What is so radical about living wages?

[Solon]

Seriously, what is so radical about being able to have a single job that you can support yourself (or Gods forbid, a FAMILY) on?

ON EDIT: Corrected Grammar

[slor]

1. Its' simple silly...

many of us must make below living wages because a few on high must make EXTRA-living wages. Now we do not want the top 1% to struggle do we?

[markomalley]

2. Because a living wage would...

...be a first step to ending the exploitation of the workers by capital. It would allow them to have a quality of life where they would not be enslaved to their existing jobs and they may be able to have the time and energy to think for themselves. This is a very dangerous situation.

[dumpster_baby]

12. Exactly! They fear more than anything people with spare time

....when people who are poor or lower middle class have spare time, theny plot and plan and organize. This is why western europe has so much better a welfare state--because once you get a halfway decent welfare state, then the people can get more time off. That is becuse they are not having to always scramble because the future so insecure.

And once they get some substantial time off to organize and think about how to improve the govt, they build an even STRONGER welfare state. The process is self-reinforcing: a positive feedback loop.

Capitalism is a good thing in some ways, because it feeds into the human animal's need to distinguish themselves in order to gain more social status, the better to reproduce. But it is only a good thing if it is totally exploited by the state. Otherwise, if corporations or rich individuals exploit it, it is worth much less.


BTW, are you the radio talk show host?

[walmartsucks]

23. Is that really the case?

I think most people already make a living wage. However, their over-consumption dictates that they cannot make it on one salary. Both spouses work so they can have that boat to use on the weekends, drive an SUV instead of a Corolla, have a flat screen TV instead of a regular 27" color TV, have DSL or cable modem instead of broadband...the list could go on indefinitely. And should we pay workers at McDonalds $15-$20 an hour? Absolutely not. You get paid for having a skill. If that skill is something that is easily taught it isn't worth as much as a skill that takes years to develop through higher education.

[strategery blunder]

35. It is true that the Middle Class is obsessed with consumption

However, there are still those pesky poor people who must decide between rent and feeding their children to worry about...

[dumpster_baby]

40. citizens are owners of the country, and not serfs

They are not serfs to be dependent upon the whims of a cutthroat economy. When you are dealing with owners, you cut them in on the pie.

Yes, I think McDonalds workers should be paid $15/hour. Any job in America should be a living wage and THEN SOME. And wages much above $15 (e.g., $30) should be heavily taxed.

That is how they do it in places like Norway, Sweden, etc. And we have a LONG way to go before we provide the kind of standard of living that they provide for their citizens.

[walmartsucks]

45. $15 an hour for McDonalds?

Are you prepared to spend $10 for a Big Mac value meal? The simple fact is that some skills are more valuable than others.

[camero]

47. Some skills are more valuable than others

only in a greed based society.

[walmartsucks]

50. Nonsense

In an incentive based society, not greed based. Are you saying that someone who goes to college for 6-8 years and earns a masters degree or phd shouldn't make more than a high scholl dropout that flips burgers for a living? If that were the case, then why bother getting an education?

[camero]

52. Only in a greed based society

can we even think about treating the burger flipper different than the scientist.

[walmartsucks]

53. I said nothing about treating them differently

I said pay them differently. There's a big difference.

[camero]

54. Not much of one

one gets caviar and the other gets endless slavery. Come on. You want to say it.

[walmartsucks]

56. Ha ha

Yes, I know many people who make $60 - $70k a year and they chase their caviar with dom perignon! Okay, maybe not. And it's not slavery if you have the option of quitting whenever you want and selling your work to the highest bidder, whether the highest bidder is $.50 more an hour or $25k more a year.

[camero]

58. and not everybody has the same educational opps

So having a society based on the lucky lottery would be much better for you no?

[walmartsucks]

60. You are correct

However, I've been working since I was 15 years old. I went to a junior college for my freshman and sophomore years, then a state univeristy for junior and senior (on student loans, not mom & dad or scholarship) and have recently completed my MBA (again on student loans). The schools I went to are by no means Ivy Leauge, and the admissions requirements are pretty low. If you were a C student in high school you could get in. So yes, I agree that not everyone has the same educational opportunities, but everyone does have the same educational opportunities that I had.

[camero]

61. and that's where you get that

He or she learned more he or she should get more. We're all human. If you can't comprehend the fact that people need to eat and money is limited. Then there's just no hope for you.

That's greed, wanting more than the next person.

[walmartsucks]

62. It's not a matter of wanting more than the next person

It's wanting more for myself. However, it is not a zero sum game. Someone else does not have to make less in order for me to make more. My position is that some skills are much harder to learn than others. Hence, businesses are willing to pay more for those skills that take longer/are harder to learn. I'm not against a federal minimum wage, but I don't think it is realistic to think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage. There are many opportunities to learn valuable skills at minimal cost. Public high schools, state colleges and trade schools, the military (I know, I know, but that's another thread!).

[camero]

64. That's you as opposed to the next person

Your digging your own grave here.

[walmartsucks]

69. How do you figure?

What have I said that would be considered digging my own grave?

[camero]

73. You want more than the next

that's greed

[walmartsucks]

76. Different people have different goals

I want more for me. I don't consider it greed to want to live comfortably and make a salary that enables me to not live paycheck to paycheck while also being able to save for retirement. I'm not going to be devestated if I don't earn $20 million a year, but I do hope to earn enough so that my wife will be able to stay at home with our children (when we have them) rather than having to take a job just to make ends meet. That's why I chose to go to college for 6 years.

[camero]

77. me me me me me me

Oh great another "econ 101" major.

[walmartsucks]

79. Yes, me

Or am I supposed to go to work so I can support my family and the families that live on either side of me as well? I pay my fair share of taxes, which I don't mind doing. And by the way, it's more like Econ 650. Econ 101 was 5 years ago.

[camero]

86. it's good that you don't mind paying taxes

You could use a greed course though. Where's the professor when we need him?

[Donkeyboy75]

108. OK, camero, you're looking at it from an individual perspective,

but if everyone got paid the same, why the hell would anyone put their life on hold for ten years to become a physician when they could drop out of high school and flip burgers for the same pay? Society needs to have incentives for high-skilled labor. Money isn't the only one. There are also perks such as prestige and quality of life as well. Capitalism does a good job of addressing this. The problem is the laissez-faire fucked-up capitalism practiced by the GOP. I'm in favor of a mix of socialism and capitalism.

[camero]

109. I don't favor a total leveling either

But the disparity has to be lessened. And the individual who would want so much more than the next sets the bar for society.

[Donkeyboy75]

110. Well, you'll get no argument from me there.

On days when I think about it, it sickens me that we don't have universal health care in this country. I hope my grandchildren are horrified by my generation and the selfishness we embody.

[snoochie]

65. Should those with low IQs not be allowed to have families?

Or should they and their innocent children just be consigned to a life of poverty for their foolish choices?

[walmartsucks]

70. Government assistance

What do you define as low IQ? Certainly there is government assistance for people whose IQ is so low that they qualify as retarded. One does not have to have a high IQ to achieve a C average in the public school system. And hours of studying will make up for a large part of lack of intellect.

