Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
if you make more money then you can afford to buy from the mom and pop shop.
When I was living in Lafayette, CA, I paid 1,300/month rent but I was earning $15,000/month after tax so the cost was not too bad and I had plenty of money to spend on what I wanted rather than on the necessities of life. That translates to about $90/hour after tax. But even so, a CEO gets well over ten times that much and some get 100 times more. Can anybody's work be worth that much while the people who make the electricity grid work and who grow the food we eat get $15/hour and less?
And because it is possible it ought to be the norm? I do not think that would be what people in the USA would say about themselves. Paying the labour force of the USA at $15/hour while paying CEOs something between $1,000/hour $10,000/hour (or even more) is not what folk vote for when they vote for congress, the senate, and the president.Um...I've done it with two dependent children...it is possible...
Nobody is taking "it from [employers]" because employers choose either to employ or not. The amount that they need to pay an employee is something that society can decide and then it is up to the employer to decide if he/she will employ people at that pay rate or not.Probably not, but that doesn't translate into any right to take it from them.
So, if the answer is to artificially raise up those at the other end and $15/hr seems good, make it $40 or more. See what happens.
And because it is possible it ought to be the norm? I do not think that would be what people in the USA would say about themselves. Paying the labour force of the USA at $15/hour while paying CEOs something between $1,000/hour $10,000/hour (or even more) is not what folk vote for when they vote for congress, the senate, and the president.
Nobody is taking "it from [employers]" because employers choose either to employ or not. The amount that they need to pay an employee is something that society can decide and they it is up to the employer to decide if he/she will employ people at that pay rate or not.
Nobody is taking money away from the rich when an employer decides that he/she will employ a worker at a rate of $15/hour or more. It is a choice that an employer can make or reject. If an employer doesn't want to pay $15/hour then all they need do is choose not to employ the worker. Nobody has a "right" to employ people at whatever rate they choose that is why slavery is no longer sanctioned by law and why serfdom isn't sanctioned by law. If an employer wants to employ and the minimum pay rate is $15/hour then it is up to the employer to decide if they want to employ at that rate (or higher) or not to employ.There are indeed many voices saying to take the money that the rich have. I said that this was not morally right, even if a jillion Democratic Socialists think the other person's wealth is up for grabs.
I do think that you understand that if the state requires a higher than reasonable minimum wage, it will not lead to what those people assume will happen but reduced hours, relocation of industries, etc.
Nobody is taking "it from [employers]" because employers choose either to employ or not. The amount that they need to pay an employee is something that society can decide and then it is up to the employer to decide if he/she will employ people at that pay rate or not.
The issue is not if a labourer who maintains one's food supply or a skilled worker who maintains the electricity grid has the same skill set as a CEO who receives pay at a rate that is between 30 and 150 times that is the worker. The issue is can any CEO be so skilled and so effective that he/she is "worth" 30 to 150 times the pay rate of the worker. I know that I would not be willing (as a share holder) to support executive pay rates that are that high. I do in fact vote against executive salary/benefit packages that are that high in the companies in which I have share holdings. And I avoid companies that offer such excessive pay to executives.Can the average minumum wage worker really run a major company? People get paid for a skill set and experience. I am not sure how you determine how much a CEO gets paid an hour since most are paid a salary and don't clock in their actual hours. Should a nurse's aid who comes to the hospital with no skill set and is trained on the job be paid the same as the chief neurosurgeon? By your rationale, they should even though the neurosurgeon has significantly more responsibility and put in probably over 10 years of training to get to their position (while he was making significantly lower wages or even working for free as a student). Yes, the nurse's aid is very important but really...anyone (with a strong stomach) can do it. I don't think the same can be said about the neurosurgeon's job.
As a nurse, many of the nurse's aids can do huge parts of my job...but I am paid significantly more because I bare the legal responsibility (yes, if they screw up and harm a patient, I can be held legally liable for not catching that error and correcting it)....and I make more money also because I am making life and death decisions about which medications to administer (regardless of the doctor's orders), recognizing side effects before they become life threatening, and making judgement calls on when to consult a doctor. I need to be knowledgeable to explain a patient's situation in depth but with minimal words to a doctor over a phone and who often will order things just based on my observations and descriptions. One of my nursing instructors used to say that most of our skill set could be done by a trained monkey...however, we were being paid our wages to know when NOT to do something that a doctor ordered. My knowledge has value. Not everyone can learn what I have learned and be able to apply it in the real world. I hate to say it but there is no way I'd work this hard for less money than I earn.
Yes, that is exactly the issue; can an employer stay in business by paying potential employees very low wages. The end of the logic of employers being able to pay as they please is evident in many places on earth where pay is close to zero and employees are close to starvation (Africa, parts of south Asia, parts of south America, parts of north America).You are basically saying that the option to the employer is whether or not he can continue to afford to be in business because society has decided that he has to pay someone $15/hr to sweep his shop and greet his customers...or stack boxes in the back room.
The issue is not if a labourer who maintains one's food supply or a skilled worker who maintains the electricity grid has the same skill set as a CEO who receives pay at a rate that is between 30 and 150 times that is the worker. The issue is can any CEO be so skilled and so effective that he/she is "worth" 30 to 150 times the pay rate of the worker. I know that I would not be willing (as a share holder) to support executive pay rates that are that high. I do in fact vote against executive salary/benefit packages that are that high in the companies in which I have share holdings. And I avoid companies that offer such excessive pay to executives.
