Economy US chamber of commerce calls for immediate end of $300 per week boost to unemployment

[Sano]

For the vast majority of people, it is certainly a livable wage. Maybe there's a very small contingent that it isn't, but there are many social programs (not just federal, but state and city level too). And if you prove you are a hard worker you should have no problem getting a raise or a higher paying job. If you can't, it's not an issue with the government not setting a higher minimum wage (which has plenty of drawbacks), but an issue with the market not having enough jobs to match demand.

Look how far you've pushed the envelope. It's absurb to expect someone to work >60 hours a week simply to be able to survive. Should not happen, is not sustainable and do not need to either. No, plenty of hard workers wont get a raise, especially in manual labor jobs. The money is still coming out of someone elses pocket because these people need to live. The free hand of the market isn't free, it's constantly being manipulated.

By the logic applied, then why not make them work for 4 dollars and then just 80 hours a week? That would be just a little less absurd. I just can't fathom the mindset living in the country that I do. We have so much better conditions, and we're not the richest country in the history of the world.

 

[panamaican]

The government sets plenty of arbitrary numbers. I think you are overthinking what they choose to call a minimum wage. And a minimum wage isn't a livable wage, it's just a minimum (although it can easily be livable as well).

The welfare programs are set at higher than that wage to force people to get their basic necessities (food, healthcare, etc.). If you just gave people money, a good chunk of that group wouldn't save it and spend it either frivolously, on drugs, or just plain overbudget. I'd prefer our welfare programs actually work that way in general, be service/product based rather than just giving people money.

And the government paid money during the pandemic because of restrictions they put on the free market. While I didn't entirely agree with such restrictions or the government giving money in general, if the government imposes a burden then they should bear the cost of that burden.

Also stop saying that I am "being dishonest" or "lying". Save that level of commentary for CNN and Fox, you just look like a hack.

First, I never said that you were dishonest or lying. I said that you were missing the point of my posts. Go back, read my post and look to where I ever claim dishonesty.

As to the subject of your post - again, I don't particularly care about the minimum wage. I use it to illustrate a larger point. Specifically, the pathology that leads people to believe that best way to get other people to work is to force them into abject poverty first and then see if they can claw their way out of it.

So to return to the same point that I keep repeating - if the wage is sufficient then there would be no need to set welfare programs at a higher level. The recipients wouldn't need it.

This is repeated in your point about the government bearing the cost of restricting work. What you haven't addressed is why the government set the cost of that burden at such a high number. What I said and you still haven't addressed is that the number the government chose is a better approximation of the actual cost of living.

To put it another way - why not set the figure at the equivalent of minimum wage or at the welfare entry points while restricting work? That should have been sufficient for people to get their basic necessities, right? But they didn't. And they didn't because they knew that such a figure was legitimately too low for most Americans to live on. That's a premise of my argument. If you're going to argue with my conclusion, that's where you should start.

 

[Renard]

For the vast majority of people, it is certainly a livable wage. Maybe there's a very small contingent that it isn't, but there are many social programs (not just federal, but state and city level too). And if you prove you are a hard worker you should have no problem getting a raise or a higher paying job. If you can't, it's not an issue with the government not setting a higher minimum wage (which has plenty of drawbacks), but an issue with the market not having enough jobs to match demand.

It's a "livable" wage in the sense that you're alive, sure. Most people are talking about a living wage.

In many ways minimum wage is worse than being on assistance; it's essentially indentured servitude. Usually these are people who are responsible but have dependents and are on the hook for maintaining some degree of stability. They make just enough to keep afloat but they have no means of escaping or improving their circumstances. Their car is breaking down, they haven't had a vacation in 5 years, they're under chronic stress - with all the health repercussions that entails, they're eternal renters, their clothes are from the second-hand store, they're in chronic pain from medical issues they can't get treated.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Why not Just let people keep more of the money they make instead of taxing it to death. In Canada, the money gets taken from us and given to the federal government, then to the provincial , municipal , agencies ,then to us . It's so unnecessary

 

[lifelessheap]

Right...which is the point.