[dpibel]

88. Ooops!

If it's not a zero-sum game, then why shouldn't everybody be able to make the same? After all, under your formulation paying a burger flipper more won't mean you make less.

Gotta watch flippin' that libertarian stoof around. It can get you in trouble.

[camero]

91. lol

No I don't think it should be exactly the same but the burger flipper should have a livable wage. And having 300 times that much is not right either.

That's not libertarian, it's communist. Get your terms straight.

[dpibel]

105. I'm a little surprised at you

Since I'm on your side.

Last I checked, you neither wrote post #62, nor used the term "zero sum." Walmartsucks, however, did both, and IMHO, is espousing a generally libertarian line throughout this thread.

I'll put my anti-greed credentials up against yours any time, buddy. (I hope I do not really have to insert one of those dreadful netsmeelies here.)

[camero]

107. I messed up sorry

I thought you were responding to my post.

[pnb]

114. Ooops!

No one claimed that...the claim was that a burger would cost $10.

[dpibel]

120. Rilly now?

In post #62, I cannot find the mention of burgers, $10 ones or any other kind.

But in post #62 I can find the following language:

"However, it is not a zero sum game. Someone else does not have to make less in order for me to make more."

So I hope you can explain to me whether you are saying (1) That what this says in plain English it does not say at all in plain English or (2) Walmartsucks is no one.

I'm equally receptive to either possibility.

Note for all you $10 burger people: What you are saying is nothing more insightful than "higer wages cause inflation." It's the same argument that's been used against unionized labor and against the original minimum wage and all increases to it. So far, the sky has yet to fall.

[cushla_machree]

94. i disagree

That's greed, wanting more than the next person.

thats called reality.

A scientist should not get paid the same amount as a burger flipper. The guy who makes the fries at burger king should make less than the person who put themselves through college and later through grad school.

I don't really see how it could be any other way. If said burger flipper decides he is sick of mcdonalds, then it is important to make sure he/she has the oppurtunity to attend college or even a community college. Greed and wanting a better life for yourself are two totally different things.

I would say greed would include wanting to make it harder for others to get where you have gone, trapping them in low end jobs for your own benefit.

[camero]

95. Greed is wanting more than the next person

Compassion is wanting the same. A big difference

[pnb]

115. Wrong

Greed is wanting more than you deserve. I person who puts forth no effort to better him/her self but wants to be similarly to those who have done far more is the one who is greedy. Its actually a joke to call that compassion.

[camero]

121. You think it's a joke?

And people that get sick don't deserve anything either. Oh lord, have we been raised in a capitalist environment for too long. The spoils go to the best slave to you and not just because someone is human.

Get outta here. Greed is wanting more than the next.

[pnb]

137. Never said the sick don't deserve anything

If you need to invent my arguments to use against me, it doesn't say much about your own.

You think a person who wants to make as much as someone else who works twice as hard is compassionate and not greedy?

[cushla_machree]

138. i agree with the person above

a person who puts forth no effort to better him/her self but wants to be similarly to those who have done far more is the one who is greedy.

Greed is not wanting a better life for yourself
I have friends who didn't go to college cause they said they were too lazy to do all the work. are you telling me they should have the SAME things as i do? same amount of money, maybe same house. you need to 'get outta here'

I didn't go to college to excel and get a nice job, to turn around and give my money to someone else. You make your own way in life. It is not my job, nor my benifit to dole out money to people. I am not too fond of the idea of giving the burger flipper money to equal mine. what, so they can have more babies? No freaking way. I will provide money for basic services, but after that you are on your own.

Thats life. Nothing is free or fair. Those who work hard get rewarded. That is not 'capitalist greed,' thats how the world works.

[Cleita]

100. The burger flipper though should be able to pay rent, eat,

and maybe afford a movie every week. Other than that life isn't worth living. Incidentally, until you have flipped burgers for eight hours a day, don't be so sure that there is no skill or knowledge involved. I have worked many years in the restaurant business and was rather amazed at the number of people, intelligent people, who don't have a clue about how to make a commercial deli style sandwich.

One of my neighbors, I have discovered, is a housekeeper. She learned the trade as a hotel maid for a high profile chain of traveler's lodging. If you think you know how to dust and mop. guess again. Over coffee one morning, she told me about everything they needed to know about chemicals and cleaning different types of materials and to be able to do it in record time. Not only that, the mess your family leaves is often nothing compared to the mess strangers leave.

True the burger flipper shouldn't make the same salary as the professor, but he should make a living wage and the price of the burger should be enough to cover that. For those who don't want to pay the price, they can go to the supermarket and cook their own burgers at home.

[Ladyhawk]

104. And what about the disabled?

I'm disabled. I get $790 a month and I have to pay $430 in rent. If I didn't have a family willing to help me financially, I would be homeless. (Another problem is that my family are mostly right-wing fundies whom I have trouble tolerating. They mean well, but we just don't see eye-to-eye on most issues.)

Should I get a living wage, too? Or should it be like it is now: me curling up in a fetal position at night, worrying about the future. What if my car breaks down? What if * is elected and decides to give my $790 to the military industrial complex? What if I get so bad I can't function at all? What if I'm forced to live with my mother again? What if I end up homeless? Who will take care of my pets? What will happen to my animals?

I expend a lot of energy worrying because I see this nation headed in a direction which does not include me. I am disabled and therefore, expendable.

[Cleita]

106. Of course not.

I'm talking about people who can work. Those who can't work anymore like the disabled or elderly should receive adequate assistance and I know what you get isn't enough to live on. You are the people who need a formula for where you live. The formula should cover normal rent and utilities, food, clothing, transportation and health care. It could be done too. We need to get the politicians into office who will take care of the disabled.

[walmartsucks]

122. It may surprise you to know

That I have held jobs that run the gamut: stock clerk at a grocery store, busboy, dishwasher, waiter, short-order cook, and casino dealer, all prior to finishing college. I don't think there is no skill or knowledge involved in any of those jobs, just that the required skills and knowledge are much easier to teach to the average person.

[rfkrocks]

68. education doesn't necessarily increase salary

ceos don't have a phd and may very well earn multi-million dollars-thats greed as opposed to incentive based

[walmartsucks]

71. You are correct

But more times than not it does increase your earning potential. Individuals who have only a high school diploma will earn roughly $2 million in the course of their lifetimes. A bachelors degree raises that average to $3 million. A masters raises it to $4-$5 million. Doctorates raise it to $6 million +

[rfkrocks]

78. I find your doctorate earning remark specious

a law degree is the equivalent of a masters-however if your stats put it in the doctorate category then I would agree-although clearly in academic circles it is a mere masters-I also find it strange that with all the obscure academic degrees in phd land (such as Nordic epic specialties) that a phd is a higher grossing degree than a masters-my point was that academic success (especially in the day of the present us class society-see NYT article last week detailing that increasingly only rich kids going to private colleges) does not guarantee upward movement (although the moron in chief has an ivy masters in business-but of course legacy degrees are not fair either)It is pretty clear to me that the middle class is dying not because of rampant consumerism but due to a variety of GOP koolaid programs-health care costs for starters-but no one wanted to listen to Hilliary-but that time will come as well-most people have to have 2 working parents in household-look at the Chicago trib article in the economics section of DU and read about working poor going to food banks-the dark is rising

[walmartsucks]

81. A law degree is a doctorate

J.D. stands for juris doctorate. However, it doesn't take much more time to get a JD than it does a masters. And as I said, some skills are worth more than others. If one specializes in Nordic epics, there is a very small market for that skill (mainly universities). However, if you specialize in accounting, nursing, or law there is much greater demand for those skills.

