It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Common Sense On Living Wage

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Now, economically speaking I honestly am not sure whatsoever what I believe. But, just a thought I've been having on the 'living wage' issue, that seems to be common sense enough that the point just needs to be directly made and pondered. In order for us all to do all the various things we want to do, whether shopping, dining, entertainment, etc, there HAS TO BE people doing these jobs. These 'low-skill' jobs need to be done, plain and simple. They need management, full-time employees, etc.

So, those who do not agree with the concept of a living wage, literally think that it should be guaranteed that millions of people who are working full time, doing necessary jobs, should not be able to get by. There HAS to be that many people doing those jobs, and you're saying they shouldn't be able to get by on their income. Millions of full-time workers are guaranteed to not even be able to get by according to your way of thinking.

So, what are the possibilities here? Only a few, really. Either people with lower income will make more, which must come from the wealthy. Or we just accept people working necessary jobs full time and not being able to get by. From this, two possibilities follow. Either they just work and are screwed and literally cannot even get by. Or the companies who pay non-living wages count on government assistance programs to supplement their non-livable wage. Which is the case now. Over half of people getting government assistance have jobs! You people who don't care about living wages also tend to be against government assistance, but there's the rub. Non-living wages means people WITH jobs simultaneously need government assistance. You cannot have both, unless you're ok with millions of people doing jobs which are, and will always be, necessary, just...dying? Let's have some common sense people.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

3min 53 second mark...........

Your confusing common sense with emotions......




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I've been having this conversation on Facebook, as it is the new "hot topic". I don't have a problem with people making more money, but it should be all wage earners across the board. To say that somebody who works in fast food, in which the cash registers have pictures of food, should make as much as some of us do who have a 4 year degree, makes absolutely no sense at all.

Everybody should get a raise. I'm for that. It's only fair and equitable. But to single out a group who's job requires so little thinking and effort that they can do it stoned and half asleep, while the rest of us work our tails off, have degrees, and would make the same amount, is not common sense.

Some have said that if they get more money, there would be a 'domino effect' which would end up with me making more money....but I haven't seen anything which proves this to be true. Just wishful thinking in the same vein as 'hope and change'. In the mean time, they hope for more money, and give people their change.

BTW, this appears to be yet another distraction as the world falls to pieces. Kind of like the topics of abortion and gay rights....meant to divide people up into camps, arguing with each other.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
my feelings are there should be no "living wage".

Minimum wage jobs were always geared towards high school students entering the workforce...

The fact that so many people have chosen to have multiple children, no education, i'm guessing no real work ethic does not mean they should be rewarded with 15 dollars an hour or whatever it is they want.

What is a "living wage".... if a "living wage is x dollars an hour in timbuktu should the living wage in NYC be x +20?

If you cant afford your rent...move. If thousands of shoeless poor mexican children can travel thousands of miles, surely an american can.

Do they want union wages? join a union and learn a skill. do not expect hand outs. Only illegals get those.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Common sense:

The only reason the living/minimum (a distinction used to confuse the issue) wage needs periodic increases in the first place is due to the fact that we have an inflationary monetary system that has now spiraled out of any control there ever was.

I love how people just omit any mention of the fundamental problem so that they can keep the argument in a "rich vs. poor" box where it's much easier to manipulate the emotions of others.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Common sense:

The only reason the living/minimum (a distinction used to confuse the issue) wage needs periodic increases in the first place is due to the fact that we have an inflationary monetary system that has now spiraled out of any control there ever was.

I love how people just omit any mention of the fundamental problem so that they can keep the argument in a "rich vs. poor" box where it's much easier to manipulate the emotions of others.


In a closed economy where the concept of "currency" is a finite number of tangible objects like chocolate bars in a space station, or cigarettes in a prison, every item has a stable fixed value, and every task has a fixed price.

But in an expanding economy where the concept of currency is an infinite supply of abstract objects like electronic currency or paper notes, every item increases/decreases in value according to demand, and every task varies in price depending on availability of labor.

Depending on where you are in the pyramid, this is either a good thing or a bad thing.
edit on 19-9-2014 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
We need price control on rental and morgage/house prices, energy, and fuel and food, Like Norway does that has the highest standard of living in the world, and everyone should have a guaranteed income 18 onwards, above the poverty line, ie, in the year 2000 that was roughly 22 000 a year in Canada. I would suggest 2000 a month take home for a single person, and more with family. If you work, it comes off.

