California is a sorry excuse for a state

[bacha29]

I never said enough to support a household. I said enough to live on. You refuse to listen, and try to deflect by putting words in my mouth because you have no reasonable basis to argue your point. If an employer doesn't even pay enough to keep an employee alive and in a working condition, they shouldn't be allowed to have employees at all.

Spot on . It's called corporate welfare. People who are working for low wage zero benefit employers and we all know who we're talking about have to seek assistance medical and otherwise courtesy of government social programs just to hang on. Conservatives want it both ways. They want these social programs to be eliminated but wages including minimum to remain the same in order that their corporate backed superpac's will continue to shovel box car loads of campaign cash back to them which they can take with them when they leave office.Furthermore they're out there today trying to get us to believe that their tax plan will raise wages and not significantly raise the deficit. But, when receipts start falling and deficits start rising guess what will be the first thing the Republican's go after ?

 

[Fred's Myth]

You are saying that people with skills shouldn't take a job at McDonalds or other low wage jobs, assuming that there are just millions and millions of jobs available for everyone everywhere. THAT is ignorant. There are more low wage workers than there are open better paying jobs.

For a lot of people, McDonalds or other low wage jobs are their only option. And while you may think that an employer has no obligation to support their employees off duty, the FACT remains that as long as there are employers who don't pay enough to live on, we will all be paying more in taxes to help those people survive.

You may want to base life on the ideal, but I want to base it on the real. Ideally there would be good paying jobs for everyone equipped to do the job, but that isn't the case. Companies like McDonalds are taking advantage of the oversupply of workers to the detriment of taxpayers. A conservative wouldn't want taxpayers to be screwed over by highly profitable companies who are hurting taxpayers.

I think any employer who uses people to make a profit needs to make sure those workers don't result in a burden on the rest of us. If a company can't make it without putting more demand on taxpayers, they shouldn't be in business. No one who works full time should need taxpayers to make up the difference between what the employer pays and the basic needs of staying employable..

America is the "Land of Opportunity" not the land of utopia. Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness are the unalienable rights identified in the Constitution.
America also operates on a Market Economy. The higher the demand, the higher the value/price. That doesn't mean that the more you demand something, the more likely you are to receive it.
In other words, the secret to a higher standard of living is to offer the Market a skillset that is in demand. Smoking and dealing dope isn't a skillset that employers value.

 

[Meat]

...dealing dope isn't a skillset that employers value.

Actually, aren’t drug dealers, both legal and illegal, just serving a market? Sounds like basic capitalist values to me.

 

[Meat]

Anyone that works at McDs and thinks they should make enough money to support a household is delusional. Anyone that believes workers at McDs should make enough to support a household is even more delusional.

Every system will have winners and losers. It’s somewhat of a systemic character statement how the losers are treated. Given your presumed age, you may not see the have-nots create social unrest in your lifetime, but rest assured it’s coming.

 

[It will be fine]

America is the "Land of Opportunity" not the land of utopia. Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness are the unalienable rights identified in the Constitution.
America also operates on a Market Economy. The higher the demand, the higher the value/price. That doesn't mean that the more you demand something, the more likely you are to receive it.
In other words, the secret to a higher standard of living is to offer the Market a skillset that is in demand. Smoking and dealing dope isn't a skillset that employers value.

Dealing dope can be extremely lucrative. You may want a different example for your bad point.

 

[tonyexpress]

New Study Shows Consequences of California’s $15 Minimum Wage

Their findings are stark: The economists’ preferred model show that past minimum wage increases in California have caused a measurable decrease in employment among affected employees. Specifically, they find that each 10% increase in the minimum wage has led to a nearly five-percent reduction in employment in industries with a higher percentage of lower-paid employees.

The authors apply these estimates to approximate that California will lose 400,000 jobs as a consequence of higher minimum wages by 2022. Nearly half of the observed job loss occurs in foodservice and retail industries.

About the Minimum Wage

Minimum wage increases do not help reduce poverty. Award winning research looked at states that raised their minimum wage between 2003 and 2007 and found no evidence to suggest these higher minimum wages reduced poverty rates. While the few employees who earn a wage increase might benefit from a wage hike, those that lose their job are noticeably worse off.

Employees who start at the minimum wage aren’t stuck there. Research found that the majority of employees who start at the minimum wage, move to a higher wage in their first year on the job.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Dealing dope can be extremely lucrative. You may want a different example for your bad point.

Didn't say it wasn't lucrative, said it's not a skillset that employers value.
That's part of the problem with America....people want the easy solution, even if it's not legal.
Why would an employer want that wasp nest to deal with?

 

[It will be fine]

Didn't say it wasn't lucrative, said it's not a skillset that employers value.
That's part of the problem with America....people want the easy solution, even if it's not legal.
Why would an employer want that wasp nest to deal with?