So basically your post's thesis is that you want to see people paid very low wages so that your school fees and taxes are low? I wonder how that squares with these words from holy scripture: For the scriptures say, It is not right to keep the ox from taking the grain when he is crushing it. And, The worker has a right to his reward. (1 Timothy 5:18).If the mandatory minimum wages goes up to $15/hr....what will it do to our school taxes.? I suspect that the secretary, the teachers' aids, most of the cafeteria staff and most of the janitorial staff don't make that much at this time...so their wages will all increase and not just to $15 but to a number somewhat higher to signify their appropriate skills and experience level (I mean if I am making $12/hr in a world where $8 is the minimum wage, I am not going to be happy suddenly making "minimum wage" so I'd expect to be compensated proportionally). If you consider how many people work for a single elementary school and multiply it by ever school in a school district...what do you expect the new minimum budget to look like...and the tax payers will have to pay significantly more in taxes...which means rent goes up since rent is based all the expenses the landlord has to pay for the property before he can make a profit.
You are leaping to conclusions in your post when you assume that I work for wages. The truth is rather different from your post's presumptions about me and since I am not the topic of the thread speculations about what I am paid or why or how I "earn" it are not relevant, unless it is your post's contention that one cannot participate in a discussion of the minimum wage rate unless one is receiving it.Are you willing to make minimum wage for what you do? What makes you special enough to earn more? Could you run a major company and if so, why don't you?
Most companies do not pay their CEO the grand figures that you talk about. Most companies are small and their CEO makes a normal wage...and don't even qualify as wealthy. Heck, most companies are not even big enough to have "share holders".
The answer to outsourcing at low wages is to expose companies that do it and to impose sanctions against them for having done it. Christian moral values really do imply that workers are worthy of their wages and that their wages ought to be fair and reasonable yielding a living that allows them to eat and acquire shelter for themselves and for their family. Christian moral values condemn exploiting workers by refusing them their entitled pay or paying them below what is needed to live. Christians who buy into the free market rhetoric that teaches paying workers the lowest rate that the market will bear are buying into an immoral system that is contrary to the teaching of Christ.I'm all for increases in the minimum wage. If I remember correctly there have been a few studies which show paying a higher minimum wage* increases worker productivity. Unless a business is playing with fire in terms of its profit margins increases tend not to have the disastrous impact many sooth sayers state they will.
Outsourcing to countries with cheaper labour is an issue regardless of the minimum wage. Given the rates some workers in other countries work for, and the hours of work they put in, you'd need to abolish the minimum wage and working time regulations to even start to be competitive.
Many businesses went under/went abroad when child labour was outlawed in the UK. Children were cheap employees and were in plentiful supply, but we did away with that. Much grumbling followed. Businesses changed, adapted as required. That's all that will happen. Automation (self checkouts and the like) will happen regardless of the wage, at least until the upkeep of the machine costs more than employing someone to do the job.
Part of me does believe everyone should be on the same wage, regardless of job skill. But that is an idealistic vision, rarely will anyone be satisfied with making what everyone else makes, particularly if they hold the belief that certain jobs/people do not deserve to make the same as they do.
*high enough that those in full time employment do not fall below the poverty line.
Leaving milk on the floor won't ensure that "someone has to have a job". No one is going to hire a designated milk-returner. All it does is makes someone who is already employed have a more annoying day because their manager is going to scream at them to stop performing their regular duties and pick up a randomly placed milk.
Please don't leave food sitting around in a store. Either put them back, or bring them to the front and tell someone you decided not to purchase them so that they can put them away immediately rather than making them unpleasant Easter eggs around the store.
Obviously wage increases alleviates poverty as is evident in western nations where wages are high compared to, say, Africa. Clearly paying people very low wages isn't the path to economic and social mobility is it? Obviously poorly paid impoverished people cannot participate in a user-pays free-market economy where education is bought for cash and the same with housing and access to heath care and medicines. Especially when the free-market is dominated by wealthy individuals and corporations that block access to those benefits (health care, education, housing).
We can get rid of absolute poverty and people not being able to have their basic needs met, but the only way to get rid of relative poverty is to have everyone make the same amount. It's like saying "we want everyone to be above average", that doesn't work. Sure, hypothetically the median income in the U.S. could be $100,000, but in order for that median to exist there has to be people at the bottom, that's how just how numbers work.
The answer to outsourcing at low wages is to expose companies that do it and to impose sanctions against them for having done it. Christian moral values really do imply that workers are worthy of their wages and that their wages ought to be fair and reasonable yielding a living that allows them to eat and acquire shelter for themselves and for their family. Christian moral values condemn exploiting workers by refusing them their entitled pay or paying them below what is needed to live. Christians who buy into the free market rhetoric that teaches paying workers the lowest rate that the market will bear are buying into an immoral system that is contrary to the teaching of Christ.
The productivity argument is a helpful support in debates about minimum pay rates but for Christians the core argument must be the teaching of Christ and Christ undoubtedly taught that pay that impoverishes workers is wicked and that ignoring the plight of the poor is wicked. One need only read Matthew 25:31-48 to see that neglect of the poor and persecuted is so wicked that even a robust appeal to Christ as Lord will not avail those who do the neglecting. Free market rhetoric will not avail at the last judgement even if some economists and many voters wish it would.I agree. It is the duty of all who profess to believe in the teachings of Jesus and who desire to follow the guidance of God to work towards ensuring all within our society, Christian or not, are able to have a home, food, water and security for their families. That is something which is born out of love for our fellow man, as well as our love and respect for God.
It would be interesting to see the sort of impact such revelations would have. I'd be interested in seeing how many Christians would support such a thing. Given the research that has gone into showing that low pay results in workers who are less productive I'd imagine even the most hard nosed of individuals would see that, aside from Christian love and duty, it does kind of make sound sense for an employer to pay their employees a little more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?