[OneTwentyoNine]

48. some skills are more valuable than others....

Oh...that must be why WalMart workers get $5.50 per hour around here and the CEO receives $23 MILLION per year.

His job of keeping Walmart workers at poverty level takes much more skill than the average shelf stocker I guess....

[OneTwentyoNine]

51. Yeah..I hate to see those Millionaire franchise holders go broke...

Workers at McDonald's aren't going to get $15.00 per hour in the foreseeable future but $9.50-10.50 in this area would go one hell of a long way in making sure they didn't live paycheck to paycheck.

Would a Big Mac cost $10.00?? Hardly...One of the most expensive aspects of running a business is constant turnover and training/re-training. New employees make you little or no profit. Longtime experienced employees make you money.

I've been self-employed with employees since 1975,I know a few things about experienced help and newbies.

David

[SharonAnn]

55. Maybe. I want a cheap meal but I'm not entitled to one

Just because I want a cheap meal doesn't entitle me to enslave others to provide it to me.

[walmartsucks]

57. Slavery?

Referring to workers who come in for 8 hours, get paid, and go home to do as they choose for the other 16 hours of the day cheapens what actual slaves endured.

[RapidCreek]

83. Is that right?

What pray tell did actual slaves endure? You sound like an expert.

RC

[walmartsucks]

123. Definitely not an expert

However, I'm fairly certain that it was much worse than going to work at the place of one's choosing for 8 hours and being allowed to go home at the end of the shift. And then, on top of all that, actually getting paid for the work. And not getting beaten or lynched because of a mistake on the job.

[rfkrocks]

67. we are going to spend plenty for the war in Iraq

what is worth more in your opinion -Iraq or raising the standard of living in the US?

[walmartsucks]

72. That's a no brainer

Raising the standard of living in the U.S. I'd prefer the billions that were spent in Iraq were instead added to the amount available for federal student loans/grants.

[camero]

93. and none for poverty programs to get them out huh? n/t

[walmartsucks]

124. Education

Education IS a program to get people out of poverty. Hell, I was far from well-to-do when I was in school. Ramen noodles, macaroni & cheese, and peanut butter & jelly sandwiches were pretty standard dinner options.

[camero]

126. and the rest?

It's really easy to say what you think you are on a message board. Not taking the bait.

Yes, education is a poverty program, but not everyone can be doctors, economists(who rarely get anything right, how's that for education?), and engineers. People still have to be fed.

[walmartsucks]

128. Rather than mandate a living wage

I'd rather see people making less than a certain amount, say $30,000 a year, pay no income tax at all. That, combined with no sales tax charged on food, would go a long way towards alleviating the problem. Why $30,000? Just pulled a number out of the air. Obviously some analysis would have to be done, but I don't think the threshhold should be less than $30,000.

[camero]

129. and the unemployed?

Let em starve, right?

BTW, you're affirming my view that we have a largely greed based society.

[walmartsucks]

130. There are programs in place

Food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and the majority of people have family members who would be willing to help them if they were on the verge of starvation or homelessness. No solution will be perfect. And it is fairly easy to get a job. It may not be the job you want, but there are jobs. Even if they are "burger flipping" or janitorial jobs. But if the people making $30k or less were not taxed on their food or income their wages would go much farther.

[camero]

131. Without a living wage

People who work will still have to tap those programs. So your point is redundant.

[walmartsucks]

132. Not necessarily

Some may have to, but not all. And if people who make $15 an hour (would you call that a living wage? 15 x 40=$600,x 50 weeks = $30,000 annual) take home almost their entire paycheck because no taxes, which typically run 25-30%, are held out, this living wage would allow people who make $30,000 to have the same buying power as someone who makes $38k - $40k.

[camero]

134. A living wage varies

A living wage would be a wage that pays for food, shelter, electricity, heat, A/C, clothing, furniture, and health care. All basic necessities in our modern age. It's at the very least right now $10 an hour anywhere.

Just reducing taxes still won't work because the vast majority make under the living wage.

[bruce21040]

135. 10 wont do it

ten an hour will not pay rent, food, utilities, clothing, furniture and health care.
Ten an hour is roughly 20k per year. even with no taxes paid out, this is not enough.

a real living wage would have to be around 20 per hour. and you would still be broke.

With my business, I make around 100k. my wife makes just over 60k. We are not rich.
After the mortgage payments, and the car payment and utilitities and food, child care etc... we have little left to just blow.

at least in my area.

[camero]

136. notice I said "At Least"

Or do reading skills escape? And this is not for the $6000 a month McMansion in your area. It's variable.

[RapidCreek]

82. Interesting

Since you have Walmart sucks as your moniker, one which I hazard to guess is probably disingenuous, I have a question for you.

Who's skill is worth more. A sales associate who sells customers merchandise. A cashier who takes their money. The guy who cleans the toilets. A manager that walks around the store shooting the shit with other managers?

If the sales associates don't show up for a month will the store run? Yea....but your sales will dwindle. If the cashiers don't show up for a month will the store run? No. If the guy who cleans the toilet doesn't show up for a month will the store run? Yea but people will probably stop coming in because it smells like shit. If the manager doesn't show up for a month will the store run? Yep...and quite probably no one will even know that manager is missing.

Who's skill is worth more?

RC

[walmartsucks]

85. Not disindenous at all

See my post below for the reason why. And I agree that if a manager just wanders around shooting the shit with other managers then he is not earning his salary. However, whose responsibility is it to make sure there are cashiers, sales associates, and janitors on duty? Yes, the manager's. If the district manager walks in and the store is in disarray, do you think he/she will bitch at the cashier? No, the ass that gets chewed, and possibly fired, will be that of the manager. And a Wal Mart manager is not necessarily the best example for this thread, as it is not that difficult to teach that skill to most people. How about the accountant that does the taxes of someone who owns 3 small businesses and several rental properties? Or the ICU nurse? Or the professor of calculus at the local university?

