|
Conservatives sure are fond of blaming the victim, aren't they?
Ok Vod. Since you're so poor, and we all know poverty is due to the moral failings of the poor, what sins do you have to confess?
Oh, and while a full time minimum wage job will put a single person with no dependents in the 15% bracket, it's also only a barely livable wage in the lowest cost of living areas of the country. It also means you almost certainly qualify for SNAP, Medicaid, and a few other programs.
When "victims" do dumb things to hurt themselves? YES. doubly so when they blame others and demand others pay for it
|
|
...The remaining $6.7 Billion is not money received by Wal*Mart or by the Walton family, it is received by the people working there.That $6.7b goes to the workers, true.
It goes to the workers, to replace the $6.7b the Walton family witheld from them.
The Walton family get to keep the money they witheld from their workers.The net result is exactly the same as if the Walmart workers had been paid the correct wage at the correct time, and the tax money had gone directly to the company owners instead.
Therefore, your low wage, working class taxes are going to billionaires, to prop up their bilionaire lifestyle.
Because obviously, you owe them. Somehow.You cry 'Socialism!' if your taxes support an unemployed person's hand to mouth existence, yet see no contradiction in supporting a billionaire, who refuses to pay their workers correctly.
And they have persuaded you to not only accept this, but to argue for it, and denounce any attempts to correct this.
Who decides what is the correct amount to pay workers? If those people don't have a job that will support a family, then they shouldn't start a family. Since I live off of my nonsubsidized minimum wage job, it isn't the employers fault that people can't live off their wages. People need to live within their means, and if you don't have a job that supports a family, then you shouldn't have a family. But it easier to blame someone else for your problems, than to blame yourself.
Take responsibility for your life!
I just threw up in my own mouth.
Not to mention I don't believe you.
On the roughly $1275 a month you make working a full-time minimum-wage job there is no way that you have your own place (ie, no roommate, sig other, or parents sharing or covering rent), make a gas/power/water/internet payment, pay for a modest used car, insurance on that car, gasoline, renters insurance, health insurance, food,
But the rest on the poverty freebie ride MUST have that brand new smartphone, the best cable, an escalade,etc. How DARE you want them to be smart with what they have when others owe them better
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying that we need to rebuild the unions whose destruction preceded the loss of those manufacturing jobs and get rid of supply-side economics, which has been the single greatest burden on our economy for three decades. And then laugh out any politician who talks about it likes it's a good thing.
So you're saying that we need to rebuild the unions whose destruction preceded the loss of those manufacturing jobs and get rid of supply-side economics, which has been the single greatest burden on our economy for three decades. And then laugh out any politician who talks about it likes it's a good thing.
Well while we are in fix-our-problems-with-s@**-that's-never-gonna-happen mode, I vote for aliens that look like tacos and crap ice cream to start filling up all the exhausted mines in the US with ice cream so we can sell it to China.
|
There are also rules about who can be considered salaried or not. At least as far as overtime goes.
Actually, I don't believe you can be paid salary to get around minimum wage laws. At least not without screwing with hours in funky not really legal ways.
Doesn't mean they're strictly enforced, wage theft is a serious problem with hourly workers too.
I've worked for a couple of places that, years after I left, the Texas Workforce Commission audited, found in violation, and forced to pay the wages owed. Got me a couple of unexpected $1,500 checks out of that.
I've worked for a couple of places that, years after I left, the Texas Workforce Commission audited, found in violation, and forced to pay the wages owed. Got me a couple of unexpected $1,500 checks out of that.There are also rules about who can be considered salaried or not. At least as far as overtime goes.
Actually, I don't believe you can be paid salary to get around minimum wage laws. At least not without screwing with hours in funky not really legal ways.
Doesn't mean they're strictly enforced, wage theft is a serious problem with hourly workers too.
In Texas it is popular to try and skirt OT pay by totaling hours bi-weekly. Any hours over 80 get paid 1.5x rate. One of my buddies worked for a beer distributor in Denton TX and got shafted by that practice. Knew a bunch of oil guys who had the same problem (but when you get paid $45/hr to drive around in a truck and turn wrenches I have less sympathy.) Same with two guys I knew who were water-wellers.
I'm not sure who told these dudes that was okay but 1 by 1 all the cases I knew about got challenged and the employer had to pay up.
|
|
The remaining $6.7 Billion is not money received by Wal*Mart or by the Walton family, it is received by the people working there.That $6.7b goes to the workers, true.
It goes to the workers, to replace the $6.7b the Walton family witheld from them.
The Walton family get to keep the money they witheld from their workers.The net result is exactly the same as if the Walmart workers had been paid the correct wage at the correct time, and the tax money had gone directly to the company owners instead.
Therefore, your low wage, working class taxes are going to billionaires, to prop up their bilionaire lifestyle.
Because obviously, you owe them. Somehow.You cry 'Socialism!' if your taxes support an unemployed person's hand to mouth existence, yet see no contradiction in supporting a billionaire, who refuses to pay their workers correctly.
