You said unskilled workers, not illegal immigrants picking fruit on the black market. People can be unskilled for many reasons. There are lots of people who don't deserve to breathe let alone live in luxury but to lump everybody in as unskilled is unfair.
The largest and wealthiest middle class in American (and world) history didn't come from a high minimum wage and government redistribution of wealth. You have a lot of feelings, but no answers. Sure, what I'm saying is 'cruel'. But do you have a counter proposal? Do you have anything even remotely worth trying, that won't bankrupt an already bankrupt country? You don't. Everyone on your side of the argument has lots of feelings, but no proposals. I've got a proposal for you; let's get back to people helping people directly. I'm sick of people offloading their responsibility onto the government. Shame people that don't help family members in need (like the liberal Messiah, Ofailure, who lets his own brother live in poverty).
Ginger is so evil! She wants people to earn more! *Flips table* she doesn't want people to have to turn every coin! How wicked! She is vilifying McDonalds, the company that imports crops from third world countries to fatten the cattle (including humans, indirectly) here. What a terrible crime! All the people working at McDonalds are unskilled labourers! They are stupid people who didnt take the time to learn and are now earning much less money, as they should! There are absolutely no ex musicians among the burger flippers, no ex scientist, no smart students, oh no, they are all severly retarded people unworthy of a decent salary. Now bring me my burger, bitch.
McDonalds employs over 500,000 people in the US. It is safe to say that the majority of thse employees are unskilled workers. That is, it doesn't require extensive training to learn how to work the fry machine. As you know, there always exceptions to the rule. So what is the option? Why do we even have a group of people living in poverty? Can't we just give them all enough money to support them and their families? Who would pay for it? The government, that already has over 16 TRILLION in debt? Corporations, who would not be able to compete with inflated government-forced wages? How about YOU? This is just more of the liberal thinking that we should have 'equality of outcome', instead of 'equality of opportunity'. We used to believe that 'all men are created equal.' Now we think that people should be equal for their whole lives, no matter how much they work or strive or take advantage of their God-given natural talents. It's the mentality that everyone is a winner and there are no losers. Every girl can be a supermodel if they just really want it. No, They can't Some girls are just ugly. Some boys can't shoot a basketball. There are winners and there are losers but when we try to artificially bolster the losers to winners it not only depreciates the winners, it does a disservice to the losers.
You can only go off your own experience I want everyone to remember. I despite the fact that I have a degree and come from a comfortably well-off background, I have worked menial, minimum wage jobs. I didn't really have to, I could have avoided it, but I worked. I like earning money. This past year for me has been one of transition between me as an undergraduate and me as a postgraduate. I wanted to get some experience in the real world, and in the classroom before I returned to university to train to be a teacher, which I'll be doing soon. Fast food work, sweeping car parks, serving customers, they were transitional jobs, not where I want to end up. I call myself a Libertarian, but I'm a Left-Libertarian, while I prefer Capitalism over Marxist Socialism, I will say I'm not against Collectivism. A mixture of Capitalism and Collectivism is what I want, it's sometimes called 'State Capitalism' and that's really an abuse of two terms. The difference is, and over this year I've been coming to this conclusion more and more, I'm lucky. I know this now all too well, I'm lucky in the fact that I didn't exactly need to work this year, I just wanted to. I'm lucky in the fact that I have a goal. And I'm lucky in the fact that I'm not responsible for anyone else yet. I knew what I wanted to do (be a teacher or a journalist) when I first went to university, both require an English degree or the equivalent, both are involved in words. I've worked as a Journalist, but as life has turned out I'm going in to teaching, and I'm honestly fine with that. In short, I like Capitalism because for me it has worked. It's got me everything I've ever wanted and needed. Sadly, I'm beginning to realize that the same cannot be said for everyone. A lot of my friends now regret life-choices they have made at an earlier time in their life, others simply haven't had the ability or the options available to me for one reason or another. For some people I know (some of them are just as smart as me) their unskilled, menial jobs are life-lines. Job Seekers Allowance in this country can let you scrape by, but what JSA takes is your dignity. And sadly a lot of people today really want to work but can't. To demonize the people who have been given a bad hand by life is just unfair.
