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.

 

Wage Required to Afford a 2-Bedroom Rental in Every State

page: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think it should be established that a corporation that has a certain minimum number of employees MUST pay a living wage and MUST NOT rely on or use corporate 'welfare' (taxpayer money to subsidize their employees) so that those employees can survive.

If Jim and Mary open a small pizza shop, for instance, they can hire one or two employees who agree to work for whatever wage they can afford, the employees should be able to agree to it and in lieu of "living wage" ALSO get 'shareholder' status.....i.e. a percentage of the profits.

Giants like Walmart should NOT be able to take advantage of loopholes - and they do - both at their corporate level (hoarding wealth overseas and tax evasion) and in their HR policies (paying so little and KNOWING that the government will step up to pull up the slack).

NO MORE HANDOUTS to giant corporations. GIANT corporations.
Do you see what I mean?

edit on 6/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wonder what laws that would be legal under?

Maybe a regulation.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I have no argument against regulation.

How do these giants get away with it???? They don't pay federal taxes, and their employees don't earn enough to survive WITHOUT taxpayer money.

They're screwing over the USA and its citizens coming AND going.
And BTW, do giant corps have to sign contracts with their home nation regarding the 'parameters' allowed to 'relocate overseas'?

If not, why not? Perhaps every firm traded on Wall Street should be required to meet certain standards before they are still allowed to do business here???

I don't know. Interesting question, though.
Does anyone know how it works when a firm expatriates itself? Do they give up ANYTHING?

edit on 6/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


PS: My my...is it just me, or have you been much more approachable and reasonable lately? In any case, I'm pleased. Thanks for your thoughts.
edit on 6/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's not much different than the dreaded 'death tax' - people are terrified that their kids will have to pay taxes on the measly $200K they might inherit. And it's not true.

Those 'death taxes' only apply to people worth more than 4 million dollars. Won't affect ANYBODY else except those who have more than they need anyway.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I recall back in the 1970's, it wasn't difficult to find rents for $165 per month. Two bedroom houses were also attainable at that price. It wasn't difficult to find employment that paid enough to live on, either.

Since then, rents and living expenses have risen out of proportion to wages earned. This is probably because of the fact that construction costs have skyrocketed and landlords expecting to maintain their lifestyle in a stagnant economy.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
As Ventura said in one of his video blogs, concerning large corporations. They don't have to pledge allegiance to any country.

Corporations only have to abide by the laws of the country they reside or do business in. If a government requires a corporation to do something that effects the bottom line, i.e. profit, then it will move somewhere else. They will offer to sell their products but won't have to pay the country's citizens any wages or benefits.

IMO, the only thing a government can do is tax the crap out of them and place the unemployed in government service jobs.
edit on 10-6-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
As Ventura said in one of his video blogs, concerning large corporations. They don't have to pledge allegiance to any country.

Corporations only have to abide by the laws of the country they reside or do business in. If a government requires a corporation to do something that effects the bottom line, i.e. profit, then it will move somewhere else. They will offer to sell their products but won't have to pay the country's citizens any wages or benefits.

IMO, the only thing a government can do is tax the crap out of them and place the unemployed in government service jobs.


It's pretty easy to fight corporations. Simply write legislation that says if they want to do business in your country they either pay a large tariff or they provide jobs to have your countrymen produce their product. Particularly in the US and Europe where we can use our purchasing power as leverage this is an easy way to bring back jobs.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
mine is 11th at 21.10 an hour



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

They are taking away our purchasing power.

And that's what made us to prosperous in the first place.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Xtrozero

I think it should be established that a corporation that has a certain minimum number of employees MUST pay a living wage and MUST NOT rely on or use corporate 'welfare' (taxpayer money to subsidize their employees) so that those employees can survive.

If Jim and Mary open a small pizza shop, for instance, they can hire one or two employees who agree to work for whatever wage they can afford, the employees should be able to agree to it and in lieu of "living wage" ALSO get 'shareholder' status.....i.e. a percentage of the profits.

Giants like Walmart should NOT be able to take advantage of loopholes - and they do - both at their corporate level (hoarding wealth overseas and tax evasion) and in their HR policies (paying so little and KNOWING that the government will step up to pull up the slack).

NO MORE HANDOUTS to giant corporations. GIANT corporations.
Do you see what I mean?


I'm not sure if the supreme court would allow that. It is kind of hard to say that a mom and pop store can pay 8 bucks an hour to stock their shelves and the same job at Walmart MUST pay 20 bucks an hour.

It seems that you are missing one part to this equation, how many jobs at Walmart are actually a career type job? One could suggest a sales person or cashier could be considered a career job, but with jobs that take little time or education to perform there will always have a larger number of people apply for it than needed so that also drives wages. When that group is only the young, old or someone looking to just augment their main household income it tends to work for that group of people. When it is made up of people that need a job to support their family then we see a break down, and then we blame the Government for that brake down.

I think having better jobs available than stock boy, that pay much better too, is a better solution, so how do we get better jobs? The lowest paid person on my team is 81,000 per year, and the reason is we need people with skills and education that I could not just hire like Walmart does and get those skills and education levels.