And they have persuaded you to not only accept this, but to argue for it, and denounce any attempts to correct this.
Who decides what is the correct amount to pay workers? If those people don't have a job that will support a family, then they shouldn't start a family. Since I live off of my nonsubsidized minimum wage job, it isn't the employers fault that people can't live off their wages. People need to live within their means, and if you don't have a job that supports a family, then you shouldn't have a family. But it easier to blame someone else for your problems, than to blame yourself.
Take responsibility for your life!
I just threw up in my own mouth.
Not to mention I don't believe you.
On the roughly $1275 a month you make working a full-time minimum-wage job there is no way that you have your own place (ie, no roommate, sig other, or parents sharing or covering rent), make a gas/power/water/internet payment, pay for a modest used car, insurance on that car, gasoline, renters insurance, health insurance, food, and buy an average of 10...
In Houston, a few blocks from my home, are several apartment complexes with one and two bedroom apartments, all bill paid, free basic cable, for between $350 and $500 a month. If you don't think a single person could afford that on the salary you quote, especially when they'll pay zero taxes and get an EITC check to boot, I have to wonder how poorly you budget your money to say it isn't possible. I've done it, it sucks, lots of mac and cheese and ramen, but I wasn't homeless.
So you're saying that we need to rebuild the unions whose destruction preceded the loss of those manufacturing jobs and get rid of supply-side economics, which has been the single greatest burden on our economy for three decades. And then laugh out any politician who talks about it likes it's a good thing.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25
That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
$200 in gas???? Even with the current $3.75 a gallon I don't come anywhere near that. Where are you driving that you spend $200 in gas a month? My car insurance (liability + collision) is also about half what you list.
$200 is possibly high for gas, depends on how far you have to drive to get that $350 all bills paid apt. I would still argue that even at half that amount you don't have the room in wages to be sick and miss work for more than 2 days or at all in you need medication.
What insurance company is giving liability and collision for $50? I need to switch
I pay about $150/mo for full coverage on 2 cars. And not just the state minimums, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick search shows that the lowest insurance avg for liability and collision was in North Dakota at about $68 a month, highest in New Jersey at about $161 a month. $100 for the purposes of this thread seems a fair middle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Food for thought on the topic. In 2012 $13.4trillion was earned as wages by 144million workers in the US.
So, if you made less than $93,000 in 2012, you were under the "average."
Food for thought on the topic. In 2012 $13.4trillion was earned as wages by 144million workers in the US.
So, if you made less than $93,000 in 2012, you were under the "average."
The median is undoubtedly considerably lower. Probably less than half.
Also, do stock options count as wages in those numbers? If they don't, the data is probably even more skewed to the right than the mean suggests.
In general, mean is a poor measure of central tendency.
Note that this assumes I remember my stats class accurately. Which is a big assumption. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Total earned personal income. No doubt the wealth disparity is greater than the wage disparity, but one step at a time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I recall, median income is somewhere in the $44,000 range.
But I'm more concerned with volume of income availability. The argument is that increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour will reduce profits. I suggest that the profits are still available and that the pay scale is out of line on the other end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Total earned personal income. No doubt the wealth disparity is greater than the wage disparity, but one step at a time.
No doubt.
I think raising the minimum wage is definitely a step in the right direction. I also think the dire predictions of lost jobs are overblown, because they tend to ignore all the extra buying power that will be in the economy. In fairness, of course, different businesses will experience that differently. Some will probably thrive. Others not so much -- but I suspect the ones that don't will tend to be the ones that can afford it. That said, I would probably institute a gradual phase-in for companies with fewer than (some negotiated number) employees.
In my opinion, it comes to this: Capital doesn't create jobs; demand does. And since people on the margins tend to spend whatever they get...
Aaaaaand.... Black magic witch doctor. I guess that means it is time for bed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying that we need to rebuild the unions whose destruction preceded the loss of those manufacturing jobs and get rid of supply-side economics, which has been the single greatest burden on our economy for three decades. And then laugh out any politician who talks about it likes it's a good thing.
So... when were these unions destroyed? AFL-CIO is still around, UAW is still going as strong as a business in Detroit can be expected to, etc. Did I miss reading about a round of union-busting forty years back?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
During the greatest years of economic expansion, roughly between 1950 and 1970 roughly 25-30% of all employees belonged to a union. Since the mid 1970s it has been steadily declining and now it's something like 8-9%.
|
|
They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
Let's look at that list. Some of those are luxuries. For $40 a month I can take a bus to work and back (saves $440). Health insurance? Try a Gold Card and eating the $95 fine (which just comes out of the tax return, and poor people who make it learn to take the maximum deductions allowed, knowing there's not going to be a tax bill after the EITC. So, now I have a hundy a week for incidentals, not $25. If you're going to play poor, think poor. Also, being in Houston, we have a TON of construction work, and it doesn't take much to become a helper at $10 per, starting, just the ability to get off your ass and look.
