Why should full-time jobs that pay a living wage be a privilege?

[bubble_tea]

Some people seem to think the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour (resp. $290/week or $1200/month) is way too high and should not exist.

I'm not even sure if it's enough. Can anyone cover their basic needs such as food, rent, gas or public transportation and other essential needs, let alone have something left to pay for unforeseen medical bills or further education? Are hobbies and visiting family and friends during holidays a privilege in a "first world country"? Should it be a privilege anywhere in the world?

Could you live with being paid that wage (if you can't stay with your parents rent-free and other perks that people get without seeing it as such?) until you retire?

If your answer is "those jobs aren't supposed to be full-time jobs, but rather something you do as a teenager or a student who then have less time for sleep or studying to get good grades to get a well-paying job", then you're basically saying, that it's okay to exploit poor young people who -unlike the rich kids- can't afford not to work while studying and don't have daddy's connections to work part-time in a nice office with a better salary.

If your answer is "those jobs shouldn't even exist, because customers can do it themselves", then you overestimate the willingness of "some" customers to be decent in exchange for lower prices in food or clothing or anything really.

Would you want to leave right away...

...or fold the mess other customers left behind?

Bon appétit. Don't forget to clean after yourself... for the next customer.

If you think your time is too valuable for menial tasks like these, realise that someone has to clean the mess others (not you, of course) leave behind for the next customers. These jobs exist for a reason, and they have value.

People who do these jobs don't deserve a bleak life for doing tasks that many think are beneath them. They give up 40 hours of their lives every week for work too.

People don't just need a job to not feel worthless.
People need a job that gives them the dignity of being able to fully support themselves without the help of their parents or the government to not feel worthless.

[MittenstheGlove]

I agree. A state mandated living wage however doesn’t fix the issue of American capitalism and the flaw of humanity.

The government should very much meddle in the affairs of private firms.

America should have welfare available to all of its citizens. We are supposed to be afforded Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but we can’t even get started with any of those if our bank accounts determine our value.

I promote general welfare such as Universal Basic Income and Universal Basic Healthcare for those who fit a criteria.

The workers are the people who propel this country forward and the young are the future. These groups also have a large overlap. We have to make sure the general welfare of each American citizens are met.

[Stripes99]

I agree with the use of a welfare system for individuals of lower socioeconomic level. However I’m in support of moving it to a more local level and not making it universal and fairly easy to obtain. If you used a universal welfare system available to all citizens, including the rich, the country would be broke within a few decades and people would be living in the streets off of trashcans.

Your bank account doesn’t determine your value. There are many measures of value. Money is only one of those measures. The great thing about America, is that you get to determine where you want to go and who you want to be. Your character, drive, and capabilities (which are not equal) determine much of your “worth” but, according to the US constitution, those worths and measures cannot compare to your “human worth”.

People are not created equal, and they’re not placed in equal circumstances. Which is where welfare comes in. But remember you can’t help those who don’t want to be helped.

This is kind of developing into a circle of thought now lol.

The government should have, to some extent, some capabilities within private businesses to prevent monopolies, but once you cross the line where the companies become controlled by the government, it becomes mandatory, and is no longer freedom.

Capitalism is not perfect, but there isn’t a system more enabling of freedom and choice than a free market system.

[MittenstheGlove]

I’d agree if our society wasn’t literally based around consumerism fueled by capitalistic values.

Universal healthcare should be consolidated as such, but only to the extent that the working class wants to help itself. Which means you are contributing.

Tax the rich more, they’ll be okay. Since we already can’t count on them actually want to help the masses.

Except it’s becoming increasingly difficult to be free when you are slaving away for wages and a company’s ceo is discovering ways to make himself more money and avoid taxes which you will pay.

Capitalism is great in theory but in practice it needs a reform.

Explain why the Trump tax plan, something that benefits capitalism and even more so corporation riding the capitalist train is causing middle class families to owe the IRS money?

