Replies

Personally I can't see how people are able to rent an apt, buy food, pay for utilities if they are earning $8 and hour
which probably nets about $6 and hour, however earning say $10 an hour would net about $8.00 per hr. $6 x 40 hours is $240 a week, under $1,000 a month, apartments are about $400 to $800 a month which than places the burden on the taxpayer as the wage earner is than able to receive welfare benefits, section 8 housing, etc. So someone explain to me why this is a benefit to the average taxpayer to applaud big box employers not having to pay little more than minimum wage? Wages are state specific, so someone in Chicago may get $8, someone in Texas may receive $6 etc.
The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?

That's been the rub for me, the low-wage earner welfare, section 8 recepients.

You are missing a clue about economics. Why $10 why not $20? then they would be much more comfortable. How about $30? Stores don't operate on large margins and don't have printing presses. Your calculations leave out the only important factor. Can the company survive those wages or will they then have to get rid of X number of employees and not build X number of stores.

I am not even getting into the whole discussion of what they actually produce. Go out and read some Walter Williams/Thomas Sowell columns on the subject. You need to educate yourself on basic economic principles. I hope you don't run a business.

because it would be "DEVASTATING".

At least that's what the Reps from Target said quite a few times in the article.

Work 2 jobs, live with a roommate, etc. I did it when I was 19-20 and making only $7/hr. I also worked every overtime shift I could get and did odds and ends anywhere I could. I was prepared to work a second job, if needed as well.

The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?
-------

Ever heard the term "ROOM_MATE" ?

What happened to the idea of pooling together , working hard , and moving ahead.

It seems like everyone thinks that they are suppose to START with a big house a new car and all the goodies.
shhheeeesh

President Reagan answered your question when he said "A little bit socialist is like a little bit pregnant".

Section 8 housing is socialism. Stop those socialism payments and the market will soon find housing - employers will factor in the wages to keep essential employees.

But then they will have to have productive workers and the union/scruel/Democratic Party axis has spent generations producing the present generation of hapless, hopeless 'workers' presently huddled in section 8 housing, drawing their welfare payments.

Socialist cattle in a section 8 stall. The real tragedy is that those socialist cattle could have been productive citizens, leading satisfying and productive lives if America had not tried to perfect socialism and used these fellow citizens as experimental subjects in social engineering delusions.

You lurking Libroids can relax and stop hyper-ventilating. Rant's over.

But the reality lingers on.

The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?

Economics is not a zero sum game. The size of the pie can grow in a capitalist economy where both employees and employers have an incentive for growth.

The whole point here is that Chicago Aldermen are illiterate in economics 101. They have no concept of supply and demand. They have no concept of anything except centralized CONTROL of a static economy and the transfer of money from the rich to the poor BECAUSE the rich are rich and because the poor are poor.

Invariably, when a socialist program fails, the caring solution is to make the program bigger and throw more money at the problem.

The corruption in Chicago is a special twist. The political machine has run a lot of neighborhood business out of Chicago. That neighborhood business left due to extortion from the local ward committeeman's machine. Of course, that hurt the coffers of the local machine's and strengthened the centralized control of Daley over the ward committeemen, including the Black politicians.

Both Black and non-Black ward politicians who would like to rise within the organization now lack the base of contributors. There is a conscious attempt on the part of ward politicians to attract "business" to their ward so that they have someone they can extort money from.

Sometimes this extortion is a blatant "Give me cash to put in my freezer". But more often, it is "Hire my unqualified nephew for a do-nothing no-show job if you don't want to be hassled by the health inspector."

Well, come to think of it. Their nephew is qualified for a do-nothing no-show job.

I don't mean to be unkind, but if the base wage for big box store employees was not established by a free market supply-demand, many of the present employees would not have that job. Big box stores have found a way of usefully employing people of minimal skills who would otherwise be jobless and a drain on social infrastructures.

Offering $15 per hour in a fully employed economy simply pushes out the less skilled and less socially adapted from jobs they want and need. Go to one of those stores, look around; many of those employees are working at the highest level that their abilities permit.

Double the wages, go back into that same store. Do you think you will see the same employees, wearing Prada? Think not. The free market is built on getting value for money spent. A whole new set of faces will be in that store if it can possibly withstand an artifical government wage requirement.

It is doable.

Okay the minimum wage from State to State is different and so is the cost of living.

It may cost 400 to 800 Dollars in your area to rent an apartment,but it maybe lower some where else.

BTW,Walmart starts their employees at 50 cents above the minimum wage in any State and raises the wage after 90 days again.

Also a lot of people working at Walmart are part timers anyway and have the job as a second income.

