So, this is how a Milennial sees a solution to the "Living Wage" issue....

originally posted by: nullafides

Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the needs of people to earn a living with the desire of greed-centric corporations not to pay higher wages. It is to provide everyone with a basic income. The state takes in tax money; everyone is granted a certain sum to provide for their basic needs; and everyone can then work without feeling that they must beg a faceless corporate monster for enough income to cover rent and food and child care. And what do you know: the idea of providing a minimum income is catching on. It is somewhere near the realm of reality in Canada; it’s been instituted in a Dutch city; it’s being tried in Germany; it’s popular in Finland and Switzerland. In other words, the most civilized nations in the world, with the highest standards of living and strongest social safety nets, are leading the way on the minimum income issue.

A minimum basic income would allow us to dismantle vast bureaucracies that exist to police welfare recipients, and just cut everyone a check. And it would take a great deal of pressure off the movement to raise the minimum wage, because everyone’s income would have a floor already, meaning even low-paid workers would be less vulnerable to financial disaster. It’s a large-scale way to smooth out some of the inequality that plagues our nation. And it would allow fast food CEOs to stop bitching.

How would we pay for it? Partly by redirecting money we already spend, and partly by taxing the rich, like fast food CEOs, and by taxing corporations, like fast food corporations. Well. At least they could bitch about something novel.

I think he is on to something there because just reading it I would not hire him. Is it me that only thinks this or does this person really hate fast food CEOs..geez lol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nullafides

Earning, working towards a successful life is something that was done in the past.

Why work when you can whine and get it for free?

The drive to create, innovate, invent, build, has gone. Instead we have skinny-jean, chin-bearded punks demanding something for nothing.

They can go rot.

Maybe because the same thing that motivates people today to become billionaires will still apply:

People want more.

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: nullafides

You see one article in Gawker and paint an entire generation as people who all want a "base living wage"? And I'm supposed to take you seriously? You should have "Get off my lawn" tattooed on your forehead.

Relevant username

originally posted by: boncho
in 25 years time, if CEOs are earning the money that would have gone to those billion workers, instead of it being passed down the lines, those people will simply cease to exist. And the reduction in population will be done by hard poverty.

I have said this before, take the CEO of Boeing and if he gave all his wage, stock options etc to the employees it could come out to about 8 cents per hour raise for them...woot!

Taking CEO money is a pipe dream because for one person it is a lot, but for 130,000 it is 8 cents per hour raise. Take Walmart that evil corp, I personally do not like it nor do I shop there. They are 500 billion gross company that ends up with 5 billion in profit each year, so lets give that profit to the employees. Lets give everyone a 5 dollar an hour raise to help them get closer to that magical living wage level.

5 dollars X 2,000,000 employees = $10,000,000 per hour more
8 hours per day X $10,000,000 = $80,000,000 per day more

Not looking too good

$80,000,000 X 5 days per week = $400,000,000 per week more

uh oh

$400,000,000 X 4 weeks per month = $1.6 billion more per month in wage

$1.6 X 12 months per year= $19.2 billion more per year...oops

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nullafides

Earning, working towards a successful life is something that was done in the past.

Why work when you can whine and get it for free?

The drive to create, innovate, invent, build, has gone. Instead we have skinny-jean, chin-bearded punks demanding something for nothing.

They can go rot.

Maybe because the same thing that motivates people today to become billionaires will still apply:

People want more.

A living wage, having government take care of basic needs.

Communism.

I think it's been tried.