[RapidCreek]

96. None of those "high skill" jobs can be successfully executed

without a support structure. The accountant will have nothing to account if the employees of those small businesses or the care takers of those rental properties don't come to work. The ICU nurse will not be able to do his or her job if those who keep hospital clean don't come to work. The Professor of Calculus won't be able to profess at that university if those who run the boiler room at University don't come to work. More to the point however...is none of the people you mention are Managers....they are functional workers. Their managers...make more money than they do....but ARE NOT INTEGRAL to the execution of their respective jobs

I would suggest, my friend that a Walmart manager is a very good example. It is VERY EASY TO TRAIN ALMOST ANY MANAGER. It does not require a strong intellect to be a manager....nor a particularly strong work ethic. This is evidenced by the fact that MOST business management departments in colleges have the lowest admission standards of ANY department in the school. It is evidenced by the fact that in this day...9 times out of 10 those doing the managing CANNOT, or do not know how to, do the jobs of those they manage. Worse yet, these non essential personal believe they are superior to "workers".....not because they know the workers job...or can do it better than that worker...but because THEY DO NOT KNOW THE WORKERS JOB AND CAN'T DO IT AT ALL and are "clever" enough to avoid either.

It is not a nurses or a functional accountants or a professors salary that bleeds the institutions they work for dry of the money that pays a living wage to those who support the infrastructure they require to ply their respective trades, now is it? Go into any hospital and show me a staff of "health care management" graduates that can perform the job of an ICU nurse and I'll kiss your ass. If you think I'm full of shit...next time you're in the ICU tell the nurse to go home....you'd rather have one of the experts from the health care management department take care of your problem. Next time your sitting in a Calculus class tell the professor to go home, you'd rather have one of the "experts" from the education management department teach you calculus. Next time you take your car to the local dealership tell the mechanic to go home, you'd rather have his boss the sales manager and highly paid expert work on your car.

RC

[walmartsucks]

127. You seem to be affirming my point of view

That some skills are worth more than others.

"...next time you're in the ICU tell the nurse to go home....you'd rather have one of the experts from the health care management department take care of your problem. Next time your sitting in a Calculus class tell the professor to go home, you'd rather have one of the "experts" from the education management department teach you calculus. Next time you take your car to the local dealership tell the mechanic to go home, you'd rather have his boss the sales manager and highly paid expert work on your car..."

Your post leads me to think that you believe all of these people are worth more than their managers. Shouldn't they get paid accordingly? And yes, some managers should make more than those in their charge. People with degrees in management have to complete courses in statistics, finance, accounting, economics, linear regression, and linear programming. It's not quite the cakewalk you make it out to be.

[Vladimir]

111. Rubbish argument

The indroduction of the minimum wage in Britain has neither increased unemployment or prices.

[rman]

117. low skilled workers make millions for their bosses,

in return those bosses pay the workers not enough for the workers to make a decent living.

[rman]

118. btw, walmart is a prime example of that, which is the reason why they suck

wouldn't you agree, "walmartsucks"?

[rfkrocks]

66. what do you think is a living wage?

and why do you say walmartsucks?

[walmartsucks]

75. A living wage is not minimum wage

And I say Wal Mart sucks because of many of their business practices. Sure, they are a money making machine, but many of the tactics they use to make that money are less than fair, to say the least. I'm a firm believer in treating employees fairly. Wal Mart has a long record of not adhering to this principal.

[rfkrocks]

80. I am with you on this one

[RapidCreek]

84. But that's good business isn't it?

if not, why not. What constitutes fairness?

RC

[walmartsucks]

87. Depends on who you ask

In my opinion it is not. If employees feel they are being taken advantage of or treated like crap, they are more likely to steal, not give full effort, or not give a crap in general. In addition, high employee turnover is bad for business. It's easier to retain good employees than it is to recruit and train new ones every couple of months. And fairness, in my opinion, is paying someone the going rate for what their efforts are worth. And not purposely scheduling them just short of full time hours to keep them from qualifying for the employer sponsored health plan.

[RapidCreek]

92. So what is your point?

Walmart does all of the things you mentioned above....yet they are the richest corporation in the World...BAR NONE. Is not successful business indicative of good business?

Are you suggesting that the Walton family would make more money if they didn't take advantage of their employees? Would an antebellum plantation owner have made more money if he had paid those picking his cotton a living wage? If so how....why didn't he? Why are they not as rich and powerful today as they were then?

RC

[walmartsucks]

125. Profit is but one measure of success

To some in the business community, it is the ONLY measure of success. However, making a profit and treating your employees fairly are not mutually exclusive.

[NuttyFluffers]

3. because it goes against profit = God mentality

and also it prevents totalitarian aggregation of power by spreading wealth.

to do this is inherently unpatriotic, you... you... *dial a neo-con stock insult against liberals* ' fascist liberal baby killing peace loving bleeding heart secular overlords... or something ridiculous to that effect.

honestly i can't find a real argument against, except for fear of inflation. but inflation is manageable and a fluctuation between 1% to 2% or so isn't going to destroy this country in mere hours. rushing headlong into holy war does that. ;)

[rman]

4. well, it deminishes the profits for the rich

that's as radical as it can get - if you're a no-limits-capitalist.

[JPJones]

5. Because the country is so fucked-up and brainwashed

to vote for the godly Republicans, we won't be able to deal with this for a long time. The first step is to elect John Kerry, the second step is to take back the House and Senate.

I honestly think health care will be addressed first.

[brokensymmetry]

6. Living wages?

Next thing you'll advocate, I suppose, is treating the lower classes with dignity! Things like permitting them health insurance, and some degree of job stability. :scared:

Surely you realize that all this will just spoil them and make them uppity? We already have a servant problem and you want to make it worse!

(For the humor impaired, I'm being sarcastic. We desperately need a living wage for workers - the present situation for the poor is getting awfully close to defacto slavery, IMO.)

[bruce21040]

7. How long will living wage be enough?

before it is not enough to live on?

How about the guy that makes 10.50 an hour now. He is over min wage.
What happens when min wage is replaced with living wage and he is being paid the bare min allowed?
He will have to get a raise or, he will find himself working at min wage.

Here is a better Idea. Get an education, pay attention in school, then you can demand higher income for the work you perform.

Leave the low paying, below 10 per hour jobs to the immigrants that come in without the legal papers.

[Solon]

8. Living wages by definition are to be adjusted for inflation and local

standards of living. Besides the standard wages for workers in this country has been DECREASING for the past 30 years. Either we have this or a literal war between workers and employers, those are the choices.

ON EDIT: I noticed that you mentions illegal immagrants being the ones that will be at the bottom of the ladder in wages. So you would prefer a system where "True" Americans would be the aristocracy, while the immigrants serve their every whim?

[markus]

9. Are you proposing to come to North Dakota

and offer tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for the college education? If so, then fine.

However, we have some of the higest educational standards and acheivements in the nation, several world class universities, and we are 49th in wages paid and lead the nation in people working two jobs.

People here have good educations and work hard. That's why the telemarketers and bank service centers, etc. love to work here. However, they are like an extractive industry.

In the case of the telemarketers, they burn through the available low-wage population until every know it's a hell hole to work for, then then blow town with the cash from low-wages and the state incentives we gave them to locate here.

[bruce21040]

14. I don't need to come to North Dakota

I own a business in Maryland. A cleaning business.
The least I will pay is $10.00 per hour to any new hire. I do this because I am looking for reliable individuals that I don't have to worry about stealing or breaking customer belongings.
Heres an Idea, why don't you start a business, and then you will find out exactly what 10 per hour means in loaded labor. (you do understand what the term loaded labor means don't you?)

