[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Should a full-time worker be able to feed,...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Thread replies: 67
Thread images: 8
Should a full-time worker be able to feed, clothe, and shelter himself?
>>
>>61053935

Depends on what the worker is doing. Asking "would you like fries with that?" No.
>>
>>61053935
universal income
>>
The workers should only live on company grounds in the communal barracks.
They should own nothing.
>>
>>61053935

If the follow up question is "should the government enforce this?", the answer is undoubtedly no.

If you can't provide for yourself with full time work, get another job.
>>
>>61053935
what "should" happen is irrelevant when there is a limited amount of resources.
>>
>>61053976
What if it only increased the price of a Big Mac from $5.23 to $5.45 (assuming $15 minimum wage)?

http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/07/fast-food-still-cheap.html
>>
>>61054146
The entire point is those are entry level jobs for teens and new workers to do.

If you are a full grown adult and you are working at McDonalds or a retail store, you fucked up. Get a better job, you don't deserve more than what you get for the work you do.
>>
>>61054109
Should workers, working at jobs necessary in a functioning society, not be able to support themselves?
>>
>>61054129
limited amount of yachts maybe
>>
>>61054252

The leaf gets it
>>
File: karl pilk__81261.jpg (34 KB, 246x347) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
karl pilk__81261.jpg
34 KB, 246x347
>>61053935
>BernFag detected.
Back to reddit, fag.
>>
>>61054252
>entry level jobs for teens and new workers to do.
You are shilling a corporatist meme to continue to pay workers starving wages.

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/
>>
>>61054431
Karl Pilkington is a hero.
>>
If they cannot, then they should move to a place where they can. This would put upwards wage pressure as the labor supply dwindles.

>>61054266
If they can't support themselves, they'll migrate to where they can.

Right now, the minimimum wage where it is is still enough to attract millions and millions of undocumented immigrants to work for less than it.

Market forces are stronger than your noob sense of economics.
>>
>>61054944
I don't think you are getting it. Americans, illegal, naturalized, etc., can't support themselves in the United States working full-time without requiring government assisted Medicaid and food stamps. Higher-earning Americans subsidize these welfare programs. You are paying the difference for what the corporations are not paying their employees, ergo A CEO, tea-bagger, and a union worker are sitting around a table, which has a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO takes eleven of the cookies, then turns to the tea-bagger and says "Watch out. That union thug wants to steal your cookie."

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-wage-employers-cost-taxpayers-153-billion-a-year/


Inticing low-income Americans to emigrate or starve is not a realistic domestic policy.
>>
>tfw dead thread because /pol/ has run out of talking points
>>
>>61055585
You already posted that grade school econ bullshit earlier in the thread. No need to repeat yourself.

The margins of companies that rely on minimum wage labor's margin is very well documented. They will pass the increased costs on to the customers, reduce their labor usage in the higher cost zone in favor of lower cost or automation, or they'll go out of business. The first,
>Inticing low-income Americans to emigrate or starve is not a realistic domestic policy.

And ignoring basic economics on what happens when you dictate a price floor is ignorant at best.

is ANYONE starving in America?

I'm not even necessarily against increasing the minimum wage. But tying it to a "quality of life" metric without considering it's effects on inflation, global competitiveness, and the kind of jobs you want in your economy/the kind of jobs you will outsource is full retard.
>>
>>61056952
We get this thread 5 times a week. Lurk moar.
>>
>>61056952
No. The majority of us actually understand basic economics and value added labor, and also understand that the 'livable wage' is unsustainable, gives no incentive to over achieve beyond the bare minimum, and leads to economic stagnation. Read a damn economics book for once instead of parroting reddit and Facebook memes like they are facts. Do your research before you look like a fool to the whole board.
>>
>>61053935
Should redditors be allowed to post rage faces on 4chan?
>>
>>61057166
>grade school econ bullshit
>US department of labor vs 4chan user
I'll post it again, since you like it so much
http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

>pass the increased costs on to the customers
Negligible penny costs
>Reduce their labor usage in the higher cost zone in favor of lower cost or automation
No sources, baseless claim
>automation
They do that already. See, Walmart
>lower cost
They do that already. See, Walmart

>They'll go out of business
If a company can't survive without paying their full-time employees a living wage, then they shouldn't be in business.

>>61057456
>The majority of us actually understand basic economics and value added labor, and also understand that the 'livable wage' is unsustainable, gives no incentive to over achieve beyond the bare minimum, and leads to economic stagnation.
If you live in a conservative echo chamber you start believing these corporatist memes frequently heard on Fox News.
>>
>>61053935
Yes. You can always live within your means though retard. Thrift stores , rice and beans... not everyone deserves luxury.
>>
>>61057873
Do you actually understand anything in regards to economics or are you just going to keep repeating your same baseless points? I made clear what a living wage would do and if you took any time to read anything about economics, you would understand my points, or at least come up with some positive debate on the topic instead of seeing everything in black and white where I am some corporatist that drools over Fox news and only speaks amongst my peers. Good analysis based on the fact that I had real talking points and you had none.