I think this is well said up until the last sentence. I don't think people are out to 'demonize' people who run into unfortunate circumstances in their life. But I also have to understand the reality that while there are a lot of people who could use more money, it's just not possible to help everyone. Thats why we have non-profit organizations, charities and churches. To help those less fortunate. But it's not the role of the government, nor is it the role of the companies to pay people not according to their skill, but according to their need. It's just not possible.
To be honest, yeah, re-reading that, 'demonize' might be the wrong word to use, maybe replace it with the word 'dismiss'. I'm just used to the British government who do actively like to demonize and belittle the unemployed and the working class. It's actually quite disgusting. But, that's my country, I understand in other countries it'll be different. Other than that, yes. Not everyone needs help, not everyone will want it. This sort of thing is a very complex question.
Yeah I don't think they should be belittled or even looked down upon. Also remember, it's just your job, it says nothing about who you are as a person.
It's just all sad. The whole thing and the lack of a good solution. But, on the other hand, that chart is hilarious in the blackest way.
Agreed. Indeed. I honestly think that not everyone needs help, not everyone will even want it. If they don't, great. We have private practice in this country because the NHS has rules and regulations and paper work that just isn't involved in private consultants, and can be a total headache. This is nothing if not a good thing, but I'm still glad we have an NHS. Yes, I've grew up with it, I don't know anything different, but I'm comforted by the fact that it is there. Also, the idea that some people have, that the NHS is free to use is just not true, you do still have to pay for it if you want anything better than the absolute minimum service. But that minimum is still there. It's a social safety net, and if it helps the private sector run smoothly, good.
I did, you said they were good decent people regardless of circumstance. How do you square that with, though luck that they work full time and don't earn a living wage? It's seems like cognitive dissonance to me, they're good people, on the one hand, but made their own bed so, tough luck on the other. You think it's their own fault but you respect them? Aren't you saying government shouldn't tell profitable corporations to pay a living wage? How is that not saying the corporation that is required to pay minimum wages is a victim of the government?
BTW, I forgot to address this faulty assumption people on the right seem to make about people on the left. I'm a capitalist. I own my own business and have for over 20 years. I don't hate corporations. I happen to think economies and governments work best with private/public partnerships. I don't want Blackwater running my local police department, national health insurance plans have better measurable objective health outcomes than our private system does, and society benefits tremendously from educating its young. That doesn't mean I think corporations are all run my evil villains. Capitalism is an extremely successful economic system, as long as there are checks and balances. Taxpayers are essentially enablers when they let corporations exploit workers by paying less than a living wage. If you don't pull in the reins you get the incredible corruption we saw with Bush cronies that is still going on today. I highly recommend David Cay Johnston's book, "The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use 'Plain English' to Rob You Blind" to anyone who doesn't believe corporations need better public oversight. But people like me do not want socialism, we like capitalism. We just happen to believe market forces do not cure all ills. Such beliefs ignore human nature and history.
A few things to note: The U.S. is different from the U.K. in the huge issue of health insurance. Individuals are largely covered via their employers, and often employers work to prevent their employees from obtaining their coverage (for example, Wal Mart limiting workers to just under 40 hours so they are not eligible for benefits.) People who have any sort of pre-existing condition have a huge issue in that coverage is ridiculously expensive. Similarly, even people who do have health insurance often end up in bankruptcy due to health care costs. So this is a huge financial issue. The fact that McDonalds chose to use $20 a month as their allocation for health insurance in this example, when their own offering is over three times that amount shows such a disconnect from reality that it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. The fact is that we need people to do service sector jobs. Somebody has to clean the toilets and pick up the garbage. Somebody has to make the fries. Somebody has to unpack and stack the groceries. If everybody were a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer, we wouldn't be able to function as a society, because we can't have everybody doing the jobs that require specialized training and study. Largely, the idea of pursuing these sorts of jobs is from the idea of "I don't want my kid to have to pick up garbage like I did. I want him to be higher up on the food chain than I am" kind of thing. We used to have jobs that allowed people who were willing to work hard, yet didn't have specialized higher educational training, to earn a decent enough living to have a house, raise kids in a safe neighborhood, send them to school, and keep the whole family healthy - or at least as healthy as our current knowledge of healthcare allowed. These folks