Can I make a few predictions as to what the end result of this would be??
First the few jobs that we have now that pay that living wage now, would decrease some, then some more....since well, the companies would know that that extra money that they are earning isn't really gonna matter to them that much and well, if I know the gov't they will screw the whole thing up somehow and those earning in that little range of income would probably be better off not earning as much. And, well, since inflation is the elephant in this room that we've all been fighting all along, that income range will keep increasing in value. It wouldn't be that different than the social service system is now and although I have to say that it would probably cut down on some of the payroll, and might help a tad bit in controlling that inflation and maybe make it easier to lessen the number or workers who find themselves in a position where it's better to earn less instead of what they are earning now, well....it all would still be happening.
The end game in both what we have now, and what we would have with this is the same. The companies would rest in the assurance that the gov't will ensure their employees are kept at least moderately happy all the while arguing how they are overtaxes, or making sure their profits end up in offshore bank accounts. The tax base would keep dwindling till the gov't is forced to take the money from those who are actually earning profits....the gov't. and well, then you will see your guarenteed income start decreasing, to something the gov't/corporate world sees as more suitable.

Meanwhile, the gov't seems to really have very little desire to hold employers accountable for the responsibilities that were often taken for granted years back, that they would at least pay their employees enough to keep themselves alive, without gov't assistance.
www.syracuse.com...

that is the kind of deal that federal, state, and local governments across this country make practically on a daily basis. reading through the comments section (most likely from the people living in the area since this is a local newspaper reporting) you can kind of tell that the people are kind of aware that they are being scammed. I would suggest that before we go for a gov't funded living wage deal, we at least attach some strings to the money we hand out like this. ya know, like guarantees from the company that they will be providing a living wage to all of their employees or enforcing some kind of ratio between the workers and management, to accommodate those companies that truly can't cover the cost of a living wage along with guarantees that they won't pack up and use the funds to move the jobs overseas or across the border both of which I've seen happen in NY.

Weather it's from welfare or a gov't funded living wage deal, the money still isn't coming from where it should be, which is the companies that are profiting. It will fix nothing, and it's gonna lead us to the end that I have described. It's not the workers that are failing and are the problem, it's the companies that are either working with failed business models or are just not accepting their responsibility that is theirs. In the first case, well, we are not helping them by allowing them to run on bad business models since someday in the near future the gov't will have to tell them sorry, we don't have the money to keep on subsidizing the people like this to ensure that they have healthy employees and customers that have a disposable income to spend. And in the second case, it should fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers to keep their employees alive so they can enjoy incomes that are 10. 20. 50. 100 times that of those taxpayers!

we need to decide just how we want the people to get their livelihood, from jobs, or from the gov't. because well, it seems that far too many seem to be saying they don't want it to come from either really. and going without the workers because they've starved to death or froze to death isn't gonna fly long at all.

Its like this.....Either the system changes so that there are equal opportunities for everyone on the planet or we will see more parts of more cities become so crime ridden it will not be safe,the rich will need bigger security systems to keep out the poor,the police will need to remove more liberties to keep those with money safe and finally the refugees will increase worldwide 100 fold or more ....so there is a choice...which choice gets made will affect us all no matter which end of the spectrum the money ends up

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Living now is more expensive than it has ever been in the west, and wages are tracking so far below the cost of actually living, that some poor souls are working three jobs to be able to afford to FAIL to make ends meet. The rule of thumb ought to be that no matter what, if you have work, then you can afford to live. Anything less than that is unacceptable, and always was.

Here's the problem. Minimum wage and close to minimum wage jobs in the past were starter jobs for the young and secondary jobs to supplement another income or retirement wage for others. Back in the late 70s my first job I needed help from my parents to help me pay for my rent. I busted my butt making PVC pipe, but I had no skills etc so they taught me everything and put me to work, and it wasn't a living wage, so I'm not sure how far back you need to go to suggest there was a living wage for all jobs. If you go back farther then there isn't much of a wage but the employer help you live by feeding you and putting a roof over your head. Very little wage but almost no expense.

This has work just fine until jobs that are actually living wages disappeared. You can blame it on jobs going overseas, or companies downsizing in the last 8 years, or the lack of people wanting to go into trade skills, or machines taking over, or the illegals...most likely all of it, but the fact is the living wage jobs are not there to be had by anyone. This has driven skilled/educated people to go after the only job remaining, low paying food service, retail, no skills needed jobs and they can not live on those jobs. Now we have over skilled/educated people in crappy jobs and the young and secondary jobs to supplement people with no jobs at all.