It’s simple. Capitalism alone favors money, so yes, you are the value of cash you stack. This isn’t about controlling any corporations this is about closing loop holes and making sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

[MittenstheGlove]

Don’t misunderstand. I like Capitalism, but as humans we owe ourselves whatever we can manage. The rich understand this. I wish the less fortunate did too.

I’m not saying strip the rich of their funds, but we obviously need some forced wealth redistribution in the US.

[Stripes99]

I would have to disagree. Also, it should be noted that the rich pay a larger percentage of the federal income tax than the lower classes. Not to mention they will also likely pay business taxes. The more you cut the rich down, the less you’ll have for lending, expansion, and investment, which prevents the very improvements the original author of the question is asking for.

Not to mention that, a business owner has the right to do as they please with the money they earn from their business. If they do not have competitive benefits compared to other companies they will lose employees.

[Stripes99]

I haven’t heard anything about the middle class owing the IRS anything.

[MittenstheGlove]

Oh yes. It’s hitting alternative news outlets. People have taken to twitter to express their displeasure.

The issue is that those with money are seeing an average of $66k with tax breaks. Something that we, you and I, will pay for.

The problem is, is that the rich DON’T pay. Tax avoidance in America is rampant and always has been and is progressively getting worse. You remember when Warren Buffet offered a million of his own money to any CEO who paid more than his Assistant/Secretary? No one collected. Those employees made about 80k yearly.

The problem is, is that the rich only marginally expand when convenient, lend with only gigantic returns and only reinvest to their own benefit. If people were given money to spend, people would have jobs a the majority of consumerism happens at the bottom.

The rich can avoid paying income tax in favor on loopholes. Things our millionaire president admitted to doing and has yet to close those same loopholes.

Furthermore, the greatest times in American history were under high tax regimes of the wealthy. Let’s get some aggressive wealth redistribution working.

We’ve been suffering from Wage Slave Syndrome for awhile, you may think it works that way as it should, but it doesn’t. People are to afraid of being without and too afraid of being blacklisted.

Also understand, the wealthy pay taxes, yes. They do pay more because they naturally make more money. I feel like people don’t understand that. If you tax someone with $100 at 50% and someone with $25 at 50% half of 100 is still twice the amount of the person before taxation

[Stripes99]

Well of course an owner of a company uses loopholes and expands when convenient. Wouldn’t you if you owned a company and had to pay such a high tax percentage?

A smart businessman knows how to save money for himself/herself and for their families. They also know that the more they invest in their companies and the more capital they create, the more money they make.

Keep in mind the top 10 billionares in America own companies that pay their employees good wages and have good benefits.

Companies cannot REGULARLY get away with rancid working conditions and poor treatment of employees.

Redistribution of wealth gives money to those who:
A) Didn’t earn it
B) May not know how to spend it

Now remember, I agree with you that we SHOULD have a welfare system, just not one that exploits the working class. Because, remember, the rich will find a way not to have to pay into the system.

Also, yes we’ve had excellent economic growth under high taxes in the past. However America also had an extraordinary industrial sector. This sector is no longer as large as it used to be.

Which news outlets?

[Stripes99]

Don’t know why that emoji is there

[MittenstheGlove]

No biggie, but just type: “People Mad at Trump Tax” should give you a few things to look at.

Looks like even some mainstream media such as NBC has a video on it.

The David Packman show and Secular talk as well as The Young Turks address this.

Just so we’re aware 60% of America’s wealthy are wealthy not because they earned it but because it was inherited. So earned is already relative.

Companies don’t inherently have to have RANCID working conditions for them to be suboptimal.

Saving money and hoarding money aren’t the same. A smart Bussiness man could deal with the redistribution of wealth and still save money too.

The face B is because you used a ) afterwards.

I’ll also address the B point. Ignorance is extremely relative when spending, you think those inheritees are born with the propensity to spend intelligently?

