Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are confusing the issue. Income inequality is a problem when people have so little money they cannot afford clothing, food, or shelter. That much ought to be clear. Wealth inequality is not a problem because these are not the issues for people with more money. It’s not the inequality that is the issue. It’s the inability of a segment of the population to be able to take care of the most basic needs.
Given the very robust social safety net in place in this country, what you describe isn’t happening.
Quote:
If the state has to step in because some business will not pay workers enough to meet these minimal expenses than the burden of supporting the employees falls upon the tax payers. It is in the interest of the taxpayers who must pay for medicaid, housing subsidies, food stamps, and TANF that businesses provide employees with enough income to meet their most basic needs.
If society determines that every individual is somehow deserving of let’s say, $50,000 a year, and will provide that level of benefits to one who chooses to simply stay at home and do nothing, why should 100% of that level of societally determined benefit suddenly become the responsibility of a single employer, simply due to giving someone a job?
If Nico No-Skills tries to go to work, and the most he can command in the marketplace is $10/hour, and some kind hearted business owner decides to employ him full time, Nico will earn nominally $20k/year. It’s the best he can manage with his nonexistent skillset. So Nico earns that $20k, and the taxpayers, who have collectively decided that Nico really deserves $50, will kick in the extra $30k. Because after all, they are the ones that decided that Nico deserves $50k. However, you and others of your ilk foolishly believe that simply due to giving Nico a job, the business owner should necessarily be burdened with 100% of the societally determined minimum benefit of $50k. Even though Nico is only worth $20k. And yes, you are thrilled with the idea that someday you might actually be able to compel business owners to do that, but that’s not happening. Try to force business owners to pay Nico $50k, when Nico is only worth $20k, and guess what happens? That’s right. Nico is unemployed. And instead of Nico earning $20k, and taxpayers only having to give him $30k, Nico stays at home in Moms basement, playing XBox and eating Cheetos, while drawing $50k in benefits.
Given the very robust social safety net in place in this country, what you describe isn’t happening.
If society determines that every individual is somehow deserving of let’s say, $50,000 a year, and will provide that level of benefits to one who chooses to simply stay at home and do nothing, why should 100% of that level of societally determined benefit suddenly become the responsibility of a single employer, simply due to giving someone a job?
If Nico No-Skills tries to go to work, and the most he can command in the marketplace is $10/hour, and some kind hearted business owner decides to employ him full time, Nico will earn nominally $20k/year. It’s the best he can manage with his nonexistent skillset. So Nico earns that $20k, and the taxpayers, who have collectively decided that Nico really deserves $50, will kick in the extra $30k. Because after all, they are the ones that decided that Nico deserves $50k. However, you and others of your ilk foolishly believe that simply due to giving Nico a job, the business owner should necessarily be burdened with 100% of the societally determined minimum benefit of $50k. Even though Nico is only worth $20k. And yes, you are thrilled with the idea that someday you might actually be able to compel business owners to do that, but that’s not happening. Try to force business owners to pay Nico $50k, when Nico is only worth $20k, and guess what happens? That’s right. Nico is unemployed. And instead of Nico earning $20k, and taxpayers only having to give him $30k, Nico stays at home in Moms basement, playing XBox and eating Cheetos, while drawing $50k in benefits.
Good job! You should be very proud.
I never said every individual is deserving of 50K per year. Nor, do I necessarily believe businesses should have to pay people any given some of money as a salary
What I am saying is that when individuals fail to earn a living wage that the burden of supporting them falls on the state, i.e. the taxpayers.
Clearly, when virtually everyone I know of is earning better than $15 an hour, the minimum wage has become an irrelevant anachronism.
I think it ought to be possible to find some way to pay additional money to those who are not earning at that level to prevent them from being utterly destitute.
I think it ought to be possible to find some way to pay additional money
to those who are not earning at that level to prevent them from being utterly destitute.
Finding ways? Don't worry. We've had the gravy train all sorted out for a century already.
And I do largely agree with the position and can't see anyone not also seeing that need.
But! Is such a solution to anything? We don't need more stop gaps or get by's and make do's.
A real solution to this issue MUST start with an expectation that these measures will lead
to our children having FAR fewer future mouths to also feed from this same cohort.