Here, I'll help you out. Go read Hazlitt's Basic Economics, then come back and talk with the adults.
>>
>>61058389
>if you took any time to read economics you would understand my points
Your points aren't founded on any peer-reviewed studies, so no one takes them seriously.

Let's have a go and see if you can really back up these claims.

How does increasing the minimum wage lead to workers being unmotivated to achieve beyond the bare minimum?
>>
File: 1446135645536-0.png (890 KB, 800x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446135645536-0.png
890 KB, 800x500
>>61053935
>should a full-time worker be able to feed, clothe, and shelter himself?

sounds like fuggin socialism to me....

In other words, yes.
>>
>>61053935

They can. Working at walmart full time at 9 dollars an hour is 360 dollars a week before taxes. Times that by 4 for the amount of weeks that fall in a month and you get 1440 a month before taxes and thats if they pay you their companies lowest wage (janitor).

If you insist on working at walmart for a living you have to drop your living standards. The ghetto offers places as low as 360 a month sometimes with utilities. With that you could still afford groceries for a month and a cheap car payment. If you budget right you can even get a cell phone or internet.

People always want to live above their standards. They don't understand the basic concept that to do that you must move up in life. No one is gonna pay you twice the amount you should make because you feel like you should be above yourself.
>>
>>61058926
>Working at walmart full time at 9 dollars an hour is 360 dollars a week before taxes. Times that by 4 for the amount of weeks that fall in a month and you get 1440 a month before taxes and thats if they pay you their companies lowest wage (janitor).
Then they get sick and take your money because Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough to afford medical insurance. They also qualify for food banks and stamps, which is further money out of your pocket. It isn't Walmart's fault, that you are paying the difference between their salary and a livable wage. It is because they are lazy and that is what the people on the TV say.
>>
>>61058926
I make 8.50 an hour and bring home about 1200 each month. I can literally afford everything I own, and I have a roommate to help me out. Literally almost middle class with 2 min wage jobs in terms of luxury.
>>
>>61058627
Seriously, go read something about economics. And in regards to your question, if I paid you $5 an hour to flip burgers as opposed to paying you $10 to flip burgers, you didn't do a damn thing more to get the extra $5/hr. I was forced to pay it to you. You know that I still have to now pay you more and you don't have to do anything above and beyond what your original $5/hr job was. You contributed nothing more to my business and made more money in doing so. People are inherently lazy, so you will still do the minimum work required, knowing that I have to still pay you that inflated rate.

Now as a business owner, I would then seek out other means of production, so now instead of you making $5/hr, I have fired you and replaced you with a kiosk that only costs me $7/hr to operate and doesn't mess things up.

What you are also failing to understand is value added labor. (Again back to basic economics) Flipping burgers (or many other menial tasks) add next to nothing to my business, so why should I pay you more than you are worth (or in other words, pay you more than what you contribute to my business).
>>
>>61059141

Walmart is raising it's minimum wage to 10 dollars on their own. Plus they offer insurance and so does several other sources that are affordable.

I doubt they qualify for food banks. Those are for poor homeless people which I have proven they are not. The food stamps part is because they have more kids then they can afford. It is very hard for a single male to get on food stamps.

So should Walmart dish out more money because you can't keep your shit in your pants? I don't think so.

I can't even fathom the fact that you do.
>>
>>61059431
>Walmart is raising it's minimum wage to 10 dollars on their own.
Source?

>Plus they offer insurance and so does several other sources that are affordable.
Lol that definitely needs a source


>I doubt they qualify for food banks.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/21/walmart-workers-rely-on-food-banks-report
>>
File: youraloser.jpg (164 KB, 2121x1591) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
youraloser.jpg
164 KB, 2121x1591
>>61053935
NO! You're wages are too high and you will be paid less. You're a loser OP! A LOSER!
>>
>>61053935
If s/he can't, s/he should not be encouraged to breed.
>>
>>61057873
Hey, I'm just helping you sharpen your argument. If you insist on being such a hostile retard that you're doubling down on an advocacy pamphlet, it's all on you. Just don't be asschapped when the DOL appointees under a republican administration come up with a completely opposite result.

>>61059141
Question for clarity. Are you proposing raising minimum wage and dropping expenditures on welfare?
>>
>>61053935
Yes.

