Employers deprive workers of a life

[cynic]

That $15-18 estimate was based on the data provided by a very influential left-wing special interest group.

I may disagree with everything that group stands for, but since they’re the ones pushing for living wage laws in D.C., chances are good that any living wage legislation passed would closely approximate their recommendations.

Did you just refer to the US CENSUS BUREAU as “some organization”???

Really?

Now you’ve gone and made me break my promise to not make you look “silly.”

I think you should reconsider whether it is worth at least considering the US CENSUS BUREAU’S definition of the poverty level in a discussion involving the poverty level in the US?

I don’t live in America, and am only guestimating what the cost of living really is for you people (yeah ya got me). However 15-18 USD would be a lot where I am, far too much for a minimum wage.

I’m not sure whether a living wage = survival wage from the perspective of the US Census Bureau, I think their definition of poverty is a bit suspect.

Well, lets see- since, as I’ve demonstrated with actual data and not simple conjecture, millions of people would be added to the welfare rolls via your “top-up” system, without reducing or removing benefits for those who are not currently working.

Yep, that would appear to be consistent with a net increase in people receiving benefits.

Your ‘demonstration’ is much conjecture as anyting I’ve said. Because your Census Bereu defines poverty at some level doesn’t mean a government has to base it’s welfare policy around that. I mean it’s not now, so why would it have to in future?

Also people currently on welfare - the DBP and the dole - would be receiving far less money via a top up scheme. Isn’t that obvious? Just compare the bill to the government of supporting someones entire living costs (plus children), with a subsidy on earnings.

For example a single mother with 3 children currently receiving $500 a week in welfare would only need a $100 “top up” on her wages if she worked, perhaps more to cover the cost of daycare (guessing, I don’t know what single mothers get in the US, but it still seems like there could be a big saving). Then there are the positive effects of getting those people out to work. Your alternative of removing welfare aid altogethor means those children have to go in foster care.

It’s also worth mentioning that the family on 20-35k you mentioned would have much higher living costs if it were up to you, as they would have to find money for private education (no public schools)

Just a tip, and I say this with all sincerity-

Don’t resort to red herring and ad hominem attacks. We clearly haven’t been discussing the use of taxes to wage wars- most people would realize pretty quickly that you’re just throwing random topics at me because you can’t defend your position on its own merits.

Yet it seems that you’d be happy for company and personal tax to continue - with all the negative effects - as long as it’s not used for welfare.

 

[cynic]

That’s when my boyfriend applied for a job in another country - Korea. Suddenly the government gets involved - he has to pay money to apply for the visa. He needs to take a language course before he’s eligible for a visa. His new employer at the widget factory sends him a plane ticket, and he comes over here. He works 16 hour days, six days a week. Unlike the local employees, he’s locked into his contract. The government will deport him if he looks for another job. The government will deport him if he gets fired. Suddenly, the company has the freedom to ask him to work seven days a week, because of the government intervention. Sure, the government protects workers, too. Workers are guaranteed pension and health insurance - but if your company doesn’t provide it, how many widget makers can afford a lawyer? And besides, the company will fire you, and you’re immediately deported so you don’t have the chance to fight for wrongful dismissal and unpaid benefits. Oh, yeah. And foreign workers aren’t allowed to unionize.

Yeah. So government intervention isn’t really too supportive of workers - after all, is it the workers or the employers who contribute to campaigns? I’m not so convinced that other governments do better, or that locals are treated any more reasonably.

So the Korean government is not particularly supportive of foreign workers.

Beyond this, what does your story prove?

 

[cynic]

…millions of people would be added to the welfare rolls via your “top-up” system, without reducing or removing benefits for those who are not currently working.

The portion in bold is a blatant example of misrepresentation.

A major factor in the top-up system is that it does remove or reduce benefits for those currently not working. It requires them to work, and if they have dependents (single parent), provides them with help at a fraction of what the current welfare bill would be.

 

[Michael_David]

Cynic said:"For example a single mother with 3 children currently receiving $500 a week in welfare would only need a $100 “top up” on her wages if she worked, perhaps more to cover the cost of daycare (guessing, I don’t know what single mothers get in the US, but it still seems like there could be a big saving). Then there are the positive effects of getting those people out to work. Your alternative of removing welfare aid altogethor means those children have to go in foster care.

It’s also worth mentioning that the family on 20-35k you mentioned would have much higher living costs if it were up to you, as they would have to find money for private education (no public schools)"

Here we have a single mother earning $12 an hour and still needing money to get to $15 an hour. Why is that?. Because when taxes are paid she ‘again’ is only making $12 an hour clear. So what she want’s is to be Tax Free.

This wage is far from minimum, three times minimum to be exact.
It still disregards those that are making the $10 an hour (both earning $5 an hour) and PAYING taxes for the ‘top up’ of the mother making MORE then they are after taxes (closer to $8 combined).

My contention here is the Greed involved with this mother “wanting a living wage” while depriving those couples working of the very same thing. And, this to tic’s me off: how can this welfare mother be 'such a good mother wanting the best for her kids (from many different guys, not husbands), and still not be able to have a guy turn into a father and husband? What is best for the kids is to have a Father/Mother raise them… together! What is best for the mother is to get rid of the guy and go on welfare… but it is not best for the very kids the mother is putting in our faces to increase her benefits or ‘top up’ her wages.

By this very insistence of her ‘very bad’ relationship ability, she touts her very superior motherly skills… this in and of itself is a ‘contradiction’! And in this Catholic Forum, it shows a very bad moral character of the very mother wanting society to raise her kids, all from illicit relationships.

I’ll add, is this woman/mother really the best one to raise those kids? What does the father say about it? What do us two parent families being taxed into poverty, to raise her kids, think? Perhaps it’s time to tell the mother, if the father isn’t there (or known and can be found) she will receive no benefits or ‘top ups’. I think welfare should try to keep the parents together, not make sure they get kicked out as is now the case.

And since this topic is about workers, those who do work and pay taxes, the subject of welfare and who pays for it, is who is “depriving workers of a life”.

 

[Roza]

I was making $12.25 an hour before my almost 10 yrs job ended due offshore outsourcing… we cost too much. Will I ever see that again I wonder? I’ve even gone down to saying $8.50 an hour though in a job class they said put your minimum as $9. Again Lord, help me in my attitude when I speak to someone in Manila, India, Philippines etc…

My aversion to being on welfare at this moment isn’t a pride issue, but it is an issue of I know I can work. I want to work… I’d really love my job back but that’s not going to happen. I pray this country’s leaders and our companies get some common sense… stop sending our jobs OUT of the US. Enough already!

 

[Oscarthecat]

The portion in bold is a blatant example of misrepresentation.

A major factor in the top-up system is that it does remove or reduce benefits for those currently not working. It requires them to work, and if they have dependents (single parent), provides them with help at a fraction of what the current welfare bill would be.

So, in your world it is perfectly acceptable to require that people hold a job in order to be eligible for government benefits…meaning that those who don’t work are going to go without government benefits and become dependent on charity, or simply starve…

But in my world, people need to work to earn a living for themselves, and if they refuse to work they will likely become dependent on charity or simply starve…

The only difference in these two scenarios is that in your world the government bureaucrats eat up a lot of money that should have rightfully gone to the employer, the worker, and the charities helping the non-workers.

 

[a_priori]

…it’s about allowing the employee to decide how many hours they wish to work (and not be penalized for it).

This comes under the heading of “things that make you go huh?”