I've been VERY poor. I can tell you that most people on these board have no idea what it's like to be poor and get creative. Coupons still exist. At minimum wage, you qualify for a bunch of programs (food stamps, Gold Card, bill assistance, etc). All you have to do is get off your ass and apply for them. I never did, but I've always had the opinion that if I can work one job, I can work two.
Some people really are stuck, most of them are women who have kids and a douchebag that left them high and dry. I am all for helping them. But, I have zero sympathy for people with no kids, no mental disability, no physical disability, and no real excuse, with the myriad of private charity and government services for all kinds of stuff (just have to get off your ass and apply/show up/etc - workforce commission is amazing for this). If you're poor in Houston, you can get an ID card, a Social Security card, a copy of your birth certificate, clothes, food and other services for nothing. You just have to get off your ass and do it.
The only thing keeping some people back is themselves. I have no sympathy for them. Some people were put in situations because they trusted a man not to abandon them and their children, have a mental or physical disability, a chronic illness, a serious tragedy, something out of their control. I have a ton of sympathy for them.
I'm not even saying the minimum wage is enough to live on, it isn't, not well, but for a single person with no kids and no disabilities, it isn't the end of the world. A car is a luxury in a city with reasonably reliable public transportation, so forget that. Second, if you're that poor, you're not making a car payment, unless you want to waste money on the ridiculous interest you'll pay with your income level (poor people also tend to have bad or no credit scores).
As to your inability to find the apartments I referred to, you have to get off your ass and find them.
|
|
Total earned personal income. No doubt the wealth disparity is greater than the wage disparity, but one step at a time.No doubt.
I think raising the minimum wage is definitely a step in the right direction. I also think the dire predictions of lost jobs are overblown, because they tend to ignore all the extra buying power that will be in the economy. In fairness, of course, different businesses will experience that differently. Some will probably thrive. Others not so much -- but I suspect the ones that don't will tend to be the ones that can afford it. That said, I would probably institute a gradual phase-in for companies with fewer than (some negotiated number) employees.
In my opinion, it comes to this: Capital doesn't create jobs; demand does. And since people on the margins tend to spend whatever they get...
If the last minimum wage increase is any indication, most businesses just raise their prices. Both places I was working when it did just added $0.50 to $1 to everything. If the guys I'm working for now were forced to pay their employees $15 an hour, they'd have to close shop and go back to working for their dad. I do their books, they're making money, but not much, but it's enough they don't have to work for their dad or someone else. Doubling their payroll would force them to add about three to four dollars across the board to their prices to cover payroll and the invariable cost increase on their supplies. Wal*Mart could easily absorb the wage, and pay for it with a very modest increase in prices. The low margin small business owner who doesn't make much, but it keeps him from having to work to make someone else money, he's gone.
|
|
$200 in gas???? Even with the current $3.75 a gallon I don't come anywhere near that. Where are you driving that you spend $200 in gas a month? My car insurance (liability + collision) is also about half what you list.They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
Some people really have no idea how to live lean. I pay about $30 a week for gas, but that's just because I have to drive across town twice a week to take care of my mom. If it weren't for that, I'd spend fifteen. I might drive twenty minutes a day, if I don't take the bus to work.
|
|
As I recall, median income is somewhere in the $44,000 range.
But I'm more concerned with volume of income availability. The argument is that increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour will reduce profits. I suggest that the profits are still available and that the pay scale is out of line on the other end.
Have you ever run a business? I ran a deli that had about an 8% profit margin, and employed twelve people. Doubling the minimum wage would have put them out of business, no one is going to pay $25 for a Reuben in Houston.
You're right, HD, your single snarky piece of anecdotal evidence trumps empirical evidence!
Personally I think 15 is pretty absurd, but I don't think the goal of $10.10 or so is unreasonable or infeasible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yes, HD, you're right that if you're really poor and used to being poor you can get by on very little. I lived on about 7 grand a year for several years and still had pocket money to buy D&D books.
But a lot of those costs are inflexible. If you are paying 800/mo in rent and have a 250/mo car payment, and you lose your job and are forced into an unskilled job, 7.25/hr means you're going to get evicted (you're on a lease for another 11 months) or have your car repossessed, which is just the beginning of the death spiral.
This is what we have to be concerned about, because we have a whole lot of downward mobility in our economy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever run a business? I ran a deli that had about an 8% profit margin, and employed twelve people. Doubling the minimum wage would have put them out of business, no one is going to pay $25 for a Reuben in Houston.As I recall, median income is somewhere in the $44,000 range.
But I'm more concerned with volume of income availability. The argument is that increasing minimum wage to $15 an hour will reduce profits. I suggest that the profits are still available and that the pay scale is out of line on the other end.
Under neither the Democrat-sponsored version, nor the ultra-left commie version, would "small businesses" be required to pay $15. Doublecheck the details, but the former takes something like 7 years to phase in for businesses with 500 or fewer employees; the latter calls for a 3 year phase in for businesses with 250 or fewer.
Btw, the commies were also floating a proposal to subsidize the wages of small business owners to get them up to $15 by higher taxes on the rich and corporations, but that has fallen out of focus as the battle for no (well, less) loopholes ramped up.