Wages have stagnated to such a degree that what the government thinks is appropriate when people can't work during a pandemic is significantly more than what people are earning during normal times.

If it's appropriate during a pandemic for people to survive then it's fucked up that people who are actually working 40 hour work weeks can't make that same amount. The sad thing isn't that the pandemic money is more than what people make working. The sad thing is that the pandemic shows us what the government thinks people really need to live on and it's much more than many a working man can earn actually working.

Just think about that for a second, that it took a pandemic to show what is considered a living income, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Nah, the government is pushing communist mentality.

 

[Fugazy]

Right...which is the point.

Wages have stagnated to such a degree that what the government thinks is appropriate when people can't work during a pandemic is significantly more than what people are earning during normal times.

If it's appropriate during a pandemic for people to survive then it's fucked up that people who are actually working 40 hour work weeks can't make that same amount. The sad thing isn't that the pandemic money is more than what people make working. The sad thing is that the pandemic shows us what the government thinks people really need to live on and it's much more than many a working man can earn actually working.

Just think about that for a second, that it took a pandemic to show what is considered a living income, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

That’s a good point, and a good way to add some context to all this.

 

[Prefect]

Average rent in America is ~$1100
For a poorer neighbourhood, lets say thats ~$800, plus utilities = $900
$900 a month = $10.8K a year

$7.50 an hour working 40 hour weeks = $15.6K = $13.7K after taxes (assuming no deductions)
13.7 - 10.8 = $2.9K
Average American person spends ~$3K per year on groceries, let's say in a poorer situation you spend ~$2K (less with EBT)

$4.8K - $2K = $800. Not a lot of money but still about breaking even. And if you'd like to save more you could always work more hours as well.

Assuming you are in a relationship, both making minimum wage = $30.2K = $27.4K after taxes (assuming no deductions)
After housing = $16.8K
After food = $12.8K

$12.8K is quite a bit of money to save up a year, you can afford a brad new car every year.

So minimum wage might be somewhat uncomfortable single, but as a couple you are saving quite a bit of money per year, assuming you budget correctly and live in an appropriate neighborhood. And given most people are in a relationship this is very comfortably livable.

No.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Poor people live in luxury on minimum wage.

 

[Prefect]

Poor people live in luxury on minimum wage.

You can't even get illegal immigrant labor at Home Depot for minimum wage.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

In the US is there a limit to how long you can collect unemployment benefits? In Canada you’re limited to 50 weeks. After that you’re on your own.

 

[Scheme]

Look how far you've pushed the envelope. It's absurb to expect someone to work >60 hours a week simply to be able to survive. Should not happen, is not sustainable and do not need to either. No, plenty of hard workers wont get a raise, especially in manual labor jobs. The money is still coming out of someone elses pocket because these people need to live. The free hand of the market isn't free, it's constantly being manipulated.

By the logic applied, then why not make them work for 4 dollars and then just 80 hours a week? That would be just a little less absurd. I just can't fathom the mindset living in the country that I do. We have so much better conditions, and we're not the richest country in the history of the world.

How far I've pushed the envelope? You are saying in the event that someone has no family help, has no additional benefits from the federal/state/city, has no partner, has no roommates, has no desire to work more than 40 hours, has no chance at getting a raise, then they can't live off of the minimum wage. That's a very small group of people and I would argue in that case, they have the option to work more hours if they aren't making enough money. And why is expecting someone to work more hours to be able to make more money absurd? There are plenty of first world countries (specifically Asian countries and the US) where people often put in 60+ hour weeks.

 

[Scheme]

First, I never said that you were dishonest or lying. I said that you were missing the point of my posts. Go back, read my post and look to where I ever claim dishonesty.

As to the subject of your post - again, I don't particularly care about the minimum wage. I use it to illustrate a larger point. Specifically, the pathology that leads people to believe that best way to get other people to work is to force them into abject poverty first and then see if they can claw their way out of it.

So to return to the same point that I keep repeating - if the wage is sufficient then there would be no need to set welfare programs at a higher level. The recipients wouldn't need it.