I find it interesting that we all complain about the unemployment rate, but we fail to see that the rise in Unemployment is less than the rise in new immigrants coming to this country. Part of the problem of unemployment is that very same growth of new citizens.

As I said before, if you force the employer to pay 48% more to the lowest earners in the company, you will force that employer to do one of two things.
1) raise prices to the consumer, causing the new pay scale to be no better than the old.
2) find ways to improve productivity, release some of the employees from service and cause the unemployment rate to climb even higher.

Now, add forced health care into the equation and many employers will have to cut staff even further to accommodate that expense.

I own a business but I am far from being rich. I can not afford to take from my table to accommodate the wage raise that would result.
Quickly looking at numbers I have figured that I would have to reduce my staff by 10% to cover the raise and not have to increase prices or take from my pocket directly.

You find fault in my comments about allowing the illegal immigrants to be paid less. These people come here looking for a better life, thats fine. But with them comes an expense to our school system, our health system and our social programs. They need to be accountable for their existence when they come here. The days of America giving the free ride has got to end.

Every citizen in this country MUST at least try to earn a living. When their earned dollars can not establish the security they need for housing or medical, or even food, then the social programs should kick in and assist them.

$5.00 or more, these people do provide a needed service, and should be treated with respect, but at the same time, lets not be fools and just keep raising our own cost of living to accommodate everyone in the world.

[bread_and_roses]

26. $10.00 hr. is almost twice the Fed min wage

so I see it as commendable that you start new hires at that rate. I do not know what the "living wage" would be in Maryland; there are various definations. The one that makes the most sense to me is a wage that allows one worker to support one child without government subsidy in the form of subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, subsidized daycare, etc. Both because work should allow a person the dignity of supporting themselves without what the ignorant will continue to call "government handouts" and because otherwise we are all subsidizing the profits of cheap wage employers through the tax $ that pay for those subsidies.

Most "living wage laws" that have been passed (I say most to be on the safe side but all that I am familiar with) exempt business that employs less than a certain # of people.

The best health care solution for both business and everyone else is National Health Care.

[bruce21040]

29. A rise in living wage

Will force everyone else pay to go up also.
In Maryland, they are trying to, or just did pass the living wage law for government, and any company that is doing government contracts. That number will be 10.50 an hour from what I understand.

I don't deal with the government. I don't have time to wait for pay, and they are not good at paying. This living wage will not affect me directly.
What it will do is this, those companies that do work government and are now required to pay the 10.50 will have first choice of employees. It will also cause the cost of Maryland government to rise, and in turn, trigger another tax hike, or real estate hike, etc...

Universal health care would not work.
The cost would drive up taxes at an unfair rate. Those on the bottom would be subsidized by those in the higher earning brackets, causing their pay to be cut.
One only has to look to Canada to see how the health care would be reduced under a universal plan. long waits to be seen, (as in months)and lesser care once you are seen. Many rich Canadians choose to come to the U.S for their health care needs instead of using the "free" system that is provided by the government.

Socialism is not the answer to our problems.

Taxing corporations that choose to move their operations overseas for reduced labor cost would be a start.

Breaking away from NAFTA would be a good start also. What was Bush Sr. thinking when he did this? of course, one could argue that even though Bush started the NAFTA ball rolling, it was not ratified until Bill Clinton took office.

limiting immigration to this country would be another needed thing.

Of course, John Kerry would never really go for the first of my suggestions seeing as how he feels the need to do just this with his wifes business. John Kerry alone could put thousands of U.S citizens back to work if he only did what he suggests other companies do.

[bread_and_roses]

33. Wages in this country

have been declining for a long time...could look it up, but I think about 30 years. So what is so awful if other wages go up? Americans work harder, for less, and for less vacation than just about anywhere else in the Industrial West. Again, cheap wages are a form of subsidizing profits.

There are several studies on cities that have passed living wage ordinances that should set your fears at rest. The cost to the city has not been shown to be burdensome, and the benefit is to both the city and local business, since the extra $ stay in the community.

Regarding National Health Care, all I see are right-wing talking points that have largely been debunked. Besides, we already subsidize health care for the uninsured through emergency rooms, medicaid, etc. At a price that benefits the insurance companies and pharmacuticals profits.

You pay a wage close to what you are saying has been passed as living wage of your own accord...finding it hard here to understand why you don't see the logic of it.

[bruce21040]

34. here is the logic you fail to see

I pay almost twice the min wage. My employees know this.
If the min wage is raised to what I currently pay my employees, I will not be paying them in the same ratio that I currently am. To do this, I would almost have to pay them 20 per hour. this would break me.
Now, if the min wage was a living wage at 10 per hour, those same people that I would be getting at the current min wage would be the ones I would be getting at the 10 per hour I now pay.

in a round about sorta way, it would hurt me as a business owner. Even though I now pay what they want to raise it to.

Did I explain that in anyway coherent?

[walmartsucks]

46. It wouldn't break you

You'd just be forced to double your prices. Then it would take twice the money to buy the same amount of goods. At that point we're back to raising the living wage, then prices go up again, and on and on until milk is $20 a gallon and a Toyota Camry costs $80,000.

[bread_and_roses]

74. Currently, min wage and living wage are two different

issues.

Since "living wage" ordinances apply to municipal employees and contractors, they typically effect a very, very small % of employess, as little as 1%. They set a standard, and prevent (it is to be hoped) municipalities from paying their own employees so little that they then must tax higher paid workers to subsidize the basic needs of those workers. And prevent municipalities from contracting with companies who do the same, and subsidize their own profits at taxpayers expense. But since the % of workers affected is so small, and does not include places like Macdonalds, it seems unlikely you would suffer the effect you describe from an ordinance in your city.

Minimum wage, of course, affects all workers, so has much broader implications. Nonetheless, the arguements you advance are essentially the same that have always been advanced against raising the minimum wage...and somehow, business goes on, the sky doesn't fall. Even were the minimum wage raised to the living wage standard, it seems unlikely you would experience such dramatic effects, since you say you HIRE at about that wage already. I presume that your employess sometimes get raises? So you are paying a living wage at entry level, something to be highly commended. Since I doubt other employers would be paying above that for entry level employees, you might face stiffer competition for good entry level employess, but that does not necessarly mean you would have to pay more. You may, for instance, offer jobs that are at or near full time - which many "minimum wage" are not.

[dumpster_baby]

41. They do it in many countries in W Europe

They have wage compression. A lot of it has to do with their far more progressive tax system. As wages go up there, tax rates go up much more than they do here. Over there, low wage earners are scarcely taxed. Over here, well, we have the payroll tax.

In any event, in many EU countries, they pretty much do have much more wage equality.

[No2W2004]

30. You get it !!!

The least I will pay is $10.00 per hour to any new hire. I do this because I am looking for reliable individuals that I don't have to worry about stealing or breaking customer belongings.