Education and health/dental free. Abundant housing with rent to own at 1/3 wage including utilities, and no more. Able to move easily.

That is about the only way to not be a hellzone and be conducting evil on people, without it being a moneyless version which would be very much better, with beamships in our backyard.

I denounce and renounce our system.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
Now, economically speaking I honestly am not sure whatsoever what I believe. But, just a thought I've been having on the 'living wage' issue, that seems to be common sense enough that the point just needs to be directly made and pondered. In order for us all to do all the various things we want to do, whether shopping, dining, entertainment, etc, there HAS TO BE people doing these jobs. These 'low-skill' jobs need to be done, plain and simple. They need management, full-time employees, etc.

So, those who do not agree with the concept of a living wage, literally think that it should be guaranteed that millions of people who are working full time, doing necessary jobs, should not be able to get by. There HAS to be that many people doing those jobs, and you're saying they shouldn't be able to get by on their income. Millions of full-time workers are guaranteed to not even be able to get by according to your way of thinking.

So, what are the possibilities here? Only a few, really. Either people with lower income will make more, which must come from the wealthy. Or we just accept people working necessary jobs full time and not being able to get by. From this, two possibilities follow. Either they just work and are screwed and literally cannot even get by. Or the companies who pay non-living wages count on government assistance programs to supplement their non-livable wage. Which is the case now. Over half of people getting government assistance have jobs! You people who don't care about living wages also tend to be against government assistance, but there's the rub. Non-living wages means people WITH jobs simultaneously need government assistance. You cannot have both, unless you're ok with millions of people doing jobs which are, and will always be, necessary, just...dying? Let's have some common sense people.




I would say it depends on what is meant by 'living ' most people could

get by without much of what they already have.


There's N£EEDS .... and then there's WANTS


*I could get by with eggs or beans on toast, that would fulfil my NEEDS but

*I WANT a takeaway or a four course meal with wine in a 5* restaurant


*I NEED footwear and I could buy from a high st. store for around £20 and

that would fulfil my NEEDS but

*I WANT a pair of Manolo Blahniks


*I NEED shelter .... a barn (as in a manger LOL!) would fulfil my NEEDS but

*I WANT a four bedroomed en suite, lavishly furnished detached house


A good and happy life can be achieved on a small income as long as one doesn't

succumb to envy and greed.


Money cant buy you HAPPINESS .... but it can make your MISERY more palatable



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

Actually they were geared toward college students to pay tuition and living away from home and it worked. Fast forward to today we have moms and dads who lost their career, seniors that cant make it on retirement, college students that have to take out loans in addition to working... student load debt is about to crash the economy less than 10 years after our last crash. So yes, no matter how menial the job it needs a wage increase, we are all paying the price for corporate greed.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
Minimum wage jobs were always geared towards high school students entering the workforce...


And here comes the go to cop-out, which sounds nice but doesn't hold up. Understand, virtually every job involved in retail, food, entertainment, etc...basically anywhere you go with employees there helping you out, are low-income workers. You're saying all of these millions of workers should be high school kids? First of all, I am pretty positive there are not enough high school kids wanting to work to even fill all the necessary slots. What you and others suggest is just so far from reality. Only a minority of people working these jobs are high school kids. So you're suggesting an imaginary scenario where only high school kids work these jobs. And really, you think everyone who works basically anywhere that you would go to do anything should be in high school? Get real. These places won't function properly if they just consist of shuffling high school kids in and out.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
You can't have a living wage because nobody can decide what it should be. How good of a living should you get? Will this eliminate food stamps?
Who will pay for this living wage?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
You can't have a living wage because nobody can decide what it should be. How good of a living should you get? Will this eliminate food stamps?
Who will pay for this living wage?



People who work right now go on food stamps...because employers don't have to pay a living wage, but it's ok cuz they can get food stamps and other government assistance...see the hypocrisy? You're arguing against a living wage, not realizing that implies and necessitates government assistance.

edit on 19-9-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus

Some non-thinking jobs are critical to the entire population.

-Consider the workers who pick up your trash every week. We all can't imagine what would happen if these workers all decided to stop working.

-Consider retail sales clerks, without someone selling consumer products, the world economy would tank.

-The food service industry also contributes to the economy.

-Child care providers & aids -Without people watching our kids, how is the "college career" worker going to make a livable wage?