>>61053986
Paid to do nothing? That has a serious risk of causing inflation and/or incentivising idleness. It's not the amazing utopian solution lefties seem to think it is. (I would consider myself a lefty just not really in favour of universal basic income.)

>>61054109
>>61054266
Government should offer minimum wage work to anyone who wants a job. That wage should be enough to live on. More than half of all poverty solved, overnight.
>>
>>61059389
>go read something about economics

Telling someone to read about economics is definitely your go-to. Funnily enough, I have studied enough economics and international finance at a university to prove you wrong.

> if I paid you $5 an hour to flip burgers as opposed to paying you $10 to flip burgers, you didn't do a damn thing more to get the extra $5/hr. I was forced to pay it to you. You know that I still have to now pay you more and you don't have to do anything above and beyond what your original $5/hr job was. You contributed nothing more to my business and made more money in doing so.

You are missing two essential points here.

Increasing the income floor for the lowest earners doesn't have any effect on worker motivation. Workers in the United States are generally paid less for their output as wages haven't increased in 10 years to keep up with inflation. I am sure you knew that already, what with your vast knowledge of economics.

>Now as a business owner, I would then seek out other means of production, so now instead of you making $5/hr, I have fired you and replaced you with a kiosk that only costs me $7/hr to operate and doesn't mess things up.

Companies do this already wherever possible. Automation will always be cheaper than employing an actual person.
>>
>>61059141
Raising the minimum wage will lower the expenditures on welfare.

>>61060054
>Government should offer minimum wage work to anyone who wants a job
Don't say those kinds of things unless you are referring to the welfare queens in the military. Neocons hate domestic investment. They would rather invest into the military industrial complex.
>>
>>61060348
>Don't say those kinds of things unless you are referring to the welfare queens in the military. Neocons hate domestic investment. They would rather invest into the military industrial complex.
Here is how you put it to them:
>The unemployed are sitting around doing nothing and not only that, but they are also getting welfare. This policy would take them off welfare and put the lazy cunts to use.
>>
>>61053976
>if I don't respect the position, then society should subsidize the living expenses of the labour

You're an easily swayed mushbrain. You should learn to think about things rather then just regurgitating things that other people say, and never even contemplating a situation before commenting.
>>
>>61060505
You know why that doesn't work?
>The uneducated and lazy shouldn't simply be given jobs and paid with my hard earned tax dollars. They should find jobs in the private sector where they won't have their hands in my pockets.
They will always find a way to victimize the poor.
>>
>>61059387

Middle class? LOL. You share housing. You have a roommate. You're not anywhere near Middle class.

You're no different than a dude who lives in his mom's basement. You are too poor to afford a home so you have to SHARE HOUSING. That's pathetic.
>>
>>61053935
anyone in any state can do this easily on even the minimum wage

note that this does not include drinking yourself stupid on weekends, a 70" tv, new apple products, $200 sneakers or living alone in a large home.

What does it mean? Relying on your family and meeting your familial obligations. Having a cheap car and driving carefully. Being responsible.

That's what we're really talking about isn't it? Whether you want to be responsible for yourself or not.
>>
File: gentlemen.jpg (45 KB, 599x599) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
gentlemen.jpg
45 KB, 599x599
>>61054603
>I'm fucking useless and can't do anything well except cook shitty food and it shows where ever I go
>Must be rich people's fault
>>
File: mcdonaldspay.jpg (133 KB, 600x745) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mcdonaldspay.jpg
133 KB, 600x745
>>61060733
>anyone in any state can do this easily on even the minimum wage
This thought process led to McDonalds creating this. Apparently it is possible to survive if you are working two jobs, have no heating, and pay $20/month for health insurance.
>>
>>61060682
Then you should explain to them that taxes don't pay for anything (including welfare or public wages) in a fiat money system. That's not an easy concept for normies to grasp but it's important.
>>
File: 1451451226332.jpg (170 KB, 1000x666) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451451226332.jpg
170 KB, 1000x666
>>61053935
Should a minimum wage job be considered a full-time job?
>>
>>61060733
No, he's talking about an actual situation, a worker, which exists, and whether or not they should be able to subsist on their wage.

You're trying to deflect by babbling about resources that a worker might not even have available to them, and tossing out strawmen regarding consumption habits.

because you know that you can not address op's question directly, as ethically it should not be the job of the commons, or any other third party to pay for the subsistence of the labour force of the private sector.