Speaking of which, the party line from Seattle has arrived.
[Ahem]
The Fight for $15: Seattle Shows What a Movement Can Achieve
But nothing is decided yet: “Our work is far from done,” says Kshama Sawant.
Under intense pressure from the movement for a $15/hour minimum wage, Seattle’s establishment was forced to come forward with a proposal to significantly increase the wages for 102,000 low-paid workers. The proposal is less than workers are demanding, and it is still not in any way a done deal. Nevertheless, this shows the power of working people to stand up, raise their expectations, and push back against the big-business agenda dominating the U.S.
A year ago the proposed increase would have been difficult to imagine. The Mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray, is proposing a raise of the minimum wage of 50 percent, compared to Washington State, over 10 years. With a yearly inflation adjustment this would lift minimum wages in the Emerald City to more than $18/hour in 2025, which would make it the strongest minimum wage legislation in the US. The effects nationally will be huge. Already it is clear that it will encourage workers all across the US and beyond to step up the fight for $15 and more.
The strikes of fast food workers, the huge sympathy they received, the electoral success of Kshama Sawant in becoming the first socialist city councilor in Seattle in decades, and the impressive 15 Now campaign she and Socialist Alternative have launched – all together redefined what is achievable. It has empowered workers, disproportionately people of color, women and immigrants, to stand up and demand a life with dignity. It shows we can achieve a significant increase in living conditions, wages and working conditions, if we get organized and use our collective strength.
However, the deal is not yet sealed – and it has some severe flaws, that Kshama Sawant, Socialist Alternative and 15 Now are fighting to overcome. It was our grassroots movement that brought us this far – now we need to increase the pressure in the coming weeks on the city council to correct the weaknesses in the Mayor’s proposal. If the council fails to correct the proposal, there is still the option of putting a Charter Amendment to voters in November.
15 Now is preparing the signature gathering for this backup plan: “Signature gathering is a very, very important piece of action that needs to be continued in the next several weeks, so that the city council, which is going to have McDonald’s lobbyists whispering in one ear and Starbucks lobbyists whispering in another ear, to make sure that the voices of workers aren’t forgotten,” Kshama Sawant told the media.
Murray’s Proposal
On May Day the Mayor’s “Income Inequality Advisory Committee” finally delivered its plan. It’s a complicated plan because it aims to give the appearance of $15 to satisfy the demands of the public, while giving business loopholes to pay as little as possible in practice.
The president of the Seattle chapter of the National Restaurant Association, Bob Donegan, explained how the dominant section of Seattle business views the proposal when he told the City Council that he is supporting the Mayor’s proposal because it is the “least offensive of the imperfect solutions.” The Seattle Times, a fierce opponent of a $15 minimum wage in SeaTac and Seattle echoed similar sentiments in an editorial: “If Seattle must go to $15 — and that appears a political reality — there are elements to like in this deal” (5/3/2014).
The Mayor’s proposal allows big business a three year phase-in from $11 to $15 in 2018 or even 2019 if they offer health care. Only in 2018 does the cost of living adjustment start. A $15 in 2018 terms is in 2014 dollars around $14.30. For small business, defined as up to 500 (!) employees, the phase-in is much longer and tipped workers only reach the full amount in 2025. The wage increases for businesses under 500 which offer health care, or where workers are tipped, are extremely slow in the first few years, rising to $10, $10.50, $11 then $11.50 in the first four years.
The proposal reflects what business has been forced to accept so far. It also points to the danger of the proposal being undermined further as soon as business feels in a strong enough position to do so. The long-term phase-in runs the risk that future city councils could alter the plan before it fully kicks in. There should be no doubt that they will take advantage of the proposed “temporary” tip penalty to make every effort to turn it into a permanent feature and to spread it throughout Washington state (which is one of only seven states which does not currently have a tip penalty).
Pressure on the City Council
In contrast, Kshama Sawant is pushing forward the original plan proposed by herself and labor to the Income Inequality Advisory Committee – $15 starting January 1, 2015 for all workers employed by big businesses. Starbucks, McDonald’s, Burger King, Target can afford to pay $15 now – why should they get one more day to pay poverty wages? Sawant’s plan also includes a three-year phase-in for small businesses and non-profits. It rules out including a tip penalties and health care deductions, and the cost of living adjustments would start immediately.
The movement for $15 needs to increase the pressure on the council to:
- get rid of any phase-in for big business
- get rid of any tip penalty or health care deduction
- Reduce the decade long phase-in for small business
It’s unclear how quickly the city council will decide on the proposals. The coming days and weeks are decisive to keep up the pressure and win the strongest possible $15.
Last year an initiative in SeaTac won a $15 minimum wage. On Wednesday May 7, supporters of the SeaTac initiative will protest against business’s blocking its implementation through legal challenges. This is an important step to show the City Council and business that we will not allow them to claw back the gains we have won.
On Thursday May 15, fast food workers will be protesting and striking across the country and in Seattle for $15/hour minimum wage.