formed the backbone of our society. They were the middle class -- and we need the middle class to buy shit. They're the ones who create the demand for the stuff we (used to) make. Henry Ford understood this. He wanted to pay his workers enough so that they could afford to buy his product. For a while this all worked pretty well. Then everything started to be sent overseas. These decent manufacturing based jobs went away. Simultaneously, the idea that these sorts of jobs were at all desirable was replaced with the idea that they were beneath anyone decent or at all intelligent. Higher education was touted as the goal for everyone. Now, don't get me wrong. I love higher education -- I can't even begin to express how much I love it and how beneficial I think it is. Beyond simply the economic benefit, but the intangible, intellectual growth and understanding it gives. However, it is not for everyone. People who are just going for the piece of paper, or doing it for some rote 'this is what I'm supposed to do next' kind of mindset aren't going to get the maximum benefit from it. So you end up with a lot of people who spend four years gaining very little, but giving up a lot of time that could have been spent making money, and taking on debt. And when the market is flooded with people with these degrees, the job prospects for everyone dim. Simultaneously, some people simply could not afford to take on the debt loads of these colleges. Or they take on the debt load and have no one to help them repay the loans. Their situation is worse now than people who did not go to college at all, at least from a purely economic perspective. What are we to do with all of these people? It's no longer even an option for them to go into manufacturing. They're left with the service industry. And we need them to do these jobs. We don't want to make it impossible for them to work these jobs or to make it so horrible for them to do it that they'd rather do nothing. When I go to a bookstore or a grocery store, or a restaurant, I don't want to be dealing with morons. I still want those people to be smart enough to problem solve. If there's a problem, I want them to be able to try to solve it. If I need a recommendation, I'd like them to be able to give me an informed opinion. That may not require specialized higher educational training, but it does require some degree of intelligence, and some basic level of education. There is dignity in this type of work. It does help people. In some respects, it can be at least a little bit fulfilling. It is in no one's interest - not even the wealthy, to create an underclass with no hope. In countries with huge disparities between the rich and the poor, we see the least functional governments, the least functional societies, and the highest rates of crime and disease. We don't want our country to have a huge number of people who live in abject poverty, who are homeless, who are sick from preventable diseases, and who have children who can't perform well enough in school to better their situation, because they don't have any support for school, or even enough to eat. If we have someone who is willing to work hard -- and to do their best at a job, that person should be able to earn enough money to support their family. That is, someone with the number of kids typical for our country, say, 2, should be able to live in a home that is safe from crime and from the elements, should be able to feed the family at least well enough so that they aren't malnourished or suffer brain or developmental delays due to a lack of nutrition, should be able to be treated for curable and preventable diseases and health conditions, and wear clean clothing that fits. Those things can be provided in two ways -- either you pay enough money for people to buy these things, or the government provides them. Not doing this not only makes a desperate underclass now, but perpetuates it in the future by giving these children a huge disadvantage that is very difficult to overcome. Now, here McDonalds sought to show that all of this could be obtained by minimum wage. But their own chart showed that it could not be done with just one job. They had to add a second job. This worker has to work 70 hours a week, at two different jobs. I'm not even saying that people should get all of this in 40 hours -- even as much as 60 would be okay. I'm not saying that everyone deserves a life of ease or of luxuries, or a vacation every year, or a large, nice house, or anything like that. Of course there will be disparities. But someone willing to work 60 hours should be able to provide at least a minimum baseline quality of life for their family in this country. We shouldn't desire our nation's poor to be as bad off as the poor in Somalia or Guatemala or India. The McDonalds chart shows that they do not provide this standard. They have to use ridiculous numbers that aren't even what they themselves utilize. They omit any mention of childcare, and we don't have government provided childcare here. Nor is it available later than 6:00 pm or earlier than 7:00 am. McDonalds says you can live on their salary only in certain parts of the country, and don't spend money on gas or heat. Their own purported position is based on fantasy. And one last point -- it isn't easy to work a shift like that for 8-10 hours a day, standing the entire time, working above hot grease, dealing with ornery customers. It's exhausting. I've done some legal contract work, and my colleagues and I have complained about it, but I was grateful for it in that for the level of stress and physical exertion, it paid pretty well. My day was relatively easy. I'd much rather do that than work at McDonalds, even if they both paid me the same amount of money.