How much do you think it would end up costing you if you paid minimum wages? If you broke it down, I bet it would be more than $10 per hour per person!

Offer a wage a person can live on, and it will (1) attract more skilled people to your company (2)make other cost lower like worker's comp, and liability insurance, and (3) get you more clients.

[bruce21040]

31. Well, at least I get something... LOL

Honestly though, workers comp goes up with pay regardless of the quality of the person you are paying. The liability insurance cost me 600 per year per employee regardless of what I pay them.

3) I think my reputation is served by hiring the better people so I do have to agree with you on this one. After all, if it was not worth it, I would not do it.

That being said.
If I was hiring someone to put a burger in a bag, collect a buck and say,, do you want fries with that order?, I would be tempted to go with the min wage.

There are exceptions to everything.

[No2W2004]

32. right,

but your insurance cost would go thru the roof if you had less skilled people working for you due to more accidents and damage. My company in Illinois had to go into the "high risk insurance pool" because of 1 driver having 1 accident.

If I owned a fast food empire, I probably wouldn't care about the people stuffing the bags too much either. Small businesses can't afford to think that way because of employee theft, absenteeism, and growth. When you have a small business, everyone must pull together to make it work, and it can't if the people who have the most interaction with your customers drive them away and then proceed to bleed the business dry. I've found it's much better all around to provide at least a living wage.

[markus]

59. Hell, why not come to North Dakota

and pay $6.50 an hour for people who will come to work in a blizzard when the police recommend staying off the roads. Part of the bonus is you get to charge probably get to charge 95% of what you're billing your customers right now.


Here's another suggestion. Try reading Nickeled and Dimed in America. Hell give yourself your average $10 employees average take home and no car, and go out and try to live for a month, making it to your own office on time via public transit.

[RapidCreek]

90. If you cannot afford to pay your employees a living wage

and you require those employees to engage in the business you engage in then you are

1) Not engaged in a viable business
2) You are failing as a business owner
3) Your company does not do a job that is worth a shit.

If your employees are not worth a living wage then the work they do is worth nothing....and if the work they do is worth nothing...they must be doing nothing...and if they are doing nothing then you shouldn't need to employ them, you should be able to do their work yourself.

RC

[dumpster_baby]

13. Oh, horrors! Then we might have a race to the top

...instead of a race to the bottom! It would end up with everyone making about the same, instead of a few at the top and the rest at the bottom, which is where the current scenario is headed.

[bruce21040]

15. Where is the initiative to excel?

If everyone makes the same regardless of position, why would anyone choose to work 90 hours a week like I do, when they could work 30 and make the same income?

I believe that Russia tried paying all people the same regardless of what they did. It was decided at an early age what they would become, then that is where the schooling was directed for them. Their income as a scientist was no greater than for the guy picking up the trash.

Their social experiment failed, they now work on the same pay principal that the U.S does.

The United States may not be perfect, but it is the best country in the world in my Opinion.

[bleedingheart]

17. I don't think you are excelling if you work 90 hours a week

where is the quality of life factor?

More money doesn't mean being happier but making enough money to pay the bills makes life easier and everyone has different expectations of what they want in life.

I could be making a great deal more money then I do now but I have children so I have decided to stay with a job in my field that doesn't have the higher salary so I can have more time with my children and flexibility in hours. Now when the kids fly the nest that may be different....but who knows.


My cousin was raised in communist Lithuania, she was intelligent and went to college for computer science at one of the finest universities in Russia. All of it paid for by the state...however in the summers they had to work at farms to help pay for their free education...(pretty fair trade if you ask me)..

Yes they used academic merit to determine who went to college in the communist structure. If you weren't smart enough for college the system didn't provide the opportunity...I guess that may be bad but then again I know a fellow I graduated from engineering school with who was so stupid that he had to keep transfering from one college to another to erase grades...his dad made a substantial donation to my college and voila ...he graduated...I guess that's fair????

I agree that I love my country and its a great place to live but there is always room for improvement... and I think it would be nice for all people to work their 40 hour job knowing that they make enough to pay the rent, feed their kids and provide the necessities of life without having too much hardship...

[dumpster_baby]

18. working 90 hrs/week == "excelling"??!! Ha ha hah hah aha

That is rich, old son!

Have you ever thought about the possibility that when you die, it is ALL OVER? That there may be no magic man in the sky to take you home after all your hard work?

Please consider reading up extensively on the japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2. And then compare them to yourself.

[bruce21040]

19. I suppose we all have different ideas of success

But lets look at my 90 hours right now verses your 40.

Myself.
I get to take a month off every year and travel with my family.
Saturdays afternoon until Monday morning are mine to spend with my family.
I leave early in the morning, but I get home in time to see my wife and daughter.
My daughter will have the money set aside for college.
I don't have to worry about transportation, or the price of fuel, I don't have to eat only the foods that are on sale this week at the local store.
My home is paid for, my cars are paid for, I have a small mortgage on my boat. Bills are not an issue.

Others.
I employ 20 people (workers other than my office help)
These people use the money generated by the business I continue to build to pay their rent/mortgage, buy food, clothes toys etc... for their families.
they get two weeks a year off for vacation, and they get paid sick days. they have insurance. (although, they do have to pay half of the premium)
The top performer out of the workers takes his family on vacation every year (inside the U.S) at my expense.

We have a college fund set up to give out grants to the top performing students at two of the local high schools.

My 90 hours, and my life is not all about me. Its about those around me also. Its about trying to help others gain a place in life that they want to be. To do this, I can not stop at the 40 hour work week.

The upside to this is that I will retire by the age of 55. 10 more years. Someone else from within my company will take over and run it for me. I will get a small retirement from that, and I will retain a seat on the board to insure that the company continues to grow.

What does your 40 hours give back to the community?

We all have different ideas regarding our personal success. Mine? very simple. Take an interest in those working for me, include them in the business, and allow them to grow.

[bigbillhaywood]

27. Raising minimum wage, pushes up wages for brackets above min wage

A living wage simply means a higher minimum wage (a reasonable minimum wage), adjusted for regional economic differences. No one is suggesting everyone be paid the same. Although I think it would be fair if everyone received an equal share of the value of their production.

[dawn]

38. You choose to work 90 hrs a week? I feel sorry for you.

Life is much more than work. I'd rather have less than work myself to death.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi bruce21040!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bruce21040]

25. Thanks

For the welcome.
This looks like a fun place to argue different sides of various subjects.

[dawn]

36. Yeah, like an education will help you.

I bet those CS majors wished they took a plumbing course instead!

Typical RW bullcrap.

[jmowreader]

43. Come to Fayetteville and say that

Tell ya what. Call Home Depot on a Saturday and ask when "Jim in Lumber" will be in--they'll tell you; I have customers who won't go to anyone else--then come down and see me toward the end of my shift.

I will take you to a Waffle House where the entire crew has at least an MBA and the manager has a Ph.D.

Why would a Ph.D. work at Waffle House? Because there are very few other jobs here if you're an Army wife; someone who's hiring Ph.D.s to work as Ph.D.s wants an employee they can keep for twenty years, not someone who's going to pack up and move to Kansas in three years because the Army wants her husband to command a battalion at Fort Riley.