Otherwise, you're arguing for a welfare state.
>>
>>61060953
I reckon you are the same Aussie from yesterday. We discussed money supply, government spending, the Gold Standard, and the floating exchange rate.
>>
>>61061114
That's right.
>>
>>61060941
Or you can put some of that 800 remaining dollars to work for insurance and heating if you need to spend more on those. 800 is a lot if you aren't bad with money.
>>
>>61061231
Therefore no disposable income or savings for retirement while working two jobs for the rest of your life. I'd imagine the Chinese at Foxconn manage a more fulfilling life. McDonalds will need to start netting their roofs to prevent jumpers.
>>
>>61053935

No, any man worth anything should cooperate with his fellow working man or woman to survive.
>>
>>61053935
If a full-time worker cannot get any of these, he'll find another way to get them whether by working a second job, opting out to fresh opportunities elsewhere, or by turning to crime (be it petty squatting or violently taking).
>>
>>61053935
Not if hes doing work a monkey could do
>>
>>61062483
see
>>61060941
Petty crime it is.

>>61062650
If monkeys could do their work, I am sure they would already be employed.
>>
>>61062650
If a monkey can do it then the boss would just employ a monkey instead.
If the job needs a human but won't pay the human a socially acceptable wage (minimum wage) then it's tough luck for the boss.
>But then the worker will be unemployed
That is a problem in current society because the unemployed are basically shafted. Unemployment is an inflation control buffer stock meaning the system expects anywhere in excess of 5% of the workforce to be unemployed at any time. There are better ways to deal with that problem than lowering min wage and spouting bootstraps rhetoric.
>>
>>61063203
Well said. You must have the patience of a saint not to pull your hair out while discussing economics with people who incessantly repeat the same talking points.
>>
>>61053935
They already can.
But they choose not to be frugal and leave beyond their means, or try to live the same lifestyle their well off parents have made them accustom to.

This coming from a bloke who used to live comfortably on $7.75 an hour.
Shit's not hard. Just need to know how to budget and not blast your paycheck away on drugs and alcohol.

Hell, my old man raised a family of five on a cunt hair over minimum wage.
Young people these days need to learn to do better.
>>
>>61053935
No. Why would he work for me then?
>>
>>61064151
I wish they would diversify their bullshit and make it a little more interesting.

>>61064279
I don't think you understood the question.
>a full-time worker
This means he is working 40hrs/week (or whatever you define full time as). If he's not working then this question doesn't apply to him.
>>
>>61064252
>raised a family of five on a cunt hair over minimum wage
I don't know about Canada, but the minimum wage in the United States 30 years ago could easily support an individual and possibly a family. Since the minimum wage hasn't been adjusted for the steady inflation or increased output, these anecdotes are no longer applicable to the current situation.

This has very little to do with individuals who buy expensive cellphones and drugs, and subsequently can't pay their mortgages. This is about adults, who aren't paid a living wage.
>>
>>61064516
This wasn't 30 years ago though. More like 10.
We didn't go without luxury either. We had a fairly comfy life for the most part.
No fancy trips or high end foods/toys.
But a reasonable lifestyle.
I can't help but think that most of the people bitching about the minimum wage have come out of college, with a useless degree, and end up working some shit McJob somewhere.
Then they bitch and moan because their standard of life has to drop in accordance with their station in life, and they just can't accept it.
>>
>>61064655
10 years ago
>5 kids
>comfy life
>$9/hr
>wife
I am inclined to believe that the minimum wage job was actually a front for illegal black market commerce. Was he also a chemistry teacher?
>>
>>61064952
Mill worker in a veneer mill.
Shopped for groceries by playing the on sale game.
Saved where he could so we could afford the few luxuries we had.
Only habits are smoking and drinking.
Doesn't touch the drugs of any kind.
He's a responsible adult.
Unlike most "adults" I see in the city of Toronto.
>>
>>61054326
No, that's wrong. There are limited resources, and the most limited of those resources is living space. The largest expense in most peoples' lives is rent, and this is where most complaints that full time workers "can't live" comes from.

You are not entitled to an apartment in San Francisco. You are not entitled to beachfront property. You are not entitled to live in a college town. This is why everyone bitching about muh income muh inequality is from the coastal Blue states, where the cost of living explodes through the roof because of the premium on realestate in and around big cities.

In parts of Texas you can rent a four bedroom house for what an apartment goes for in Santa Cruz. Don't even get me started on the various middle states. The reason you idiots think that it's impossible to live on minimum wage (to say nothing of the $10 starting that is more common these days) is that you live in a Leftist shithole where overregulation and insane legislation has made living space Yuropoor levels of expensive.

Blame your own shitty legislators for making it illegal to build two story buildings because of muh historic skyline or whatever the fuck, don't bitch to me that your burger-flipping job doesn't let you live in Hollywood.
>>
>>61053935
if he couldnt even do that why would anyone hire him?
cant have a guy showing up naked all the time
Thread replies: 67
Thread images: 8
Thread DB ID: 445837



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.