I do not know the answer because I do not see jobs returning or growing at the pay level that employers would pay someone to do. It is not about being cheep it is about how much is your job worth to the company. If you just carry bricks then you make xx dollars if you can mud 10 houses per day you make XXX...There are always the evil business stories, but in general it is all about what the job is worth. I hire at 70k minimum but the job has a good number of requirements, so I need to pay that to get the talent needed to do the work.

I think we will see more and more unemployed as the job market shrinks and the populations grow. They say there are 100 million in America unemployed and that number is sure to grow. Colleges didn't help either. The colleges say, so you can't be an engineer, here's a easier nifty degree that only cost 60,000 but it will get you 100,000 per year job on graduation. On graduation the person finds only burger king will hire them and the 99%ers were born.

Lots going on here other than cheap ass fast food CEOs as the OP suggested.

I would like to go in a different direction here..

What is a living cost? Can you all list the costs to live? What are the minimum basics that one person would need to live? Also it seems only in the west that we talk about a single living wage where one person can live totally on their own and I disagree with that since most of the world works in synergy of a family or group to live. Is privacy a right or a privilege? I had roommates until I was in my 30s, so privacy didn't come until I could afford it.

It would be interesting in seeing what people list as costs to live.

a reply to: Xtrozero

that's really quite easy...
figure out how much the gov't gives to someone on welfare not working (through hud, through heap, through food stamps ect. to live and use that number. at least get the two lined up and in sync....

back in the nineties it was around $10 an hour for a family of four, only they were turning away people with and income of $9 an hour with a family of five. so well, anyone who was earning $9 an hour were better off just taking that minimum wage job and letting the gov't pick up the slack!!! which is part of the reason we are in the kind of mess we are in now!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: boncho
Taking CEO money is a pipe dream because for one person it is a lot, but for 130,000 it is 8 cents per hour raise. Take Walmart that evil corp, I personally do not like it nor do I shop there. They are 500 billion gross company that ends up with 5 billion in profit each year, so lets give that profit to the employees. Lets give everyone a 5 dollar an hour raise to help them get closer to that magical living wage level.

5 dollars X 2,000,000 employees = $10,000,000 per hour more
8 hours per day X $10,000,000 = $80,000,000 per day more

Not looking too good

$80,000,000 X 5 days per week = $400,000,000 per week more

uh oh

$400,000,000 X 4 weeks per month = $1.6 billion more per month in wage

$1.6 X 12 months per year= $19.2 billion more per year...oops

19.2 divided by over 500 billion is less than a 5% increase in gross sales.

Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald MCD +1.67% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.

The article throws a few more companies into the spotlight as well.

Choose a better company if you want to make a point about hiking wages or guaranteed wages.


Imagine how much less it would cost to subsidize peoples income directly instead of paying for EXPENSIVE govt workers to implement social programs . . . . This money would then be spent to stimulate the economy by making purchases in the local economy and the internet.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 45% of the income and 68% of income taxes.
Heritage foundation confirming that stat
//edit
P.S. The bottom 50% of households earn $35,000 or less. I don't know how much you earn, but earning any less than that were I live requires room mates, no car, cheap processed food (or bulk food stuffs), and very little entertainment (which usually stimulates the local economy). Also, forget about ever affording your own house, maybe you can afford a studio with no running water someday.
//edit


A boost in income would balance out the sheets for the govt and your neighbours which would lead to greater investment opportunities for businesses because people could actually afford to purchase goods and services.

Gawker is the dumbest trash on the internet, but the basic income idea has strong support from economists and those looking towards the future when technology is putting us all out of work.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

19.2 divided by over 500 billion is less than a 5% increase in gross sales.