Which as it happens is also at thee root of your other point:
Quote:
Clearly, when virtually everyone I know of is earning better than $15 an hour,
the minimum wage has become an irrelevant anachronism.
The underlying principle holds and always will but a century on things have changed.
The industrial economy framework behind it all has warped market values of employee time. At all levels.
Most of that is about the OVER supply of no/low skill warm bodies available vs the limited skills work that needs doing.
Fewer people and they will ALL be doing better. It's too late though for this generation. They'll be paying our bill to their last breath.
I never said every individual is deserving of 50K per year.
I didn’t say that you said that. That was a “let’s suppose” figure for purpose of illustration,
Quote:
Nor, do I necessarily believe businesses should have to pay people any given some of money as a salary
Weren’t you lamenting the fact that people would receive public assistance because businesses didn’t pay them enough? This is what you said:
Quote:
If the state has to step in because some business will not pay workers enough to meet these minimal expenses than the burden of supporting the employees falls upon the tax payers. It is in the interest of the taxpayers who must pay for medicaid, housing subsidies, food stamps, and TANF that businesses provide employees with enough income to meet their most basic needs.
Have I misunderstood your meaning?
Quote:
What I am saying is that when individuals fail to earn a living wage that the burden of supporting them falls on the state, i.e. the taxpayers.
Exactly. If they don’t work at all, they will receive 100% of the social safety net benefits that are available to them, fully funded by taxpayers. If they work even a little bit, or at a low wage, the amount of taxpayer funding is reduced. But it is not appropriate to try to shift 100% of taxpayer burden onto a business owner.
Quote:
Clearly, when virtually everyone I know of is earning better than $15 an hour, the minimum wage has become an irrelevant anachronism.
You’re right. De-facto minimum wage in my AO is $18/hr.
Quote:
I think it ought to be possible to find some way to pay additional money to those who are not earning at that level to prevent them from being utterly destitute.
It is possible. Those are the social welfare benefits, paid for by taxpayers, who are the ones that have determined that one is entitled to wages above what they are able to command in the marketplace.
If minimum wages work so well why not a $100,000 minimum salary floor?
I agree, just make $100,000 the minimum wage and be done with it. Just make it $1 million so "everyone can be rich."
It's sad that it takes a large number for folks to understand why minimum wage hikes don't work. They only speed up unemployment.
Economist Thomas Sowell said it best:
Quote:
“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”
Income inequality is a problem when people have so little money they cannot afford clothing, food, or shelter.
That's a work ethic and skillset problem.
I have a college degree, my sister is a high school dropout. How is it taxpayers fault 2 people from the exact same family, schools, genes, and uprising had different outcomes?
You cannot legislate outcome, not even siblings from the same household will have the same outcome.
At the surface. But even if they all did have those skills and ethics ... those jobs are already filled.
At root though, it's about having far too many such people available vs the types of jobs they COULD do.
The types of jobs that at other times in other circumstances DID earn enough to support a family.
Quote:
You cannot legislate outcome...
Nope; certainly not for the current crop.
Again, the question is what we can do (or will do) to not perpetuate the over supply problem.
We'd have fairly widespread destitution in this country if we didn't have a series of things that prevent it. I include: Social Security; Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps; unemployment compensation; and direct financial assistance to the poor and needy.
I'm not saying without these programs that we would be on the level of a third world country, but that is exactly the point. America is a wealthy country and frankly it would be a national embarrassment to many of us to permit widespread destitution of our population. There are also issues such as a reduction in purchasing power among the poor would have deleterious effects on many businesses. Finally, poverty breeds crime. I'm glad we have the policies that we do.
You are not already embarrassed by the huge homeless encampments and homeless hiding throughout our society behind buildings, under bridges and in the woods? That is where the destitution is, not among working people.
Business owners will not eat the expense of higher minimum wages, the consumer will with higher prices, and the employee will once they get fired.
We rarely do fast food, but last night I just didn't feel like cooking and it was pouring rain, so we did Doordash from Habit Burger Grill. It was 2 cheeseburgers, one chicken nuggets, 2 fries, 1 onion rings, no drinks, and with tip total was $54.45. Granted, they are a more upscale fast food place, and we can afford it, but that's getting really close to the price of a meal at a decent sit-down brew-pub. I checked their job listings and for front counter they are paying $22.39/hour.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