As well as these events, 15 Now is Seattle is preparing to mobilize low-wage workers and supporters of $15 to make sure our voices are heard throughout the City Council process. This includes mobilizing to collect signatures for a ballot initiative. If the City Council fails to deliver an adequate $15, activists of 15 Now, labor and communities can bring the demand for a living wage to a vote in the November election.
Click here to help the signature gathering or to be part of an Action Group in Seattle, or click here to donate to help 15 Now fight for a living wage for workers.
If you agree there is need to build an on-going movement against the interests of corporate America and the capitalist system, click here to join Socialist Alternative!
Labor and the Left’s Debate on Strategy
The Mayor’s proposal has sparked an important debate among Labor and the Left on how to best proceed. The leadership of the Seattle labor movement are mistakenly uncritically supporting the Mayor’s proposal and are unfortunately not looking to throw their weight fully into struggle to improve the proposal.
This is linked with the question of a ballot initiative. The New York Times (May 2, 2014) quotes David Rolf, president of SEIU 775 “I believe that if the Council passes this agreement within the next few weeks that the public won’t support a ballot measure fight,” Mr. Rolf said. “And certainly the labor movement is not going to support a ballot measure fight.”
While Rolf mentions, quoted by KPLU radio, that it was necessary to have a “left flank” and he had “nothing but respect for Sawant and her organization, 15 Now,” he then goes on to say: “But we don’t agree on the strategy.” Rolf continued, “for some period of time, we’ve made it clear we support the concept of a phase-in, we want to reach a compromise, and we believe the best compromise is one with labor and business at the same table joining their hands and advocating to the council.” (KPLU – Seattle Mayor Murray’s Minimum Wage Plan Reveals An Interesting Divide On The Left)
For Socialist Alternative and Kshama Sawant, there is nothing wrong with signing a deal that might not completely reflect our full demands, as long as Labor has used all its tools to push forward an agenda to defend working class families’ living and working conditions. It is Labor that is best positioned to change the balance of forces between the 1% and the rest of society by activating workers themselves.
The question is, has this been done yet?
In our view, the answer is no. The main labor leaders involved believe the Mayor’s proposal needs to be supported and not changed in order to avoid big business stepping in, using their financial power to manipulate public opinion to oppose an increase in the minimum wage – for example, on the ballot in November. But when did appeasement on our side ever stop big business from using all the tools at their disposal to strengthen their position and weaken ours?
We need to rely on our strength and use the debate in Seattle on $15 to help rebuild a fighting workers movement. The strikes of the fast food workers and the trade unions supporting them were absolutely crucial to turn the growing feelings of social injustice – revealed by the Occupy Movement – into action.
Trade unions like the SEIU, UFCW, Unite-Here and others were decisive in winning the SeaTac ballot for a $15 minimum wage.
However, labor did not, unfortunately, offer a tool to turn the huge sympathy for the demand for $15 into an organizational force for all workers and young people. Only the election campaign of Kshama Sawant last year and then the launch of 15 Now offered activists and newly-politicized people a way to get engaged and involved, take ownership of the movement and move forward.
Imagine what would be possible in the following months and years if the Labor leaders were to throw their full weight behind the fighting strategy 15 Now and Kshama Sawant have put forward. A national campaign promoted and financially supported by Labor, that workers could join and democratically participate in to fight for $15 all across the country would change the political landscape. Such a campaign could hold mass conferences, like the 15 Now Conference on April 26 in Seattle, mobilizing hundreds and thousands in city after city, discussing and then moving into action. What a powerful tool to rebuild Labor, give direction and hope to the aspirations of workers, and finally start to fight corporate America!
What a contrast to the strategy of too many Labor leaders over the last decades: They have tried to appease big business, tried to get agreements and compromises – in large part without mobilizing, without educating and without organizing working-class and young people.
Did this stop business from increasing their attacks? On the contrary, bosses were encouraged to demand more and more. The extreme accumulation of wealth in the hands of the 1% is the result of their unrelenting battle against the vast majority of people. It’s time to fight back!
In Seattle, Labor, Kshama Sawant, 15 Now and Socialist Alternative together with many community groups and activists have a unique chance: We can use the Mayor’s proposal as a starting point. With a signature gathering campaign, supported by the labor movement, we would have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of thousands of people, educate a whole new layer of activists and change the balance of forces further. The potential is there to win a full $15 – but it will take a vigorous struggle.
Make the bosses take the losses!
Fight for $15/hr and a Union!
For workers revolution!
Vive le Galt!!!!
$200 in gas???? Even with the current $3.75 a gallon I don't come anywhere near that. Where are you driving that you spend $200 in gas a month? My car insurance (liability + collision) is also about half what you list.They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
My car insurance was twice that when I was driving a 10 year old Ford Taurus.
$200 in gas is easy, especially with a clunker. If you get 20 MPG, it's only 265 miles per week assuming your not sitting idle in traffic. Most of my friends out of college would love to have a car that good. If you live within a few miles of work, that may seem like a lot. I can't find statistics on the average commute distance in the US in the time I'm willing to spend, but the average time is 27 minutes. Your probably looking at about 15 miles one way on average (I used to take ~30 and it was 22, though mostly fast roads). That makes 150 miles just for work, so around $115.
