What wage is just?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn t build attitude or character necessarily, but deep pain and resentment sometimes.
I know. Our society has evolved into weak, soft skinned children who need Mommy government to take care of us. I get it.
How can one wish anyone to live below the line of poverty? If we really know what it means.
Some scarcity and dire poverty are not the same thing
During his last two years of college, my husband worked two jobs and we earned just over $20,000. Well below the poverty level. It was very, very difficult, but he graduated with the dignity of having done it himself and we wouldn’t do it differently if we had to do it again.
And for the record, I also come from a place where health and education including university are free
No, you don’t.
 
Last edited:
Yikes! 😮 Might as well just upload everyone to the matrix while we’re at it, since were all going to be complete wards of the state by that point anyway.
 
Can we stop the argumentative and blatant lies. Tuition and healthcare are free for those who want them. Period
No they aren’t free. Somebody pays for them. Socialism comes with a handsome price tag.
 
Last edited:
If standing for the truth is intentionally being argumentative, then I stand guilty as charged.
 
Dispute our Constitutional rights and duties with whom it may concern as is the wording of our Constitution.
If you ever cross our border , you will be welcome and also welcome to abide by our laws.
As it should .
But please, stop disputing our Constitution and even its wording because it makes no sense and makes you look argumentative…
That we willingly contribute with our taxes to public and free( gratuita) education and health care( salud) for all people we consider a right and a duty that we have fulfilled for decades and we consider the basics for the common good and approve of it and abide by it, may be something foreign to you.
What we have is what we own. What you see is what we have bought . What we gladly yield for the common good is ours and nobody else’s money. It is daily work of our hands.
That we need to improve and a lot, you bet…
We believe it to be good and fair than everyone has an opportunity to study and to have access to health both to prevent and to heal. In solidarity with every adult, child, elderly in our nation we share what is for the good of each and all.
Our Constitution is by the people , for the people, and from the people.
So please once again, respect it. It is ours…
And now as off topic, I will be leaving this discussion respectfully and hope we can better understand each other.
 
Last edited:
Dispute our Constitutional rights and duties with whom it may concern as is the wording of our Constitution.
There’s no such thing as Constitutional rights. My rights don’t come from the Constitution. Do yours?
 
Lacking that, they shouldn’t be able to cut corners by paying people a pittance to work in a hell hole just to turn around and sell the product for good money by first world standards.
That’s still all very subjective. As @Theo520 has pointed out a couple times, these companies usually pay slightly more than the prior market rate in their country of operation - which makes sense even from a purely selfish business perspective. Many of the shock-stories about horrible business practises are actually about local companies. So, their presence there, for the workers in the country, is still preferable to their not being there. (The only argument you can really make about that would be a from a protectionist standpoint - ie: these multinationals hurt local business) So, the trend is positive, whether or not you think development is moving as fast as it should.
just to turn around and sell the product for good money by first world standards
Not doing so would risk falling stock value, etc. Over time, this could make both equity and debt financing more expensive. You might argue that multinationals can handle it - fair enough to an extent. But I argue that business is not a zero-sum game - in all cases (except a few where actual slavery or deception is involved) all parties involved gain something from voluntary business interactions, whether or not you think the gains are fairly distributed. Putting a damper on this likewise harms everyone involved in the long run.
Ideally a company should have to follow the work environment/safety laws of their home country, or whichever country has the higher standard
I take issue with your assumption that more regulation is always better. Politicians aren’t exactly the most altruistic, or prudent people- they have a strong incentive to do whatever will make them most popular in our virtue-signally, soundbite culture to get re-elected in the short run. Not the greatest standard for what should be done in an area where they have absolutely no authority. As an employee, just for purely selfish reasons, I’d love to see many of the labour regulations struck down in my own region (Ontario). Overtime and max work hours would be my first candidates.
 
I listened to the first twenty minutes and haven’t heard anything super relevant yet. At what point do they address the just wage topic? Thanks.
 
Really? We have a much higher minimim wage in Australia and don’t have particularly high unemployment. But then I live in a nation where homelessness is rare and people don’t have to work two jobs just to pay rent.
Australian unemployment rate is almost 50% greater and homeless rate is triple what it is in USA
 
Last edited:
Yes unemployment is higher. But we have good unemployment services and public housing. Free healthcare also provides for these individuals.

As explained earlier up thread homeless in Australia is classified as those living in emergency housing/hostels and/or public emergency homes. So the term ‘homeless’ doesn’t actually equate to people living on the streets like it may be implied in other countries. If you look at the stats of people not living in a dwelling it is very low.
 
