Minimum wage

[Omnitheo]

Minimum wage laws have been around for 80 years, and have continually been updated. At most points the increases to minimum wage has more closely reflected inflation and living expenses. Which means even in the past when the minimum wage was half of what it is now. That money still went further and was worth more than it is today.

Yet somehow businesses have survived. Unemployment remains low. The sky didn’t fall. This increase will be no different than any we’ve seen over the past 8 decades. Despite the exact same fear mongering that goes on each time, regardless of how much of an increase it actually is.

[Veovis]

It called MINIMUM for a reason. Not "Live a comfortable whatever you desire."

[Omnitheo]

It’s a minimum so that people can work their *bleep* off and still have a place to sleep, and food to eat, and basic necessities.

Nobody is expecting to eat steak every night and drive a good car on min wage. Unfortunately the cost of those basic necessities has been increasing and min wage has not increased at the same rate alongside. In some cases it has lgged behind and been frozen for a decade.

[rustled]

I don't think we should keep ignoring all the people who do not need enough to cover all the necessities (because much of this is already provided through some other means), but who do need a job.

[twobits]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/paramedics-response-to-burger-flippers-making-an-equal-15hour-is-beautiful/

I just lifted this off of facebook.

We are fighting over crumbs while the bosses make millions or billions.

Just who are the "bosses" Queen? The owners of a Timmies are not making millions are they? No. So your millions or billions in profits must be in reference to a very large business. Likely traded on the stock market with millions of investors (owners of the company stock) so why would profit of millions be unfair if shared amongst millions of owners?
You need some perspective on your term of 'Bosses".
BTW, plenty of those "bosses" are the pension plan that millions of citizens are vested in.

[johnny24]

It’s a minimum so that people can work their *bleep* off and still have a place to sleep, and food to eat, and basic necessities.
.

Slavery system also accomplishes this.

[johnny24]

Just who are the "bosses" Queen? The owners of a Timmies are not making millions are they? No. So your millions or billions in profits must be in reference to a very large business. Likely traded on the stock market with millions of investors (owners of the company stock) so why would profit of millions be unfair if shared amongst millions of owners?
You need some perspective on your term of 'Bosses".
BTW, plenty of those "bosses" are the pension plan that millions of citizens are vested in.

Not sure what your point is, but shareholders aren't "Bosses". Companies generally hire someone to be a CEO, GM, etc. to run a company. Those are the people that make everyday decisions on how the company is run and the people that I would call bosses. Those are the people that Queen is talking about.

Queen is saying not enough of the profits are going back to the actual people that did the work to create the profits. You seemed more concerned about the people (shareholders) that did zero work to get their money.

[Corneliousrooster]

I would really like to see the same amount of effort being put forth towards real change that might actually "improve" the situations of those most affected.

So many seem to think it is okay for the gov't to interfere and mandate wage increases - why not interfere and mandate rent decreases? Why not interfere and take control of staple pricing, such as bread, milk, flour, sugar? Why not interfere and mandate price restrictions on energy for heating and transportation?

So much talk of "living wage" yet all the fight seems focused on the least benefit possible, with the maximum disruption to the free market enterprises.

[GordonH]

Just who are the "bosses" Queen? The owners of a Timmies are not making millions are they? No. So your millions or billions in profits must be in reference to a very large business. Likely traded on the stock market with millions of investors (owners of the company stock) so why would profit of millions be unfair if shared amongst millions of owners?
You need some perspective on your term of 'Bosses".
BTW, plenty of those "bosses" are the pension plan that millions of citizens are vested in.

Not sure what your point is, but shareholders aren't "Bosses". Companies generally hire someone to be a CEO, GM, etc. to run a company. Those are the people that make everyday decisions on how the company is run and the people that I would call bosses. Those are the people that Queen is talking about.

Queen is saying not enough of the profits are going back to the actual people that did the work to create the profits. You seemed more concerned about the people (shareholders) that did zero work to get their money.

Shareholders/investors want the largest possible return on their investment, they are not interested how that happens or who is effected.

[Urban Cowboy]

Just who are the "bosses" Queen? The owners of a Timmies are not making millions are they? No. So your millions or billions in profits must be in reference to a very large business. Likely traded on the stock market with millions of investors (owners of the company stock) so why would profit of millions be unfair if shared amongst millions of owners?
You need some perspective on your term of 'Bosses".
BTW, plenty of those "bosses" are the pension plan that millions of citizens are vested in.

Not sure what your point is, but shareholders aren't "Bosses". Companies generally hire someone to be a CEO, GM, etc. to run a company. Those are the people that make everyday decisions on how the company is run and the people that I would call bosses. Those are the people that Queen is talking about.

Queen is saying not enough of the profits are going back to the actual people that did the work to create the profits. You seemed more concerned about the people (shareholders) that did zero work to get their money.

True I suppose, but who do you think those "bosses" are beholden to if not the shareholders?

How many times have we read of a CEO/GM etc. being given the boot because they didn't perform up to shareholders expectations?

[Bsuds]

So many seem to think it is okay for the gov't to interfere and mandate wage increases - why not interfere and mandate rent decreases? Why not interfere and take control of staple pricing, such as bread, milk, flour, sugar? Why not interfere and mandate price restrictions on energy for heating and transportation?

That kind of sounds like Communism to me.

I would rather the Gov't keep their grubby little hands and minds out of our day to day stuff period.

[Poindexter]

GordonH:
Shareholders/investors want the largest possible return on their investment, they are not interested how that happens or who is effected.

^^
Exactly right and no one is blaming shareholders for wanting the largest possible return on thier investment. This insatiable need however creates an environment where some government intervention is required to protect the entire system from becoming too top heavy. Setting a reasonable minimum wage not only protects the employees but the companies who require demand of thier products to be profitable. It's a win win except to those who are libertarian and misguided into believing that economic equality is self regulating.

[johnny24]

True I suppose, but who do you think those "bosses" are beholden to if not the shareholders?

How many times have we read of a CEO/GM etc. being given the boot because they didn't perform up to shareholders expectations?

But the millions and millions of shareholders that the previous poster was referring to have very little influence on any of these decisions. It's the few major investor(s) that will make those decisions. In smaller companies, often times the CEO and the majority owner are the same people.

[rustled]

Exactly right and no one is blaming shareholders for wanting the largest possible return on thier investment. This insatiable need however creates an environment where some government intervention is required to protect the entire system from becoming too top heavy. Setting a reasonable minimum wage not only protects the employees but the companies who require demand of thier products to be profitable. It's a win win except to those who are libertarian and misguided into believing that economic equality is self regulating.

I haven't seen anyone here objecting to the government managing the minimum wage. That has been the case for quite some time.

As I see it, this discussion is about having the government set that minimum wage at a rate at which any person working full time without any other form of support could provide themselves with food and shelter.

IMO, this tactic is bound to cause more problems than it can solve.

[GordonH]

As I see it, this discussion is about having the government set that minimum wage at a rate at which any person working full time without any other form of support could provide themselves with food and shelter.

IMO, this tactic is bound to cause more problems than it can solve.

Employers will cut both employees &/or hours, were ever they can. ie more automated cashiers, fewer floor staff etc.... etc