It’s cool that you agree with me, this discussion isn’t meant to be off-putting but I’m trying to get you understand where we stand currently.

The industrial sector shrank because of NAFTA and the rich offshoring jobs and factories. But also turning nondegree work into degree necessary fields. The industrial sector will also shrink even more due to automation something else the rich are investing in.

The working class is already being negatively effected as middle Americans become more and more impoverished. The wealthy are not the working class. You and I are.

So what? The rich will look for loopholes? We close those too. We need to close down the obvious money funneling too. They’re offshoring not only the jobs, but the wealth.

[bubble_tea]

Not sure I agree with an universal basic income, but the rest is spot on.

[MittenstheGlove]

Well, just that simple. Have a choice between Section 8 and food stamps if you’re already are apart of those programs or a set amount of money.

I mean they already offer oil dividends of $1000 to $2000 to Alaskan Residents. I mean, unless there is a better way to distribute wealth to the American people, especially the less fortunate.

Of course there are plenty of ways to work out the kinks in order to prevent amassing wealth in certain households all things considered.

[Lord_Thy_Gawd]

When people doing a full time job pays them less that they can live on, they get forced to turn to the government for help. Welfare funds are paid by the taxpayer and it's not fair on the taxpayer that they have to pay for what the corporations' negligence to their own employees.

[bubble_tea]

Exactly.

[Jager66]

The issue isn't how much jobs pay per hour, the issue is the value of the money they are paid in.

The reason why most full time jobs do not support a family is because the value of money has been detached from the value of labor. This is done through fractional reserve banking and inflation of the money supply. The end result is that 95% of the value of your labor is collected by the owners of the central banks. If this wasn't happening working at McDonalds would be plenty to live comfortably off of.

Did you know the family who owns the U. S. Federal reserve, the place that prints money and charges interest for it for the entire country, is worth over 500 trillion$ and every single one of those dollars is value taken from the work of the American people?

[OlderAndWiser]

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. If someone stays at a minimum wage job their entire life, it probably means that they are lazy and have no ambition. Why should such behavior be rewarded? There are plenty of opportunities for skilled job training if someone wants to do better.

I don't want to live in a society where everyone gets a participation ribbon and no one ins first prize. Success and survival of the culture means maximizing on our abilities and talents, not rewarding someone who wants to flip burgers at age 65.

[originallm8]

You do know that life opportunities isn't the same everyone right?

This kind of mentality just shows how low and lack of empathy some of the customers have when it comes to asking for a service. They come with a lot of prejudice in their minds, thinking people who work this kind of jobs are just there because they are lazy, just makes things very difficult for everyone.

This is not the 50's anymore. The world changed so you should too.

[OlderAndWiser]

@originallm8 Thanks for getting me straightened out. I am deeply indebted to people such as yourself who are willing to enlighten the rest of the world.

[Rissyanne]

Lol...

[Kas19]

My waiter at a breakfast restaurant was a fairly older man who had to quit his job due to certain reasons because of his age, so he had to go back to a job he would be able to do, which was minimum wage, just to save up to go back to college. Not only that, but he was working his ass off at three minimum wage jobs. Just to live and get an education.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Kas19 The law should not be based on anecdotal evidence. Your waiter was the exception, not the rule, and there may be much more information which would explain his circumstances. And maybe he was telling you stories just to engender sympathy in hopes of a bigger tip.

[Kas19]

He wasn't talking to me. I overheard him talking on the phone far away.

[Rissyanne]

@Kas19 he was working and on his cell phone?

[OlderAndWiser]

@Rissyanne Maybe he had to quit his previous job because they wouldn't let him talk on his cell phone during working hours!

[cavmanier]

Okay so let's hang out sometime and I'll trade you a crappy 20 year old car for your brand new car. That's not fair? What do you mean? I need a more reliable car in order to drive my family around! I can't drive this unreliable thing!