You're wrong there as well. It takes an entrepreneurial spirit, logistics management, sales, etc. all while avoiding legal trouble. There's a reason why I don't have student loans.

 

[Fred's Myth]

You're wrong there as well. It takes an entrepreneurial spirit, logistics management, sales, etc. all while avoiding legal trouble. There's a reason why I don't have student loans.

So, applicants who want to work for you would benefit from disclosing that they sell drugs? Bet FedEx would be impressed.

 

[MAKAVELI]

New Study Shows Consequences of California’s $15 Minimum Wage

Their findings are stark: The economists’ preferred model show that past minimum wage increases in California have caused a measurable decrease in employment among affected employees. Specifically, they find that each 10% increase in the minimum wage has led to a nearly five-percent reduction in employment in industries with a higher percentage of lower-paid employees.

The authors apply these estimates to approximate that California will lose 400,000 jobs as a consequence of higher minimum wages by 2022. Nearly half of the observed job loss occurs in foodservice and retail industries.

About the Minimum Wage

Minimum wage increases do not help reduce poverty. Award winning research looked at states that raised their minimum wage between 2003 and 2007 and found no evidence to suggest these higher minimum wages reduced poverty rates. While the few employees who earn a wage increase might benefit from a wage hike, those that lose their job are noticeably worse off.

Employees who start at the minimum wage aren’t stuck there. Research found that the majority of employees who start at the minimum wage, move to a higher wage in their first year on the job.

FAKE!

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The majority of Mickey D employees are still on Mommy and Daddy's healthcare so we are not subsidizing anything.

Wrong.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Wrong.

When is the last time that you either ate at or delivered to Mickey D's?

I bring paychecks to the same local franchise that both of my kids used to work at. Although I am in and out of there, I can still see that they majority of the employees are under the age of 26 and, as such, are still eligible to be covered under their parent(s)' policy.

 

[slowdriver]

"Anyone working in America surely deserves a better living standard than can be managed on $3.35 an hour. But there's a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own."

- The "Failing" New York Times 1987

 

[59 Dano]

Why would someone with your gifted and superior intellect and impressive professional achievement even go to a low class place like McDonald's in the first place?

To support people with your intellect and professional achievement, of course!

 

[59 Dano]

Ideally there would be good paying jobs for everyone equipped to do the job, but that isn't the case. Companies like McDonalds are taking advantage of the oversupply of workers to the detriment of taxpayers. A conservative wouldn't want taxpayers to be screwed over by highly profitable companies who are hurting taxpayers.

Oversupply of workers? The unemployment rate hasn't been this low in a decade.

To say that taxpayers are subsidizing companies is silly. If we stopped the taxpayer benefits to the people who get them, would employers be forced to pay more in response in order to attract/retain employees? No.

I think any employer who uses people to make a profit needs to make sure those workers don't result in a burden on the rest of us. If a company can't make it without putting more demand on taxpayers, they shouldn't be in business. No one who works full time should need taxpayers to make up the difference between what the employer pays and the basic needs of staying employable..

They are paying them for the value of the work they perform. An employee's financial obligations are none of the employer's business. We don't pay employees based on how much money they need to meet someone else's arbitrary definition of "basic needs." An employee who isn't happy with his compensation is free to take his efforts elsewhere.

 

[slowdriver]

An employee who isn't happy with his compensation is free to take his efforts elsewhere.

Where? China? Mexico? GERMANY? That's what we're really competing with..

Worth or skill has little to do with it, instead it's supply(jobs) and demand(people). Plenty of skilled workers in china working for slave wages.

 

[vantexan]

Every system will have winners and losers. It’s somewhat of a systemic character statement how the losers are treated. Given your presumed age, you may not see the have-nots create social unrest in your lifetime, but rest assured it’s coming.

Go overseas where workers make $300 a month or less, often much less. And there's no safety net. Compared to those places the U.S. is utopia. But somehow people think they should be living extremely well without having to achieve anything. We should be concerned about what's fair, not about being able to live well with minimal effort.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

When is the last time that you either ate at or delivered to Mickey D's?

I bring paychecks to the same local franchise that both of my kids used to work at. Although I am in and out of there, I can still see that they majority of the employees are under the age of 26 and, as such, are still eligible to be covered under their parent(s)' policy.

You're asking me to dispute your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own? SMH. You live your whole life in a bubble Darius.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Go overseas where workers make $300 a month or less, often much less. And there's no safety net. Compared to those places the U.S. is utopia. But somehow people think they should be living extremely well without having to achieve anything. We should be concerned about what's fair, not about being able to live well with minimal effort.

If you have to compare the the United states to a third world country to support your viewpoint against a living wage, you've already lost the argument. Some people want better for their country and its citizens.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Wrong.

Your brevity is exceeded only by your pomposity.