Actually this is an interesting point. Lets talk about earlier generations and the America they lived in:
A lot of errors in that list. Divorce rates were highest during the war, and rose again while baby boomers (children of greatest generation) were growing up. Ethnically homogeneous? Depends on what part of the country. Immigration was low during the Great Depression and during the war, but skyrocketed right after the war. Taxes were extremely high after the war to pay off the war debt. Kennedy started lowering them from a high of 90% down to 70% for the highest bracket. Women in the workplace was high during the war, then they were released as the men came home. However, the numbers started increasing as the Greatest Generating aged, with boomers going all in. As far as sexual morals being enforced, I think the growth of immorality was just kept quiet.
For the Boomers, cheap college is relative. When you only make $1.90 an hour, the tuition, books and cost of living was pretty steep to me.
Millennials and inflation??? What a joke! The late 70s-early 80s had much higher inflation. My first house had an 11% mortgage in 1987. I bought a car in 1981 at about 18%.
I could go on, but I’m tired. You can actually google this stuff for yourself.
 
There are certain people who are homeless because they do not wish to live in a dwelling.

We have an amazing Rescue Mission in our city that provides beds, food, medical care, counselling, and training for the homeless. Many who come to the Rescue Mission are addicted (alcohol, opiates, etc.) and need help breaking free of the addiction.

During the most bitterly cold weather of the winters, our city police and volunteers work hard to locate homeless people and make sure they get to the Rescue Mission or another shelter (there are several churches that open temporary “cold weather” shelters that provide a warm place to sleep, a cot, and meals during the worst of the winter days).

Amazingly, though, there is a group of people who refuse to go under any kind of roof, even during the most dangerous cold weather. This winter, we set records for cold (50 below zero, and that’s actual temp, not windchill!), but these people STILL refused to come indoors. So the city and churches made sure that they had blankets, jackets, hot food, and they also made sure that stairwells and underpasses were kept clear so they could take some kind of shelter.

These people obviously have some kind of psychological issue that compels them to live outdoors and not be in a building. Some cities have built very inexpensive “shelters” that look kind of like teepees, and some of these people will go inside, but others still insist on living under bridges and in stairwells.

I watched a wonderful special on NBC (regular liberal network TV in the U.S.!) about the homeless, and they talked about these people who prefer to live on the streets and are not interested in any kind of housing. Sometimes, people just want to be free, and in Los Angeles (where this special was filmed due to the very large homeless population), the weather is not too bad to be living outdoors.

I remember one man lived in a “fort” that he had made out in a woods outside of L.A. He simply was not interested in being “housed.”

I’m telling you this because these people need to be factored into the equation when we talk about “people living on the streets” in the U.S.

There have always been people who live a “gypsy” life. They call themselves “hobos,” and they enjoy being free from a job and family, just travelling around the country mainly on foot, working odd jobs to earn a little money to buy some food–but they don’t want to live in a house and have a job. My father-in-law did a little “rail-riding” when he was a young man–he still calls himself a “vagabond.” Loved the travelling!

I know that many homeless are there because of misfortune, and yes, we need to help them. But there are some that choose the life, either due to something in their brain, or by their own free and intelligent will.
 
I know that many homeless are there because of misfortune, and yes, we need to help them. But there are some that choose the life, either due to something in their brain, or by their own free and intelligent will.
This video digs into the strong connection with addiction

 
With respect to that, at what does someone who hires someone become responsible for making sure they meet this minimum level? If I hire someone for 30 hours a week, am I responsible if he has no other means of employment? What if it’s only 25 or 20? Why set full time arbitrarily at 40? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that someone who isn’t worth that much hourly will just get another job to make up the difference? There’s nothing normal, historically speaking, about the 40hr week. Most employers work more than that.
 
Fair question, and I don’t have absolute answers, my numbers are rough estimates ( although not horribly far off).
There is something meaningful about 40 hours, it’s the accepted full time employment in our country. All of these decisions have to be made with regards one’s local environment.

I would add, if I was an employer and concerned if I am treating my employees justly, talking to one’s pastor would be a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Whatever is agreeable to employer and employee is just. Artificially imposed “minimums” cause unemployment and have become part of the neo-socialist wealth redistribution plan. Seattle’s utopians have decided that $15/hour is “fair” - never mind that less are actually hired.

Such socialistic ideas fail each time they are tried.
Walmart to roll out thousands more robots in stores …
The move also comes amid pressure for the world’s largest employer to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour from $11 an hour after an increase in January as a result of sweeping new tax legislation.


That equates to about 4,000 less janitorial jobs at Walmart stores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top