You want to dictate minimal pay. When you do that, you are forcing an employer to make an unfair trade just like my car example. If I cannot trade my 20 year old piece of crap car to anybody, that forces me to lower my asking price. Yeah it's a pretty simple concept, but the same thing happens with making wages. If you force a minimum floor price on me selling my car, you're forcing people to pay more than they think it's worth. That's the same thing that happens with forcing employers to pay more than the value that the employee brings. If you ever decide to sell your house at some point, make sure that you discount the price by a hundred thousand to be nice to the buyers because they are nice people. Don't sell it for what the market demands. Don't sell it for what people are willing to pay for it. You have to sell it for less in order to help out these arbitrary people, just like the people that need boosted pay for value they're not providing employers. People always want to make the evil business owner concede value, but they magically never feel the same way when they're the ones selling their product.

What people don't seem to understand is that when a person is hired to perform a job, their employer doesn't hire them to be nice people or for charity reasons. The only reason an employee is hired is because that employee will benefit the employer more than if they didn't have that employee. That employee makes the employer money. PERIOD! if a person wants to make more money in life, well, they work and gain a skill that's desired! The force the employer to pay them more through what they bring two the company. I mean yeah that's a simple concept, but if you give everybody fish who the fuck is going to learn to catch fish? What I'm saying is if we give people things they don't earn, that is how you make society poorer. You're incentivizing people not adding value. You're incentivizing people taking and not producing. I know it's hard, but having fair trade incentivizes people to work hard and succeed instead of living off other people which makes society richer.

I can see that your intentions are good-hearted, but they ultimately drain society. The next time you sell something ask yourself if you should sell it to them for cheaper because they have less than you. If so let me know when you want to sell your house because I wouldn't mind a good deal.

[mattdzz]

Your essay throws around various straw-man arguments, false dichotomies, etc. ad infinitum, which is ironic given that you've attempted to lay-out a thoroughly articulated (bloviated) premise (i. e. you've written several "paragraphs")... Although, clearly failed to make any rational sense, and I'll tell you why (listed by paragraph):
1. You've cited the federal min wage, which doesn't take into consideration cost of living, each state has its own minimum wage because of this, which is almost always higher than the federal one.
2. Yes, doing anything fun/ enjoyable/ etc. is not a right, therefore you could term it a "privilege," which is your first false dichotomy.
4. "What you're basically saying is..." Is never a sound argument, as it forms an easily beatable "straw-man" argument, i. e. someone with "daddy's connections." Exploitation is generally regarded as a "Marxist" term meant to be linked to INDUSTRY, not service oriented tasks, which don't produce anything, and thus don't "alienate" anyone from their labor. The market decides how much these jobs are worth, meaning a company will pay no more than x, employee will not work for less than y, and wages = the point where x and y intercept.
5. Many of these jobs will be automated, but there will almost always be a need for cheap labor in regard to cleaning. Once again you've described, and illustrated via your captions, an extreme situation to stress your point, once again forming a straw-man argument, not a comprehensive and well-encompassing one.
6. Yes, my time is too valuable as I've earned a Masters degree, paid for by two tours in Iraq. Someone had to do it, in the spirit of your prior argument.
7. "deserve" is once again not a rationally-objective term, as any given pair of individuals will not agree on what's known as "first principles," i. e. what is right, moral, and the "good life"; so, you can't argue what people deserve based on emotion, as we live in a market economy where the level of their skill, i. e. the economic value of their contribution is... (intersection y and x), and paid accordingly.
8. Read up on the Maslow's hierarchy of needs: you're speaking of self-actualization, which is a "privilege," and beyond basic necessities, which can be obtained on an individual basis at the state minimum wage, which few employers pay (even McDonalds pays more).

Do you see where you messed up?