Some of the wage problems are due to globalizing economies. But there is also a contribution played by the stagnation and even decline in wages while production is up as are CEO pay & profits. Companies are doing better than ever while finding they can pay those productive workers even less. My son had to get a very expensive graduate degree because his BS in Applied Math was not enough. His graduate degree debt reflects the skyrocketing costs of universities as the states contribute less and less. The tax-cutting-excuse narrative was that colleges were spending excessively because of what the schools received. In reality, schools turned to tuition increases to cover the loss in state funds. "It is in no one's interest - not even the wealthy, to create an underclass with no hope." This is the part I have the hardest understanding. Pay these people better and the economy will recover instantly. I liken it to the Tragedy of the Commons. If everyone shorts their workers, it's like too many cows on the community owned grazing land. That pool of workers who earn enough to buy widgets (or cars) erodes away like overgrazed grasses. Your other comments illustrate the false beliefs people have about these full time working food stamp recipients: that they are "takers", "lazy", "could get ahead if they just worked harder", "need to stop getting food stamps to be motivated to seek an education or better job", and, "the corporations that underpay their workers bear no responsibility".
I understand your point, but it still doesn’t leave room for a solution. We now live in a global economy. The US economy has become larger, now reaching all over the world. So now you have global competition and the bottom line is that foreign workers are willing to work harder and longer, for less. Also, since when do companies have an obligation to be benevolent? Last I checked, companies paid as little as they can to their employees and make as much as they can in profit. I know all you liberals cringe at that evil scheme but that’s capitalism and you know what balances that dogma? Competition. I don’t believe that Wal-mart is forcing people to work for them. I know a lot of you disagree and say, ‘Well, that’s the only job they can get!’ I’m sorry but I don’t agree with that. If I open a business and I need ten workers and I say I’m going to pay them 10 cents an hour, guess what? Nobody would work for me. Here is a great article that explains why we couldn't just raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/02/20/why-shouldnt-we-increase-the-minimum-wage-to-20hour/
Really, what I said about being able to earn enough money to support a family of the average size for the community should apply globally. This could only happen through fair trade agreements, and through people demanding fair trade certified products. A difficult goal, yes, and not one likely to be achieved. But if it were given more visibility, it could increase demand for such products and lead to some improvements. It's not that companies have an obligation to be benevolent. It's that it's partially in their own best interest to do so. The CEO doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, while the average workers don't have enough to buy the company's products. Profit should come not from exploiting workers, but from providing a good product or service. See the difference between Costco's payment and compensation of their employees versus Wal Mart's. Costco makes plenty of profit. It's easy to just say liberals hate capitalism, but it's not true, and shows a lack of understanding of the numerous issues as well as a lack of desire to understand.
See? There's the diference between you and I. It's not your business what the CEO makes. He was lucky enough to get the CEO position and I'm happy he's fortunate. It's a slippery slope once you start telling people how much they 'need' and it also leads to class warfare.
He's lucky. Okay. It also takes away money from the shareholders and harms the business. Before Hostess went under, they forced the low-level workers to take wage concessions while paying bonuses to the higher-ups. It's not the worker on the line that made business decisions that forced the company to go under. CEO and high management compensation is not tied to performance and it is ridiculously out of control. It ultimately harms the company. Also, see this study showing that for every dollar in minimum wage increase, the worker's household spends an additional $2800 per year. There are numerous effects, at both the micro and macro levels on the economy. http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2007/wp2007_23.pdf
Again back to the, 'why is it so obvious to me?' All the claims that minimum wage increases harm the economy are simply not supported by the evidence. By ideology, not mine but others' yes. But by the evidence, no. The Economist is hardly a liberal rag: Evidence is mounting that moderate minimum wages can do more good than harm That's the hypothesis. This is the findings when we test that hypothesis: There is still debate: Anyone can cherry pick the data that supports their ideology. That's part of the problem. But an honest look at actual outcomes finds raising minimum wages boosts the economy, it doesn't harm it or low wage workers.
Hypothetically, if there could be a solution that would work, what would it take? I'm curious to see if this conversation can be productive or if it's just another debate thread.
