn $15.00 an hour because it's not going to happen as long as you work for minimum wage. By working for that wage it's because you want to get benefits you'll qualify for by earning a low wage.
?
2014-11-08 10:35:13 UTC
Every job DOES pay a living wage. The problem is that a lot of people don't want to live within their means.
GEORGE B
2014-11-08 06:34:45 UTC
Increase wages by increasing the minimum wage does not take into account "productivity." It is like paying someone who never comes to work. An employee whose income is increased by the method of increasing the minimum wage is not doing anything that increases the profits of a business. He just becomes more expensive to keep around. Thus the low-end job market is constricted Over the long term increases in the minimum wage always hurt low-end works because it increases the cost-of-living, and it increases the incentives for businesses to just eliminate low-end jobs..
2014-11-08 05:51:08 UTC
Minimum wage is a protection on the United States so it does not become a third world country.
Terry
2014-11-07 18:43:38 UTC
If the rich in America paid their rightful taxes out of the enormous money they earn then the standard wage could be improved. The trouble is the poor don’t have all these lawyers and accountants to get away with paying their taxes. Like the wealthy do. Who get richer by holding down wages and don’t care if the really poor cannot manage on such a low wage. Then you wonder why these same poor no matter how hard they work can never improve their lives. Because of the rich people greed and lack of compassion
?
2014-11-07 18:40:43 UTC
I don't think so.
TBK
2014-11-07 15:40:25 UTC
no, it would hurt small businesses and cause massive job loss.
Disciple
2014-11-07 14:04:17 UTC
The laborer is worthy of his wages.
2014-11-13 21:58:33 UTC
Not possible of course because no one can define a living wage. Some people live fine on a little some don't. For instance a engineer friend of mine [making a lot of money] in Houston loved not spending much money and actually went without air conditioning in the summer...electric bill $12/month. He was fine with that. How does that factor into a living wage?
2014-11-09 06:00:43 UTC
NO!!!!! An employee should be paid according to his experience and productivity!!!!!!!
2014-11-09 03:38:52 UTC
no
?
2014-11-08 07:09:10 UTC
It would kill many of our small businesses, funny thing is, liberals want living wages and small businesses to thrive by throwing a monkey wrench into all the oiled parts.
Masud
2014-11-08 01:21:40 UTC
very tough now a days.
?
2014-11-07 15:59:57 UTC
Are you insane?

First tell me what you consider a "living wage"
Kini
2014-11-07 13:49:20 UTC
Money comes from profits. Do you think we should return to $1.25 an hour?
Linda R
2014-11-09 12:11:29 UTC
NO. What a person is paid - is all dependent on what their employer wants to pay them.
Socrates
2014-11-08 19:18:21 UTC
I'm guessing you have the understanding that the answer should be no.
2014-11-09 01:58:19 UTC
Yes, certainly. The alternatives, serfdom or slavery, are not cheaper.



Sorry, b
2014-11-09 10:33:47 UTC
Most jobs should. That includes McDonalds. I worked there and it is hard work.
Ross
2014-11-08 07:13:23 UTC
sure if your idea of a living wage is zero.
Miles from Michigan!!
2014-11-08 15:50:06 UTC
yeah, as long as the cost of living is less than 25% of you pay check!!!
2014-11-08 17:44:42 UTC
Yes.
2014-11-08 06:34:50 UTC
From even the most simple economic plan. It is not workable.
Marcus
2014-11-08 22:10:39 UTC
yes
2014-11-07 20:01:47 UTC
I don't think so.
igorotak6
2014-11-08 17:00:10 UTC
yeah
?
2014-11-07 11:38:31 UTC
Nope. Not at all.
2014-11-09 12:37:49 UTC
of course!
2014-11-07 11:32:47 UTC
yup but you can forget that
Cloud
2014-11-08 22:06:16 UTC
No
Gaia
2014-11-09 00:44:46 UTC
YES
Nathan
2014-11-08 10:22:58 UTC
no
SMOKEY
2014-11-08 07:34:03 UTC
sure
?
2014-11-08 15:24:54 UTC
No.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...