The number of graduate degrees floating around this town has distorted the talent pool to the extent that having a BA is almost as good as having a GED--I think a GED might be able to get hired easier than a BA because they're not "overqualified." Our economy is basically retail and medical with a little bit of manufacturing and some agriculture. (If you've got a degree in a medical field, come straight to the Cape Fear Valley; we have four hospitals in Fayetteville, plus one in Southern Pines and one in Lumberton, who are all screaming for employees--they're paying hiring bonuses for LPNs and allied health professionals, and I think they're still offering hiring bonuses for CNAs.)

We are a unique situation, but coming in and saying "get an education and you can get a good job" is not always true.

[Nobody]

98. Sounds like ex-IT workers

We who have spent years gaining various computer skills and expended a great deal of effort keeping up on the rapidly changing tech have lost our jobs and many are now working in other fields at entry level jobs.

High skill equals high pay? Nope. Not if you're a computer techie. Computer skills are worth far less than running companies into the ground like the million dollar execs at the last company I worked for.

[Nlighten1]

10. Because money is power.

The more money you have the more power you have.

[bleedingheart]

11. because people want to know that that clerk is smiling at them to keep

their low paying job.... and if they don't have a cheesy enough smile the shrewish customers can go to the manager and bitch that they didn't get good enough service so the poor soul who is working that register for barely $6 an hour with no benefits can find themselves without a job because they don't have enough energy to smile after standing for 8 hours...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

16. This single issue...

.... is the main reason I'm a Democrat.

The rich in this country will eventually reap the whirlwind they have so effectively earned by squeezing lower income people at every opportunity. BTW, I'm solidly upper middle class now.

Usurious "refund anticipation" loans, higher interest rates on everything, higher fees on everything, regressive taxation, ridiculous wage stratification, etc, etc, etc - all easy for business to explain and impossible to justify.

The problem in this country is lots of people are living a delusion. They are able to afford a decent place to live and a shiny car and they are sure real wealth is right around the corner. But guess what, the country only needs so many doctors and lawyers and rapacious CEOs. And wages for damn near everything else are stagnant if not dropping. And huge numbers of these people are literally 1-3 paychecks away from insolvency. I have no doubt that the current economy has hurt millions in a fundamental way.

The Repuke method of patting your back while pissing down your leg is not going to work when you cannot "put food on your family". We are getting closer to that point every day.

[bruce21040]

21. I must admit

There is a point when enough has to be enough.
I understand the business owner wanting to live well, maybe even in a million dollar home with a pier and a yacht. The finest cars and the ability to travel anywhere anytime. What a great life that would be.
The problem is that once the business owner gets to that point, what is it that drives him/her to continue stockpiling billions of dollars in their personal account? they will never spend it, their family will be set up for many generations to come. Why then, do they feel the need to continue to expand their wealth? A game?

As a business owner I can tell you this. At a point in time that I have earned and saved more money than I can find use for, I would then shift the business income over to the loyal employees and try to make them rich also.

But,, me first.

[Yupster]

37. Agree with you Bruce

I make a good living, and I don't begrudge money to anyone, but I have no respect for the conspicuous consumers.

The guys with three mansions and 15 cars, and a yacht they use once a year. Those guys I don't get. I can understand the second baseman who grew up poor and signed a 30 million contract going wild for a while, but I don't understand educated rich people who can't find a better use for their money than buying a fourth mansion.

[tritsofme]

102. Is this a veiled swipe at Kerry? nt

[cosmicdot]

24. "The Working Poor" (rate this article a '5')

THE WORKING POOR
Sun Apr 25, 9:40 AM ET Add Top Stories - Chicago Tribune to My Yahoo!


By Tim Jones Tribune national correspondent

The food line begins to form during the sunrise chill, more than two hours before the metal gates to the Care United Methodist Outreach pantry open.

Hundreds of people like Theresa Ware arrive early because they fear the boxes of food stacked in neat rows will be gone by the time they push their rusty grocery carts to the head of the hours-long line. Ware keeps an eye on her watch because she can't afford to be late for work, not even if the reason is to pick up food.


"This is a have-to case for us. It's humiliating," said Ware, 49, who makes $7.50 an hour working the afternoon shift at a nursing home. This recent visit was one of two food pantry stops she and her unemployed husband, Rocky, make every month.


"We shouldn't have to do this," she said.


Theresa and Rocky Ware toil in the ranks of the working poor, a growing category of millions of Americans who play by the rules of the working world and still can't make ends meet.


After tapping friends and family, maxing out their credit cards and sufficiently swallowing their pride, at least 23 million Americans stood in food lines last year--many of them the working poor, according to America's Second Harvest, the Chicago-based hunger relief organization. The surge in food demand is fueled by several forces--job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they lost.


~snip~

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=1&u=/chitribts/theworkingpoor

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N40113F18

[bigbillhaywood]

28. It's Communist BS

Implement regional living wages and raise the minimum wage, and the next thing you know they'll be setting up Gulags in Colorado and Pol-Pot style killing fields.

What are you, some kind of smelly, long hair, wife-swapping, pot smoking Commie fifth-columinst? Paying people enough money to support a family on? Heh, nice try Comrade Stalin.

[dpibel]

42. Don't forget taking away our individuality

We'd end up reciting some crap like "An injury to one is an injury to all."

And they'd take away our right to make important, personal statements, like drinking Coke instead of Pepsi and driving Chevies and not those damned Fords.

[Terran]

39. A good resource on this subject

http://www.universallivingwage.org/

I suggest those of you who oppose this idea read the section on myths and misconceptions.

Dirk

[Canuckistanian]

44. Go and read Conceptual Gorilla's "Cheap Labor Conservative's Guide"

For the real reason behind all these incredibly bad policies. There's a real method to their "madness"

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/index.html

[OneTwentyoNine]

49. It goes against the "keep em barefoot and pregnant" life they have planned

For the working class. Keep the average worker beat down to the lowest wage possible and he or she has no choice but to work their ass off. Get pissed and quit?!?! Go ahead,all the other jobs will start you at the same low-goin nowhere wage.

More time off could mean finding a better job or getting skills to quit your present McJob. Can't have that now can we??

David

[snoochie]

63. Such a complex issue

Right now huge multinational corporations are paying no taxes, but small businesses seem to be stuck paying theirs. Also healthcare costs are ridiculously out of whack because of the huge amounts going towards bonuses, excessive executive pay, advertising and promotion, etc.; and pharmaceutical costs are also insanely high due to all the money they spend lobbying and advertising, as well as the orbital executive pay.

This country is allowing it's administrative burden to be borne by small businesses and the middle class, and allowing insanely profitable businesses and the very rich shirk their fair share of responsibility. I can't help but wonder if the issue would be less complex if only those at the top had to obey the same laws the rest of us do. How much in fines can these massive corporations write off on their taxes, if they pay any?

It's as if the best well-off were setting up the middle against the lowest, and succeeding.