I do not think it is liner in just raising prices by 5% will create 19.2 billion more to pay salaries. If they gross 500 billion but make 5 billion in profit they would need a lot more than 5% because they do not set prices just to screw workers out of income. If they could they would raise prices 20% if people would buy their items...think Whole Foods hehe, so I think they are making all they can already. Increase prices means less sales and so they might just offset or actually lose gross. Boeing makes about 7% profit and everyone in management would give their left nut (if they had a left nut) to get that just to 10%. That is like their next 10 year goal..hehe Walmart is closing centers where higher wages are being forced on them, so once again if they could make profit with those higher wages they would not close them.

The bottom line is if they could get 5% more it would not go to the workers so it is safe to say they can't.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

that's really quite easy...
figure out how much the gov't gives to someone on welfare not working (through hud, through heap, through food stamps ect. to live and use that number. at least get the two lined up and in sync....

back in the nineties it was around $10 an hour for a family of four, only they were turning away people with and income of $9 an hour with a family of five. so well, anyone who was earning $9 an hour were better off just taking that minimum wage job and letting the gov't pick up the slack!!! which is part of the reason we are in the kind of mess we are in now!

No actual cost like how much for rent, food, transportation etc. What is that monthly living wage dollar amount to live. I'm not asking for XX dollars per hour.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

19.2 divided by over 500 billion is less than a 5% increase in gross sales.

I do not think it is liner in just raising prices by 5% will create 19.2 billion more to pay salaries. If they gross 500 billion but make 5 billion in profit they would need a lot more than 5% because they do not set prices just to screw workers out of income. If they could they would raise prices 20% if people would buy their items...think Whole Foods hehe, so I think they are making all they can already. Increase prices means less sales and so they might just offset or actually lose gross. Boeing makes about 7% profit and everyone in management would give their left nut (if they had a left nut) to get that just to 10%. That is like their next 10 year goal..hehe Walmart is closing centers where higher wages are being forced on them, so once again if they could make profit with those higher wages they would not close them.

The bottom line is if they could get 5% more it would not go to the workers so it is safe to say they can't.

Wages are lined under the expenses.

Gross revenue is income from all sources (ie sales of goods and services)

//edit
Net profit doesn't mean jack 'ish when discussing wages.
//edit

Walmart annual gross revenues yearly
2011-2012 - 25 Billion increase
2012-2013 - 22 Billion increase
2013-2014 - 6 Billion increase
2014-2015 - 9 Billion increase

Should we include the 6.2 Billion in taxpayer subsidies to Walmart (2nd set of numbers)
31 Billion
28 Billion
12 Billion
15 Billion


Like I said, Walmart is a terrible example because they are a terrible company.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
P.S. The bottom 50% of households earn $35,000 or less. I don't know how much you earn, but earning any less than that were I live requires room mates, no car, cheap processed food (or bulk food stuffs), and very little entertainment (which usually stimulates the local economy). Also, forget about ever affording your own house, maybe you can afford a studio with no running water someday.

In the 80s I had roommates until I was in my 30s when I didn't need them anymore. I have found that process foods are not cheap etc, in my other posts can you list what is needed in cost to live on?


35,000 is about 18 per hour for a 40 hour week. So minus taxes you have about 2,500 per month to live on.

Rent 1000 with roommate 500
Food 400 with roommate 300 or less
Expendables 400

What other things am I missing?

a reply to: Xtrozero

but if the social welfare programs are giving out, let's say the equivalent of $10 an hour (pretty sure is it more now really), then aren't they in essence saying that that is how much it costs to live?
the idea that we are gonna come up with a base rate based on the actual cost of the rent, food, ect, isn't gonna work since well, that is gonna vary from town to town, city to city, but the amount given in the social benefits might be more easily figured out. I just gave out the $10/hour because that was what reader's digest came up with back in the 90's... believe me, you can write to your representatives in congress and well, they will give you some really wild numbers, or at least they did me.. I came to the conclusion that they had no idea, probably because at the time all coming from different agencies and well, no one probably bothered to ever total it all up and come up with a number. heck even the value of the medicaid is probably more than some of our workers are earning now when you add up the premiums, the deductables, and co-pays...