That being said, if you are working a minimum wage job you should be able to find something much closer to home or on public transport lines. Jobs that are on the higher end of average are likely the better paying ones where people live in suburbia and are commuting into a city.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They may get their taxes back but they will not have them weekly.
$350 all bills paid is pretty phenomenal. After searching several apartment aggregate sites the cheapest apt rent I can find in Houston is $400, which includes water only. Cheapest I could find all bills is $645.
Regardless, even at 350 all bills paid, you would need $1250 a month to afford the other things on the list which I consider the basest of human needs which someone working full-time should reasonably expect to afford.
Rent + Utilities - $350
Car - $200
Car insurance - $100 (liability + collision)
Gasoline - $200
Health insurance - $100
Renters insurance - $25
Internet/phone - $50
Food - $200
Clothes - $25That leaves you roughly $25 for saving, paying debt, going to the doctor, prescriptions, social life, and soap.
I never said you would be homeless, but you are far from "making it." If you are providing full-time service for a company or person you should not have to worry about being able to afford the most basic of lifestyle.
Let's look at that list. Some of those are luxuries. For $40 a month I can take a bus to work and back (saves $440). Health insurance? Try a Gold Card and eating the $95 fine (which just comes out of the tax return, and poor people who make it learn to take the maximum deductions allowed, knowing there's not going to be a tax bill after the EITC. So, now I have a hundy a week for incidentals, not $25. If you're going to play poor, think poor. Also, being in Houston, we have a TON of construction work, and it doesn't take much to become a helper at $10 per, starting, just the ability to get off your ass and look.
I've been VERY poor. I can tell you that most people on these board have no idea what it's like to be poor and get creative. Coupons still exist. At minimum wage, you qualify for a bunch of programs (food stamps, Gold Card, bill assistance, etc). All you have to do is get off your ass and apply for them. I never did, but I've always had...
HD, I think you are missing the point of BigDTBone's argument. He isn't listing what he considers to be how you would budget if you were living off that much. He is starting with the minimum he considers an acceptable lifestyle that someone working full time should be able to afford. If you are on a limited budget you make cuts, and it is certainly possibly to trim a lot of fat out of budgets. He is arguing that if your working full time you shouldn't have to make significant cuts and should be able to live fairly comfortably, barring extraneous expenses.
|
Here's another point that I'm surprised I haven't seen yet: Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to provided living wages. They are at best entry level jobs.
Another point to consider is this: If I own a burger place and am forced to increase my minimum wages I have a few options to consider -
1 - Pay the new wages and absorb the cost myself (good for the workes, bad for my giants sacks of money in my vault).
2 - Fire a few people and make the remaining staff work harder for their new wages (no cost to me).
3 - Close the business entirely (no more jobs, but I still have my original profits).
4 - Start thinking about automation, customers punch their order into a screen and my robots make their order and call it Robo-Burger (all profit, no pesky workers). This idea was totally borrowed from radio host Andrew Wilkow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another point that I'm surprised I haven't seen yet: Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to provided living wages. They are at best entry level jobs.
Another point to consider is this: If I own a burger place and am forced to increase my minimum wages I have a few options to consider -
1 - Pay the new wages and absorb the cost myself (good for the workes, bad for my giants sacks of money in my vault).
2 - Fire a few people and make the remaining staff work harder for their new wages (no cost to me).
3 - Close the business entirely (no more jobs, but I still have my original profits).
4 - Start thinking about automation, customers punch their order into a screen and my robots make their order and call it Robo-Burger (all profit, no pesky workers). This idea was totally borrowed from radio host Andrew Wilkow.
Considering the majority of people working minimum wage are trying to support a family off of it, why shouldn't they provide a living wage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another point that I'm surprised I haven't seen yet: Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to provided living wages. They are at best entry level jobs.
Another point to consider is this: If I own a burger place and am forced to increase my minimum wages I have a few options to consider -
1 - Pay the new wages and absorb the cost myself (good for the workes, bad for my giants sacks of money in my vault).
2 - Fire a few people and make the remaining staff work harder for their new wages (no cost to me).
3 - Close the business entirely (no more jobs, but I still have my original profits).
4 - Start thinking about automation, customers punch their order into a screen and my robots make their order and call it Robo-Burger (all profit, no pesky workers). This idea was totally borrowed from radio host Andrew Wilkow.
Responding to your other points:
1. Yes. This is actually what usually happens. The profits shrink, and that comes out of the bottom line of the owners profits. Small business owners will feel this the most, but if they aren't already making more than minimum2. Most businesses can't afford to do this. They can't afford to lose the efficiency, and the demand for their product will be increasing so they will more likely need to hire more people.
3. Any business that can't afford to pay its employees salaries they can live off of probably is so financially unstable it doesn't have long for this world anyway.