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. Some rich people really don't want poor people to live

Really, they couldn't give a flying fig if those of us in the working class fell off the face of the earth. (Not all rich folk, mind you. There are plenty who do a lot to better the situation of the working and unemployed poor in this country.)

[hughee99]

97. working class?

Not to get off the subject, but what exactly is the "working class"? Is there a income range or other factors that go into it? I have a friend who works 3 jobs. He made over $100,000 last year, but he also works about 80 hours a week. Does the $100K make him rich, or does the 80 hours a week make him "working class".

[camero]

99. If your friend is working 3 jobs for $100K

then he has got some serious issues.

[bigbillhaywood]

103. Different definitions

1. Traditional Marxist definition. Those who engage in production, but do not own the means of production are working class. Those who own the means of production are the owning class or capitalists or bourgoisie. All others are petty bourgoisie (petty capitalists).

Advantage of this defintion-- more precise than income-based definition or murky "middle class" bandied about in American discourse. For example, the young executive who makes $50,000 a year is obviously not "working class" due to his position, but the Union Longshoreman or Autoworker who makes $75,000 is working-class, albeit upper-income working class due to his/her union's bargaining strength.

Problem with this definition-- it was established in Marx's time when there was a miniscule service, administrative and techincal section of the capitalist workforce. So nowadays large sections of the workforce would be excluded from "the working class" and lumped in with the petty bourgoisie. Example: A janitor would be petty bourgoeis by this definition, even though it defies reason. A janitor is obviously working class.

2. Income defintion.

Advantage-- accounts for lower income workers who would not be "working class" according to strict Marxist analysis (see janitor example above)

Problem-- Does not account for substantive differences in the roles people fill in a capitalist society, and the jobs they do regardless of income (see junior corporate exec vs. well-paid autoworker e.g. above)

3. All wage-earners definition. Some people think anyone who earns a wage, and are not top-level corporate managers, executives or officers are working-class. I think this is the worst defnition, becuase it would mean professionals such as staff attorneys and doctors without private practices are working class. It would also place well-paid managers who have interests different than that of most working shlubs in the working class.

4. I think it's somewhere between one and two. I think it's partly based on your role in the capitalist system (do you largely manage resources and other workers or largely follow the directives of others and labor or do you have a specialized profession), and partly based on your income.

[Cleita]

101. Here's the truth.

I have read in the past that some conservative economists believe that the unemployment rate should be about 9%. It is their theory that it keeps wage costs down because people desperate for jobs will work for less, complain less and demand less if there is keen competition from the unemployed.

Also, there is a larger worker pool in those jobs that make rich people's lives much nicer, like household help and country club staffs.

So rich Republicans must have a large portion of the population on the verge of starvation in order to maintain their lifestyles without much complaint from the working classes.

[cap]

112. what is so wrong about paying someone enough so that they can

afford $1000/month for a 2 bedroom apartment in a major metropolitan area on one salary. McDonald workers have to live somewhere. They have kids.

Mr. Advanced Degree doesn't have a problem accepting tax money (whether that money was direct aid from the federal government in terms of Pell Grants and Student Loans or the grants that the federal government gives to universities so that tuition does not represent the full cost of his education) that subsidizes his education from McDonald's workers who will never go to college. This is a democracy. If these workers help him out. What will he do in return for the 40% of Americans who never go to college?

[democratreformed]

119. Proof that their theory is false, IMO

Here's a crazy thing. When the employment statistics started to swing (unemployment up) and factories began to close, I thought it would definitely be an employers market - meaning it would be easy to find an abundance of cheap labor willing to work.

It has NOT happened. What has happened instead is a drastic increase in substance abuse and a shortage of qualified workers b/c many just simply do not care to work.

IMO, the endless cycle of trying to get ahead while working your life away and not having enough to live on causes the incredible increase we have seen in this area in substance abuse and crime. This, in turn, causes a shortage in labor, not an abundance.

This is the worst year we have seen in our business to find people willing and able to work.

[skippysmom]

113. I believe that if a person works full time

They should be paid enough to live on. And the difference in wages should come from the CEOs' ridiculous salaries, not from raising prices.

I also advocate a safety net for those who cannot work due to disability or other reasons.

It doesn't sound radical to me...but then again, sometimes I think I am too radical for this country.

[swinney]

116. Christian nation or ??

Christ--"care for least amongst thee".
Throw out Money changers in the temples.
Turn swords into plow shares(or nukes)

How can any Republican read their national party platform and clan to be a Christian?

It is mostly--anti-Christ. enrich the rich--more swords--ignore poor--feed the masses(cake)--let em suffer form afflictions--

Christian nation? Call me Pope Clarence II.

[RainDog]

133. The Real Issue

Both Warren Buffet and George Soros have spoken out about the problem with the vast, vast difference between the percentage the highest paid person vs the lowest paid person earns in a corporation...America has the greatest divide between these two groups.

Having so many working poor is bad for democracy...at least that's how both these multimillionaires think about the issue.

A living wage is not a flat wage across the board idea, btw...it is tied to the number of employees someone has, whether the job is a summer job vs a job to feed a family, and again, the issue of wage gaps between the richest and the poorest in an organization.

It is bullshit to say that CEOs earn the huge salaries based upon their skill when their salaries/benefits are not tied to performance, and when so many of them have family members on the boards of their corporations who vote for their salaries...

hey, let my family come into my job and vote for my salary, too!

Education matters, but it is not an ultimate indicator of salary..and neither is intelligence.

I think it's a stupid, stupid argument to say that if burger flippers were paid enough to actually survive then EVERYONE would be a burger flipper. That's just ridiculous.

Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you have physical safety, then you have other issues which can then be addressed, for instance.

I would not chose to be a burger flipper even if it was the highest paying job in town because the job I do also has to satisfy other needs in me for intellectual stimulation and some autonomy and the idea that I'm doing something which contributes in a way in which I am talented.

If bizzes didn't have to fund health insurance, it would be easier to put money toward salaries, and those, say like Halliburton and Carlyle, who benefit from their virtual no competition bids for so many things could give back, in taxes, what they take from the American public in their overpriced peeling paint jobs in Iraqi schools, for instance.

America has not always had such vast numbers of people who cannot survive on a single salary. This is a real problem, and it is not simply the idea that Americans want to drive an SUV instead of a compact car...yes, that plays into American life in various ways, but the people we are talking about concerning a living wage are usually also the people who drive beaters and shop at Goodwill.

As Bush and this thugs continue to dismantle ANY social safety net and ANY sense of a commonwealth in this nation, more and more people will know what it's like to feel humliated each day because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, or their child was born with a disability, or their parent got sick and they had to take care of them, or they got sick and found that America doesn't care about her own citizens.

Bill Gates' father and a millionaire baby wrote a book about the wrongness of repealing the inheritance tax, as it is structured to provide some parity over a certain level...people can still pass along the family farm, or make sure their grandkids can go to a toney college AND we can still have the idea that we are a comonwealth which shares a stake in the well being of the nation, and don't simply have to be fucking pigs who have lost their humanity.