Why does the government owe you, or me, a living wage?Living wages for start...
Why does the government owe you, or me, a living wage?Living wages for start...
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.Why does the government owe you, or me, a living wage?
Isn't it like trying to make a perpetual motion machine? Or like trying to pick yourself up off the ground by pulling up on your pants? I'm not saying I'm against it, but I've been waiting to see a study that says it works. I thought they were finding it doesn't?People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.
A higher minimum wage also means less people that a company can afford to hire. Less workers=less people buying crap. Let companies compete with each other over talent. Wages/benefits will work themselves out.
I'll stipulate your point. Generally agree.
Explain how you agree with the federal government bailing out businesses and corporations. Seems like a moral hazard for the American taxpayer. Shouldn't they be allowed to go bankrupt, and let the free market to take its course. Isn't this what fired up the Tea Party movement?
Are you suggesting to let most, if not all major airlines go bankrupt? Air travel is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?
Are you suggesting they let Boeing go bankrupt? Their contribution to our defense program is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?
Yes but that also how this whole market thing works. People need to get paid to be able to buy stuff. Corporations want people to buy stuff but they also want to maximize profit which one hand means selling a lot and on the other hand means keeping wages low. But if they don't pay people enough then they can't afford to buy the stuff the company is making and then the company fails. Ford didn't become a huge company by making cars no one could afford, instead they made cars almost everyone could afford. Same with apple and the iPhone.Isn't it like trying to make a perpetual motion machine? Or like trying to pick yourself up off the ground by pulling up on your pants? I'm not saying I'm against it, but I've been waiting to see a study that says it works. I thought they were finding it doesn't?
It's obviously an important thing to balance and I don't think it's something that all companies consider when they pay their workforce. Which while it may be good for that company it may also not be good for the greater economy.A higher minimum wage also means less people that a company can afford to hire. Less workers=less people buying crap. Let companies compete with each other over talent. Wages/benefits will work themselves out.
Similar to me, I worked in retail from 14-18, I was assistant manager during the week and manager during the weekends, they said if I stayed on I could be a manager of one of the new stores they were going to open, however looking at the other managers who were 35-40, living in apartments, didn't really seem like the direction I wanted to go.I got hired at a Jack in the Box at 16 and was a store assistant manger by 18 and manager by 19. But that is not the minimum wage job we are talking about. Most don’t do that.
I am all for personal responsibility and living below your means.I’d say live within your means to start.
I hate when people mention this to justify higher wages.Great idea in theory, but who pays? According to Forbes, the 400 richest people in the US are worth approximately $2.96 trillion...
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.
In any recession people want to spend, but can't. This is no different. When back to work they may want all the same stuff, but they now have gone without income for many weeks. Their savings may be deplete. Had to spend the down payment on tjhe house or car you were about to buy.I also tend to think that everyone is primed to look at unemployment numbers in a traditional sense, ie a recession. This is a different thing. People still want to consume they just can't. To try and analyze this like a traditional recession won't be accurate.
It also has exposed a lot of fragility in our existing systems such as just in time delivery, centralized production, and maximizing profit to make #s look good so many companies initial reaction is a lay off or furlough.
Living in SC circa 2009 my annual living expenses for housing and utilities was $9800. Food ran me about $2000 a year. I could have shaved 13% off of that if I went for a basic cell phone plan or landline instead of a smartphone and got rid of internet. I could have shaved 25-33% if I split the place with a roommate. But there wasn't a reason to do that.I am all for personal responsibility and living below your means.