4. Some businesses may. Though you also have to consider some interesting things, like the fact that McDonald's has found that automation of some jobs (particularly cashiers) caused them to lose customers. Most people prefer to go to checkout lines with a cashier over self serve in grocery stores. Companies know that too much automation can lose them business, and the jobs that are at risk of loss the most are automated out anyway. This just shifts company cost estimates for when it becomes profitable to make the switch by a year or two.
500 employees counts as small business? That's an unusual number.Speaking of which, the party line from Seattle has arrived.
Not really. The Federal Government has established a rather complex set of regulations that establish, industry by industry, what counts as a "small business." A business with 500 or fewer employees is one of the more common cutoffs (other cutoffs include the dollar volume of business done, for businesses that are cash-intensive but involve little hiring, such as banking or consultancy).
Rather than re-invent the wheel and duplicate the entire agency, the authors of the proposals apparently just went with a rough version of the Fed's guidelines.
500 employees counts as small business? That's an unusual number.Speaking of which, the party line from Seattle has arrived.
Not really. The Federal Government has established a rather complex set of regulations that establish, industry by industry, what counts as a "small business." A business with 500 or fewer employees is one of the more common cutoffs (other cutoffs include the dollar volume of business done, for businesses that are cash-intensive but involve little hiring, such as banking or consultancy).
Rather than re-invent the wheel and duplicate the entire agency, the authors of the proposals apparently just went with a rough version of the Fed's guidelines.
I don't get why they couldn't just reference the federal guidelines.
I don't get why they couldn't just reference the federal guidelines.500 employees counts as small business? That's an unusual number.Speaking of which, the party line from Seattle has arrived.
Not really. The Federal Government has established a rather complex set of regulations that establish, industry by industry, what counts as a "small business." A business with 500 or fewer employees is one of the more common cutoffs (other cutoffs include the dollar volume of business done, for businesses that are cash-intensive but involve little hiring, such as banking or consultancy).
Rather than re-invent the wheel and duplicate the entire agency, the authors of the proposals apparently just went with a rough version of the Fed's guidelines.
Because they don't have the staff, the time, or the intention to follow the updates that the Fed makes. As is, enforcement is easy -- count noses and show the tally stick to the judge. Training enforcement officers is equally easy -- "Can you count to 500? Good."
Similarly, it's hard to get numbers about gross income from a company that doesn't want to give them to you.
Linking to the Federal standards would require the officers to memorize a forty page table that changes every year, and then argue with every company cited, in court, about which category they fall into.
Does "We-Repair-Anything" do "Consumer Electronics Repair and Maintenance," "Computer and Office Machine Repair and Maintenance," "Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance," "Other Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance," or "Appliance Repair and Maintenance"?
Does, "Ski, Golf, and Bowl" do skiing, golfing, or bowling (which have different Federal cutoffs)?
Answer: It doesn't matter, as I counted 503 employees.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another point that I'm surprised I haven't seen yet: Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to provided living wages. They are at best entry level jobs.
I've stayed out of this for a while, because frankly Orfamay has been able to articulate my points better, and sooner, than I have.
But this?
This is tripe, and is a gross miscarrying of facts.
The Federal Minimum Wage was established exactly because the working class needed a baseline, livable, family-supportable wage.
Your assertion that minimum wage jobs "aren't intended to provided (sic) living wages" is patently and utterly false.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President who rode shotgun over the enacting of the minimum wage law, has been quoted over and over all around the internet about this - and I don't care to repeat the quote here (because I'm sure someone will nitpick it for their own personal agenda, because poor people don't deserve to be paid living wages, right?), but the fact of the matter is that the minimum wage was intended to enable a single working adult to provide the basic cost of living for a family of four individuals - two adults, and two children (and maybe a dog).
Period. End of discussion.
That "minimum wage" has become a synonym for "transitional wages worked by high school students before going to college" is misinformed at best and aggressively revisionist at worst.
The minimum wage laws were enacted so that one person, working 40 hours a week, could provide a basic livable income for a family of four. They were intended to ensure that no one - not you, not me, not my mother (who worked in excess of 90 to 100 hours a week at two jobs until I turned 8 and she got ONE job that paid what both of those other jobs did), not ANYONE - would have to work themselves to death.
You can say "today, minimum wage jobs are considered entry level jobs" but you do NOT get to revise the facts to suit your viewpoint.
And those facts are that approximately 88 percent of workers on minimum wage jobs are over 20 years old (with at least 35% of them over 40), over HALF of them are women. They work full time. They have kids. They have been to college.
And they're still being screwed over.
Because people such as yourself continue to believe and perpetuate myths that a baseline, livable wage is not deserved by every citizen of this country and/or world.
Okay. Done. Orfamay, please continue. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the majority of people working minimum wage are trying to support a family off of it, why shouldn't they provide a living wage?
The following is not meant to insult anyone at all:
I understand what you are saying, but here's a thought. If I raise the minimum wage to $15.00 for burger flipping do all other jobs fields gain an equal increase?
If I get paid $15.00 currently to do some technical job, say repair phone lines, do I now get bumped up to $20.00?