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
Like I said, Walmart is a terrible example because they are a terrible company.

I agree and said as much, but once again with all that they still only make 5 billion in profit, and I would bet it all roles into the 500 billion gross to get that 5 billion profit.

So are you saying they do not want to pay more, but they easily could. They could easily make their workers happier but they are so evil they will not do it even when they can... As I said if they could they would rather dump it into profit, and so they can not do it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
P.S. The bottom 50% of households earn $35,000 or less. I don't know how much you earn, but earning any less than that were I live requires room mates, no car, cheap processed food (or bulk food stuffs), and very little entertainment (which usually stimulates the local economy). Also, forget about ever affording your own house, maybe you can afford a studio with no running water someday.

In the 80s I had roommates until I was in my 30s when I didn't need them anymore. I have found that process foods are not cheap etc, in my other posts can you list what is needed in cost to live on?


35,000 is about 18 per hour for a 40 hour week. So minus taxes you have about 2,500 per month to live on.

Rent 1000 with roommate 500
Food 400 with roommate 300 or less
Expendables 400

What other things am I missing?

I don't want to be rude so don't answer if it makes you uncomfortable, but were you making 35,000 in 1980?

Inflation Calculator

35K is over 100k in terms of today's dollar.


Also you forgot mandatory healthcare which at 35k will run you several hundred dollars a month (more if you have a child or children).

A car and insurance with gas and maintenance if you live in an area with poor public transportation.

Did you include utilities in your rent or the expendables?

How much are you planning on saving for a rainy day fund?

-FBB

originally posted by: dawnstar

but if the social welfare programs are giving out, let's say the equivalent of $10 an hour (pretty sure is it more now really), then aren't they in essence saying that that is how much it costs to live?

We could say 10 or 15 or 20 but what does that mean. I guess I'm trying to figure out what do people see as a priority, right or a luxury. I can say that a lot of young people see nice cel phone, internet, tablet/computer/TV/cable, car, star bucks etc all as priorities when back in the 80s only the car would make that list. So what is the cost of room, food, transportation etc that you truly need to live.

I am seeing all these weak entitlement types whining and yes I am saying whining about a "Living wage"

Let me Break this down for you.

I am sole support for a family of 4.5 (Me, my wife, 2 kids, 2 cats)
That means I am the only one bringing in money.

Now Add on to that a 60,000 Mortgage (540.00 a month Thank you time in service)
Also Add a A car payment of 350 a month counting the insurance on me and the wife
Groceries about 60 bucks a week, 260 a month for those who want nice straight numbers.
Electric comes out to 180 a month
Gas about 40 a month average.
Phone Cable internet 112 a month.
Gasoline 60 a month.

Net out going is 1482 or there about.

Now for the fun part I pull in on my lonesome 2197 net after taxes and 401k

that comes out to about 507 a week to live on, assuming I get all 40 hours a week. 12.64 an hour net out of 19.50 gross an hour.

No government assistance, no food bank, no food stamps. Only thing I got from the Government was a Fixed Rate 30 year loan at a Decent percent, I had to trade Six years of my life for. I busted my bottom to get to this point. Worked some nasty jobs at 7.25 an hour with wife working also and trying to juggle schedules so we did not have to pay for child care. Until I found my niche.

Now What is with the whine about a Living Wage. You can find the way to make it work, just takes careful planning, and hard work. I do not feel the Least bit sorry for the McDonalds Crew person (not Manager) wanting 15.00, they want that type of money then they can work for it.

As I see it a raise in the Minimal wage, the wage they give for Minimal work, is just a Devaluation of all the hard work Me and others put in to get a leg up.

If your Bills are more then your income then there is Two Solutions and only Two, Hussle and Bussle for a better paying job... Or Cut your Lifestyle back until you can afford it.

Anything Else is just being a Beggar on the street, oh wait some of those guys make more then I would ever see.....

oh my Angry at the Kids on my lawn Rant is over

CoBaZ