[Freiburger]

In Scandinavia, many low-skill service jobs have been automated (like washing cars). Reason? People aren't willing to pay a living wage for them, and workers won't work for less. Scandinavian countries have no minimum wage, but collective agreements exist between industry associations and unions which set minimum rates of pay. So if you don't pay staff well, they'll strike. Sometimes companies have to restructure (e. g. fire some workers and chsnge the job spec of the remaining workers) to meet wage demands, but those workers have unemployment insurance and usually upskill to get better jobs. Amazingly this arrangement between unions and industry bodies which in no way involves the state gets branded communism by Americans.

I'm not Scandinavian, but I won't get out of bed for less than a living wage. I'm very focused on professional development though, and the need to have skills that employers will pay a premium for. So if you're being paid poorly, ask yourself "what skills are in demand at companies that pay well?" Then go to a community college and learn them.

[bubble_tea]

Some people in some countries weren't born lucky, so they can't afford to not go out of bed for less than a living wage. this take was for them.

[Freiburger]

"Can't afford not to get out of bed for less thsn the living wage"

This is an oxymoron. If your job doesn't cover your living costs, then it's a waste of time.

[bubble_tea]

In some countries there is no social security to fall back on or it's not enough, you have to keep working to at least have food. e. g. there are so many homeless people in France right now who have a job, but it doesn't pay enough, so they live on the streets.. in winter! while it's snowing!

[Freiburger]

Then unionise.

[oddwaffle]

Somebody gotta pay for that wage. The ones taking the heat aren't big businesses but the small moms and pops stores. They can't afford high wages without cutting something or big companies will crush them.

Why would a a big business pay for that extra wage if it could force people to work more for higher pay or get the robots to do it?

Minimum wages means you are supposed to move up from there. Somehow it becomes the life time wages. Something is wrong here. The jobs aren't getting easier because you have minimum wages. It's because businesses aren't making enough to pay higher wages!!!

That's why Amazon is winning. It uses bots and force people to work like machines. You get paid decently but you're disposable and get burned out in a couple years.

[bubble_tea]

"Why would a a big business pay for that extra wage if it could force people to work more for higher pay or get the robots to do it?"
I get it. Sympathy and empathy for fellow humans are foreign words to CEOs of big businesses.

[oddwaffle]

It has to pay dividends to trusts funds which support pensions and retirements for old people.

Could always cut those people off and reduce corporation profits.

[bubble_tea]

tell that to the old people who lost a huge part of their pensions and retirements, because those CEOs decided to invest their money in hedge funds and sketchy mortgage backed securities and bonds.

[oddwaffle]

No, it's the hedge funds that invest in them. Most funds invest in the stock and bonds market. Most public companies answer to these fund managers. A fair number of funds are for pensions and similar.

Cutting costs is big in any business. Rasing wages is always a big deal in jobs demanding high labor. They have been replacing people with machines for years to cut costs like those self checkout line at Walmart.

It's the companies that can't afford to replace people with machines that will suffer. Like small businesses that will go out of business because mass production is much cheaper.

[bubble_tea]

It seems you think it's always the fund managers fault for investing in the high-risk stuff, never the person who out of all the thousands of portfolios ranging from super-conservative to super-high-risk... chooses the risky portfolios solely out of greed.
If mass production is cheaper, they can surely afford to pay a decent wage. If they'd rather invest in machines, then go buy elsewhere. I heard there are examples how people voting with their money forced some businesses to change or close. But in order to be able to vote with your money, you need to earn enough to not care to pay a little more in order to support small businesses instead of going where it's cheapest.

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I can see where you are coming from. But what is a "living" wage differs from state to state and county to county. So it is hard to make a federal law about what should be right and fair across the board. Then there are the organizations themselves. Mandating that a company pay some minimum for me, just isn't the way to go. I think the most important thing government can do is mandate that companies pay their employees equally. I worked with a firm that was reprimanded for paying a woman an exceptionally low salary. They were forced to give her a raise to the base salary for her position.

But other than that, I don't think government should meddle too much in the affairs or private firms.

For government agencies, sure. . . employees should make a living wage.