I fix airplanes, that job requires more skill and responsibilty than burgers and it's harder work, why should he make as much as I do?
In my opinion, some jobs deserve higher pay than others, some jobs just deserve more pay. If you push the bottom up, that puts a large squeeze on the middle class. I'll ignore the upper class because regardless of what happens they have the means to protect their wealth.
Just interesting questions.
Considering the majority of people working minimum wage are trying to support a family off of it, why shouldn't they provide a living wage?The following is not meant to insult anyone at all:
I understand what you are saying, but here's a thought. If I raise the minimum wage to $15.00 for burger flipping do all other jobs fields gain an equal increase?
Not immediately. Pay negotiations happen though, and so employees will negotiate a higher pay.
If I get paid $15.00 currently to do some technical job, say repair phone lines, do I now get bumped up to $20.00?
Not unless you negotiate for it. Do you want to be paid the same as a low end employee? Your current employer will either see you as easily replaceable and not raise your pay or as not easily replaceable and give you a raise to prevent you from going to the new competition in the job market.
I fix airplanes, that job requires more skill and responsibilty than burgers and it's harder work, why should he make as much as I do?In my opinion, some jobs deserve higher pay than others, some jobs just deserve more pay. If you push the bottom up, that puts a large squeeze on the middle class. I'll ignore the upper class because regardless of what happens they have the means to protect their wealth.
Just interesting questions.
How does it squeeze the middle class? In general middle class pay rises when minimum wage goes up, for precisely the reason you think it should. You don't think your worth bottom of the barrel because your skilled labor, so you wont work for it. This will be a general attitude over a significant enough percentage of the workforce that employers will raise their salaries to not have walkouts.
|
|
Krensky,
I'll will concede that minimum wage being entry level probably wasn't the original intent back then, but it seems that way now.
What quality of life level should one reasonably expect if they work at the 7-11 counter (never moving up) for 45 years?
Some people can't move up and I understand that, but again, some people don't want to move up, some of us are stuck in the middle.
I'd like to hear how the middle should/would be compensated for an increase in the minimum wage?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another point that I'm surprised I haven't seen yet: Minimum wage jobs aren't intended to provided living wages. They are at best entry level jobs.
I've stayed out of this for a while, because frankly Orfamay has been able to articulate my points better, and sooner, than I have.
But this?
This is tripe, and is a gross miscarrying of facts.
The Federal Minimum Wage was established exactly because the working class needed a baseline, livable, family-supportable wage.
Your assertion that minimum wage jobs "aren't intended to provided (sic) living wages" is patently and utterly false.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President who rode shotgun over the enacting of the minimum wage law, has been quoted over and over all around the internet about this - and I don't care to repeat the quote here (because I'm sure someone will nitpick it for their own personal agenda, because poor people don't deserve to be paid living wages, right?), but the fact of the matter is that the minimum wage was intended to enable a single working adult to provide the basic cost of living for a family of four individuals - two adults, and two children (and maybe a dog).
Period. End of discussion.
That "minimum wage" has become a synonym for "transitional wages worked by high school students before going to college" is misinformed at best and aggressively revisionist at worst.
The minimum wage laws were enacted so that one person, working 40 hours a week, could provide a basic livable income for a family of four. They were intended to ensure that no one - not you, not me, not my mother (who worked in excess of 90 to 100 hours a week at two jobs until I turned 8 and she got ONE job that paid what both of those other jobs did), not ANYONE - would have to work themselves to death.
You can say "today, minimum wage jobs are considered entry level jobs" but you do NOT get to revise the facts to suit your viewpoint.
And those facts are that approximately 88 percent...
The buying power of minimum wage when it was first established would be the same as about $21/hr today. That was minimum wage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krensky,
I'll will concede that minimum wage being entry level probably wasn't the original intent back then, but it seems that way now.
What quality of life level should one reasonably expect if they work at the 7-11 counter (never moving up) for 45 years?
Some people can't move up and I understand that, but again, some people don't want to move up, some of us are stuck in the middle.
I'd like to hear how the middle should/would be compensated for an increase in the minimum wage?
Tell your employer that you won't work for less than x times minimum wage and you expect to see an increase or he can expect to fill a vacancy. Employers will pay market rate for job skills and when the minimum wage increases the market rate increases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll will concede that minimum wage being entry level probably wasn't the original intent back then, but it seems that way now.
Yes, it does. It's a real problem, and we're trying to fix that.
What quality of life level should one reasonably expect if they work at the 7-11 counter (never moving up) for 45 years?
One where they enjoy a basic, comfortable living and don't find themselves constantly worrying about whether they will be able to make ends meet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following is not meant to insult anyone at all:I understand what you are saying, but here's a thought. If I raise the minimum wage to $15.00 for burger flipping do all other jobs fields gain an equal increase?
Not necessarily. On the other hand, if the employer wants to have people repair phone lines or fix airplanes for him instead of flipping burgers for McD's, that employer will need to give his jobs a competitive advantage -- paying more money, offering better benefits, or offering better working conditions are all possible ways to do it.