Lastly, not all jobs are worth the same. If I hired you to sell donuts and you sold 20 dollars per hour and I paid you 20 dollars per hour to do it I do not think I would be in business for very long. Also if you are interested, Walmart had about 485b in gross sales last year that they ended up with 16b in profits. With 2 million employees they pay around 40b in just payroll, so even taking all profits and putting that into payroll too it would add about 600 bucks per month to each employee, so it is not like there is a ability to pay, lets say a 20 dollar minimum living wage, since they would most likely need another 40b in pure profits to offset that increase.

Now they can raise prices to increase gross sales, they can fire 1 million and give the remaining million a raise, but in any case it is not an easy fix that many might think would be just a evil corp needing to throw the masses a few more dollars in pay.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your perspective on weather or not something is or should be a career job is completely meaningless in the big picture.

CEO of Walmart Makes in One Hour What the Average Employee Makes In a Year: How Skyrocketing Inequality Is Hurting America




Walmart workers, meanwhile, make around $8.75 an hour—about $18,000 a year. They'd have to work over a million years to approach what the chairman of Walmart Stores is sitting on. Alice and Jim Walton each have about $20 billion, and Christy Walton has $24 billion

edit on 6/11/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

It's pretty easy to fight corporations. Simply write legislation that says if they want to do business in your country they either pay a large tariff or they provide jobs to have your countrymen produce their product. Particularly in the US and Europe where we can use our purchasing power as leverage this is an easy way to bring back jobs.


I have said many times that corps are kind of mindless in that they follow the path of most profit. If that best profit is jobs in China and India then that is where the jobs will go. If that max profit is keeping the jobs at home then the jobs would come home. This is where the Government comes into play in manipulating these profit paths by increasing the cost of overseas jobs and making it cost effective to have those jobs back home.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I just realized that your user name is BuzzyWigs and not BuzzyWi(n)gs. I think I'm having a "Mandella Effect" moment. I really remember your username as BuzzyWings...




edit on 6/11/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: intrptr

I'm feeling that pissed-off feeling, actually.


Look at who funded the webpage, JP Morgan Chase. Now isn't that kind of like rubbing the salt into the open wounds?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Xtrozero

Your perspective on weather or not something is or should be a career job is completely meaningless in the big picture.


That somewhat true, but people who decide that stocking shelves is their true path in life should understand there isn't much money in it too and so they might not be on a career path where they can have a single living life style too. Kind of like Monks not much pay there either, but then they use synergy to live and survive, sometimes well, where if each one tried to do it all on their own they would each be on the streets.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion


Walmart workers, meanwhile, make around $8.75 an hour—about $18,000 a year. They'd have to work over a million years to approach what the chairman of Walmart Stores is sitting on. Alice and Jim Walton each have about $20 billion, and Christy Walton has $24 billion



They are sitting on what a family made over about 100 years of owning businesses, not sure it is relevant with pay today, unless you feel they should put the 64b into payroll.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


It is kind of hard to say that a mom and pop store can pay 8 bucks an hour to stock their shelves and the same job at Walmart MUST pay 20 bucks an hour.


The Conservative Argument For Raising The Minimum Wage

This is a quote from Ron Unz:

The data by that Berkeley research center you mentioned shows that Wal-Mart, the largest low-wage employer in America, could accommodate the costs of a $12-an-hour minimum wage nationally by simply raising their prices 1 percent one time.


ONE PERCENT. One Time.
That's it.

the bottom line is that American government right now spends $250 billion a year on social welfare programs to benefit the working poor. If we force businesses to pay a reasonable wage to their own workers, the American taxpayers would save tens of billions of dollars a year. And that's a very conservative argument to make.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


Look at who funded the webpage, JP Morgan Chase. Now isn't that kind of like rubbing the salt into the open wounds?

Right???

I mentioned that back on page 1 or 2. Sickening.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Just wanted to add what I posted on a similar blog:
I have to come explain this so often because everyone seems to forget. If minimum wage say, doubles, just for instance. That doesn't mean that prices double in order to compensate leaving us with0% gain as people seem to imply. Prices only increase by the labor increase, and labor is usually 12-20% of cost, so this leaves workers with an overall greater spending capacity. Their increased spending accelerates the economy as they can now buy more products, and gives boosts to tax revenues as they generally spend100% of their income and are taxed on it. And yes, mom and pop businesses can handle it just as well because like any other business they just pass the cost increase on to the consumer...in a 10-20% boost in prices, that everyone is able to pay because they are making 100% more on this scenario. So please stop using fear mongering and false arguments to side track the very important discussion of increasing minimum wage. Lets also not forget the 30% of the U.S. that would instantly be off welfare and government benefits, thereby freeing up massive tax dollars.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


please stop using fear mongering and false arguments to side track the very important discussion of increasing minimum wage. Lets also not forget the 30% of the U.S. that would instantly be off welfare and government benefits, thereby freeing up massive tax dollars.

Yes. Thank you for posting this.
See my post above regarding Ron Unz.




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join