...Just a thought



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
You can't have a living wage because nobody can decide what it should be. How good of a living should you get? Will this eliminate food stamps?
Who will pay for this living wage?



People who work right now go on food stamps...because employers don't have to pay a living wage, but it's ok cuz they can get food stamps and other government assistance...see the hypocrisy? You're arguing against a living wage, not realizing that implies and necessitates government assistance.


What is a living wage?
Explain with numbers.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
You can't have a living wage because nobody can decide what it should be. How good of a living should you get? Will this eliminate food stamps?
Who will pay for this living wage?



People who work right now go on food stamps...because employers don't have to pay a living wage, but it's ok cuz they can get food stamps and other government assistance...see the hypocrisy? You're arguing against a living wage, not realizing that implies and necessitates government assistance.


What is a living wage?
Explain with numbers.


How can I explain with numbers in a society with a fiat currency which is constantly being devalued, and as those against wage increases point out, businesses can just jack prices in response to higher income? Clearly it's a concept more than a specific figure, meaning able to live comfortably and be able to enjoy a moderate amount of non-essentials.

edit on 19-9-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
You can't have a living wage because nobody can decide what it should be. How good of a living should you get? Will this eliminate food stamps?
Who will pay for this living wage?



People who work right now go on food stamps...because employers don't have to pay a living wage, but it's ok cuz they can get food stamps and other government assistance...see the hypocrisy? You're arguing against a living wage, not realizing that implies and necessitates government assistance.


What is a living wage?
Explain with numbers.


How can I explain with numbers on a society with a fiat currency which in constantly being devalued, and as those against wage increases point out, businesses can just jack prices in response to higher income? Clearly it's a concept more than a specific figure, meaning able to live comfortably and be able to enjoy a moderate amount of non-essentials.



Exactly..
You can't..
Your explanation uses vague words like "comfortable" and "moderate"
Everybody will have a different idea of what comfort is.
Does your living wage include a three bedroom home and a new car every five years?
Does this include beer and cigarettes? Steak once a week or hotdogs for several meals?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
my feelings are there should be no "living wage".

Minimum wage jobs were always geared towards high school students entering the workforce...


No this is pure bunk. The minimum wage was created to set the minimum standard of living. It was intended to create that bare standard in a 40 hour work week. The perversion came when Congress did not increase it when it needed to. Creating the image of Walmart, McDonald's and various other places commonly first thought of when talk of raising the minimum wage comes up. The minimum wage has to be increased with the rate of inflation automatically, or you get the mess we have now.

The fact of it is we have to address the minimum wage issues we have and then the rest of the pay scales will adjust themselves over time.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
So would a "Living Wage" be different and dependent upon where one lives, since the cost of living varies from one place to the next?

What would that amount be?

Who decides what is "comfortable" and what is "moderate"?

Will everyone have the same definition for those words?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

It would depend for the Federal minimum wage they would have to go with the national averages. The States have always been able to mandate a higher minimum than the Federal.

The minimum should be neither "comfortable" or "moderate" more along the lines of "basic". Which would encompass enough to rent a 1 bedroom apartment, a healthy diet, clothing, basic transportation and a small allotment for discretionary spending.

It doesn't matter if everyone uses the same definition. It will simple have to be the sane and reasonable people dealing with it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KeliOnyx

I see.

So by increasing the minimum wage, this helps those in minimum wage jobs, and as you said, others in higher pay brackets will have their pay increased too over time.

And I would imagine, in order to keep their profit margin, businesses will need to increase the cost of their products and services.

Which means people will be paying more for things.

Including those that will be getting more pay.

Seems to me that doing so won't really help anything, except for the very short term.

I've always wanted people to get paid a fair wage for work so they can pay their bills and get things they need. However, I've also thought that if people's money itself had more buying power, it would be easier for them to do this.

If we keep raising minimum wage, businesses will just keep raising the cost of things, canceling out any benefit from a pay hike.

Where does it end?

I would think the answer would be to keep those businesses from continuing to hike their goods and services up and up and up.

But that's a whole other can of worms.

Just something that I've been paying attention to since I first started working as an adult way back in 1984. I've watched as minimum wage keeps going up, but then watching the cost of living also keep going up....and up and up.

I don't have an answer for it.

I keep our needs as basic as we can, so that we can afford a "want" once in a while.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join