Stupid California!

[Hammster]

The billionaires got 40,000,000,000,000 dollars richer in the last decade on this planet.

Yes, the bosses get to choose the wage. But let's not pretend there is some "invisible hand guiding the wage market".

The only hand guiding the wage market is the hand pushing down on the working class. All the theoretical metrics and talk about minimum wage is moot.
Why did those 40,000,000,000s become centralized into the hands of a few hundred people? Why should 6billion people NOT have had a portion of THAT particular growth. Yes their wages increased too but their wages didn't increase by 40trillion.

We CANNOT pretend that the 40trillion dollars that billionaires NOW have access to is because of their business acumen. IT has EVERYTHING to do with appropriate wages being withheld from workers. IT has to do with stock buybacks being used to enrich the ALREADY rich and not being given to workers.

Thou shalt not covet.

 

[BCP1928]

Thou shalt not covet.

Thou shalt not steal

 

[Hammster]

Thou shalt not steal

Paying a person agreed upon wages isn’t theft.

 

[Merrill]

Paying workers a living wage is primary. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be in business. Everything else follows from that.

and what exactly is a "living wage"?

as someone who actually works in the business world. I'd like you to show me this secret formula lol

aka, what do you think you are "entitled to" --because I can give you a response by-proxy of what actual employers and business owners will say in return ...

 

[BCP1928]

Paying a person agreed upon wages isn’t theft.

Only if they were agreed upon in a free labor market.

 

[Bradskii]

A minimum wage amount that may be more than adequate in Township A, may not even scratch the surface in City B.

Which is exactly why I said 'How much that should be depends on many factors.' There certainly can be an absolute minimum mandated federally, but that can be adjusted upwards depending on the situation in each state (it's not viable to change it city by city). So California may have a higher minimum than Kentucky.

 

[BCP1928]

and what exactly is a "living wage"?

as someone who actually works in the business world. I'd like you to show me this secret formula lol

aka, what do you think you are "entitled to" --because I can give you a response by-proxy of what actual employers and business owners will say in return ...

The only person who can answer the question is the worker himself. There are too many variables, both in local living costs and personal expectations, to state a figure on any other than a case-by-case basis. That's why a minimum wage is not the best idea. Though the only serious casualty in California so far seems to be the fast food franchise business model.

 

[Hammster]

Only if they were agreed upon in a free labor market.

Any agreed upon wage isn’t theft.

 

[BCP1928]

Any agreed upon wage isn’t theft.

Coercion is theft.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is exactly why I said 'How much that should be depends on many factors.' There certainly can be an absolute minimum mandated federally, but that can be adjusted upwards depending on the situation in each state (it's not viable to change it city by city). So California may have a higher minimum than Kentucky.

...but if you're not going to do it at a city level, then what's the point?

The problem of apartment/home affordability in relation to the minimum wage is largely concentrated in the big cities where the cost of living is way higher.

If you have a state where 90% of it is small cities and townships where $14/hour is enough to get by, and then "Major City XYZ" where it would be more like needing $22/hour to get by. Setting it at anything less than $22 doesn't really solve the issue, does it?

Which means if it's going to solve the problem it's trying to solve, from a state-level perspective, there's no way to do that without causing disruptions in 90% of the state in order to alleviate the problems for the other 10%.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Coercion is theft.

Where does the coercion come into play?

Nobody's making anyone take a job, correct?

"Lack of leverage" isn't the same as coercion.

 

[Hammster]

Coercion is theft.

Okay. I’ve never met anyone working fast food jobs her were coerced.

 

[Bradskii]

...but if you're not going to do it at a city level, then what's the point?

The point is to ensure a minimum wage is guaranteed to all workers. If you want to make the wage dependent on what street you live on then off you go and do the work. Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll work out fine. I don't care one way or the other. My position is clear: An absolute minimum wage mandated federally. And adjustments made upwards state by state.

If you want to do it house by house then be my guest.

 

[Hammster]

The point is to ensure a minimum wage is guaranteed to all workers. If you want to make the wage dependent on what street you live on then off you go and do the work. Good luck with that, I'm sure it'll work out fine. I don't care one way or the other. My position is clear: An absolute minimum wage mandated federally. And adjustments made upwards state by state.

If you want to do it house by house then be my guest.

Legalized theft is still theft.

 

[Bradskii]

and what exactly is a "living wage"?

I've already said. Enough for accommodation, transport, food and basic services - electricity, gas, health care etc. Plus a enough left over so that you're not living a bare existence staring at the walls on the weekend.

What that will be varies country to country and state to state. Feel free to chip in to what you think it should be in, for example, Kentucky and California. You live in the US so you'd be the guy to suggest an amount. To help you out, it's US$16 an hour in Australia. There are no state variations.

 

[BCP1928]

Legalized theft is still theft.

Let's try this another way: Do you think that an employer is doing a favor for the person he hires?

 

[BCP1928]

I've already said. Enough for accommodation, transport, food and basic services - electricity, gas, health care etc. Plus a enough left over so that you're not living a bare existence staring at the walls on the weekend.

What that will be varies country to country and state to state. Feel free to chip in to what you think it should be in, for example, Kentucky and California. You live in the US so you'd be the guy to suggest an amount. To help you out, it's US$16 an hour in Australia. There are no state variations.

How level is the cost of living across the country?

 

[Bradskii]

...but if you're not going to do it at a city level, then what's the point?

You can't live where you can't afford to live. The Australian minimum wage is about US$600 a week. That is pretty much what the weekly rent is for a small apartment in Bondi. So if you get a job here and you're on minimum wage, you don't live here. You live out in the 'burbs. You can't run a car on minimum wage so you use public transport. You don't eat at the local restaurants here. You go to your local supermarket, watch the pennies, buy what's on special, buy in bulk and you eat in.

The daughter of a friend of mine has realised this recently. She and her husband and the two kids have moved out of the Eastern Suburbs where it is extremely expensive to live and moved up the coast. Now they have a large house on a nice plot of land and they paid roughly 25% of what my place is worth (luckily I bought here when it was inexpensive over 30 years ago). So she has to commute an hour and a half each way to work. That's what you need to do if you can't afford to live in the city.

It's not rocket surgery...

 

[Bradskii]

Legalized theft is still theft.

Just...what? What theft? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Bradskii]

How level is the cost of living across the country?

It varies significantly. See my last post. Even within metropolitan Sydney it varies a great deal. So if you earn minimum wage then you can only live where you can afford to live. You don't pay someone a minimum wage double what the norm is because she wants to live somewhere near the beach.