[buttcrackjoe]

Minimum wage laws just buy votes and raises prices. Congress can’t mandate companies not to lower hours available for work or cut other benefits like medical or stock options to maintain profitability. We all pay for minimum wage hikes through higher prices negating any net-gain in standard of living. We can go full socialism and have congress mandate price fixing across the board. But do we really want to try THAT?

[thechesseman]

If minimum wage rose with inflation since inception it would be $35 an hour right now. And before you say that would be hard on business, most businesses would only need to sell 33% more product to maintain profit. There would also be more pride in a job as it pays more than welfare.

[Ámayas_20]

This was basically just you whining that for your entry level job where you do nothing that requires education or skill you don’t get paid more. Of course we need people to do these jobs but like you said they’re usually students, if you need more money you need to make sure you worked hard to get an education or specialise a skill through an apprenticeship. Why should we reward people for not working hard to improve?

[ajk87075]

I think if we are going to do something like this we need to offset the cost of higher labor for small businesses with something else otherwise you'll just see local businesses in rural areas go bankrupt.
It also doesn't seem fair to me that someone with no experience and training will make the same as someone with years of experience and training but that's exactly what will happen with this.

[mnyc914]

the federal government considers it a priveledge for you to pay taxes and earn a wage, a priveledge for you to drive, and a priveledge for you to enjoy your education untill 12th grade. want to know why? go to Antartica and see!

[SentientBrick]

Because you don't have a "right" to other peoples money.

[Rissyanne]

Somebody wants your money lol... you got down voted

[SentientBrick]

Well trigger me timbers! Your right.

[TripleAce]

what we really need is government regulations to control corporations... they have way too much power over a country

[Stripes99]

What powers do they have over a country?

[Stripes99]

What regulations would you propose?

[TripleAce]

@Stripes99 depends where you are
But corporations have more control than government

What you might ask? How about the entirety of the economics of the country. Private banks in usa can’t ever go bankrupt and you can't even prison the shareholders pr executives

2008 obama bail out of 7 billion ring a bell?

[Stripes99]

That reliance on government is precisely the cause of crashes.

Businesses in this country don’t have more power over the country than the federal government. If you could explain that maybe I would be able to understand your view.

The consumers control the market and economics of this country, not the businesses.

[Rissyanne]

Go ahead and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. See what happens. Small businesses will shut down. Look what happened to Seattle

[Goodwifie]

Lowering the cost of living is a much better option.

[bubble_tea]

So demanding to pay lower prices while making them continue to pay the same wage is not going to hurt small businesses?

[Goodwifie]

I'm not talking about small businesses.
I'm talking about power, gas, private health insurance, petrol taxes and public transport costs.

[bubble_tea]

Do you think the electric companies, the oil companies, the owners of those private health insurances suddenly want less profit? What do you think taxes and the money are for that petrol taxes and public transports generate? Who is going to pick up the difference for those suggestions? the government. how does it get money to hand it to people? through taxes. how do they get taxes? when people earn above a certain threshold and hopefully through stuff like petrol taxes that even the rich can't evade.

[DianaWest]

7.25? oh man. come to Canada. the corporations are wining to the government to stop increasing the minimum wage.

[Liam_Hayden]

Businesses are not charities. If you cannot generate enough to make your employer willing to a "living wage" then your skills are deficient and it is upon YOU to improve them.

[bubble_tea]

Yes, I'm sure businesses like Zara and McDonalds are on the verge of going bankrupt.

[Kas19]

Imagine thinking a LIVING wage shouldn't be a privilege. Everyone deserves to be able to have a normal functioning life if they work.

[whocares22]

Raising minimum wage is never the answer. Company is going to make money somehow. So, you'll either end up paying more for things or those minimum wage jobs will be done away with. Once that happens, you'll be back to square one. New day, same story.

[John_Doesnt]

Because corporations cannot be trusted to be humane and treat their workers properly.