Another thing is ,that you may already have paid for some of those peoples living ,with your tax Dollar prior to their employment at Walmart.

I would rather help someone with my Tax dollars, that has a job and will eventually be able to ween him/herself away from the nanny state, then some loser that just depends on the nanny state.

The minimum wage battle equates to either the big box employer pays a living wage OR the taxpayer is subsidizing the big box low-wage earners. What am I missing?

You are right that there are two alternatives to provide for low wage earners. The state can either mandate they be paid a certain wage, or they can be subsidized out of general tax revenue. To put it another way, we can choose to support the poor through higher prices or higher taxes.

Which solution is more just? If our society decides that everyone must have some minimum level of subsistence, that burden should fall on society as equally as possible. It's not fair to say that "big box" shoppers (or more accurately, "big box" customers) should be the only ones to support the poor in the form of higher prices. If society demands that everyone meet a certain standard of living, everyone in that society should play a part. Equitably structured taxes are the only way to accomplish that.

Which solution is more practical? Paying living wages is going to increase unemployment, particularly among those with fewer job skills, like the poor. There is only some small fraction of welfare recipients who could profitably be hired starting at, say, $12.00 an hour. Those who ARE hired are taken off welfare, most likely. But the bulk who are NOT hired have no chance at all but to stay on the dole.

If wages are set by market conditions, a much larger portion of the poor has a chance to get started. The majority of starting wages will be too low to get them off welfare...at first. But over time, some portion of those workers are going to improve their skills, learn more about the job, and will start to see wage increases approaching a living wage. Even those who can't quite rise to that level would have less need for assistance than the unemployed, so money could be saved there as well.

Will the long run results favor the market wage solution for reducing the welfare burden? I'm not sure, because it depends on how many people can work their way up to a living wage vs. how many could be hired starting at a living wage. In any case, I think it's a real possibility.

Supporting the poor through high wage/high price solutions is not the most just method, and it may not be the most efficient.

Personally I can't see how people are able to rent an apt, buy food, pay for utilities if they are earning $8 and hour which probably nets about $6 and hour, however earning say $10 an hour would net about $8.00 per hr. $6 x 40 hours is $240 a week, under $1,000 a month, apartments are about $400 to $800 a month which than places the burden on the taxpayer as the wage earner is than able to receive welfare benefits, section 8 housing, etc.

They aren't able to. If you continue to wish for the impossible, your life will be one filled with disappointment.

These are not "living wage" jobs. These are not "living wage" jobs. These are not "living wage" jobs. These are not "living wage" jobs. These are not "living wage" jobs. These are not "living wage" jobs.

These jobs will not enable you to:
---Raise a family
---Buy a home
---retire at age 55
---buy a boat and RV

I hope I was able to help.

I think the taxes that you are figuring in are not accurate. This person may be someone who pays no tax, or even gets an earned income credit.

Personally I can't see how people are able to rent an apt, buy food, pay for utilities if they are earning $8 and hour which probably nets about $6 and hour, however earning say $10 an hour would net about $8.00 per hr. $6 x 40 hours is $240 a week, under $1,000 a month, apartments are about $400 to $800 a month which than places the burden on the taxpayer as the wage earner is than able to receive welfare benefits, section 8 housing, etc.

Who says that every job has to be able to support the entire living expense of the worker?? Don't you think that the majority of these entry level jobs are taken up by students, spouses, multiple job workers/families, etc? Is your motto "to each according to his need"? Wrong forum, buddy. And don't cry the "I don't want to pay for them through my taxes" line, either. We have taken the stance in this country that no one is going to starve. To the contrary, obesity is epidemic among the "impoverished". IMHO, the "poverty line" could be cut WAY back. Regardless, if you take the stance that no one is going to starve, you are going to pay for the less fortunate one way or another; through higher retail prices (via mandated minimum wages/benefits) or through government assistance programs. I, for one, would choose a tightly defined and regulated government program as the "safety net", set at a true poverty level (far from our current situation).

Personally I can't see how people are able to rent an apt, buy food, pay for utilities if they are earning $8 and hour...

The effect of a price floor on a commodity is to render worthless anything whose market value would be below that price floor. The only way that price floors raise the value received by sellers is by reducing the competition from people who would sell for less.

Minimum-wage laws won't necessarily put people out of work (e.g. I suspect that if the minimum wage were $0.01/hour, raising it to $0.02/hour probably wouldn't cost anyone his job) but the only way they can cause anyone's wages to go up is by putting people out of work.

Any money the government would save as a result of a minimum wage getting some people off Section 8, etc. would be more than offset by having to pay welfare benefits for the people it pushed out of their jobs.