This is repeated in your point about the government bearing the cost of restricting work. What you haven't addressed is why the government set the cost of that burden at such a high number. What I said and you still haven't addressed is that the number the government chose is a better approximation of the actual cost of living.

To put it another way - why not set the figure at the equivalent of minimum wage or at the welfare entry points while restricting work? That should have been sufficient for people to get their basic necessities, right? But they didn't. And they didn't because they knew that such a figure was legitimately too low for most Americans to live on. That's a premise of my argument. If you're going to argue with my conclusion, that's where you should start.

Well I think that's because the government doesn't trust the minimum wage workers to save money for their healthcare and food. The average cost of healthcare per person in America is $11K. If you simply add $11K to the $15K and set the minimum wage to equate to that, do you believe that people would save $11K for healthcare costs? I don't think so and I think the government recognizes that problem as well. If you simply give people more money they are more likely to spend it frivolously. That's why we also have things like 401ks, government pension funds and mandatory insurance coverages. Do you think the average person is going to save for the case that they get into a car accident if they simply got their mandatory car insurance payments waived?

 

[Scheme]

It's a "livable" wage in the sense that you're alive, sure. Most people are talking about a living wage.

In many ways minimum wage is worse than being on assistance; it's essentially indentured servitude. Usually these are people who are responsible but have dependents and are on the hook for maintaining some degree of stability. They make just enough to keep afloat but they have no means of escaping or improving their circumstances. Their car is breaking down, they haven't had a vacation in 5 years, they're under chronic stress - with all the health repercussions that entails, they're eternal renters, their clothes are from the second-hand store, they're in chronic pain from medical issues they can't get treated.

They qualify for Medicaid, so medical costs are already covered. Dependents allow some tax credits and additional social programs to come into effect and help them out.

Having a car, having a vacation, renting, having second hand clothes, none of that is necessary for surviving. When you say stuff like "living wage" or "barely surviving", then you paint a grimmer picture than what I think the actual situation is. Especially given how few people are in a situation where no additional conditions for help are available. There are people much worse off in the world who would love to 'barely survive' the way people do in America, and the hyperbole and lack of perspective irritates me. I'd wager most people on minimum wage who are 'struggling to survive' instead just have poor budgeting practices.

 

[SakurabasEar]

Its almost like 30 percent of our population doesn't actually want to work and the rest of us will always have to take care of them. What? Crazy

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

There are people much worse off in the world who would love to 'barely survive' the way people do in America, and the hyperbole and lack of perspective irritates me.

People in failed-state third-world zhitholes maybe, but not poor people in developed first-world countries.

 

[Prefect]

People in failed-state third-world zhitholes maybe, but not poor people in developed first-world countries.

What a fucking retard.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

These threads are a good way of rooting out who is lazy and poor here and who is not.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

First, I never said that you were dishonest or lying. I said that you were missing the point of my posts. Go back, read my post and look to where I ever claim dishonesty.

As to the subject of your post - again, I don't particularly care about the minimum wage. I use it to illustrate a larger point. Specifically, the pathology that leads people to believe that best way to get other people to work is to force them into abject poverty first and then see if they can claw their way out of it.

So to return to the same point that I keep repeating - if the wage is sufficient then there would be no need to set welfare programs at a higher level. The recipients wouldn't need it.

This is repeated in your point about the government bearing the cost of restricting work. What you haven't addressed is why the government set the cost of that burden at such a high number. What I said and you still haven't addressed is that the number the government chose is a better approximation of the actual cost of living.

To put it another way - why not set the figure at the equivalent of minimum wage or at the welfare entry points while restricting work? That should have been sufficient for people to get their basic necessities, right? But they didn't. And they didn't because they knew that such a figure was legitimately too low for most Americans to live on. That's a premise of my argument. If you're going to argue with my conclusion, that's where you should start.

Federal minimum wage is such a tricky subject though because of the vast disparity in cost of living across the country. I'm for a $15 or even $20 minimum wage here in NYC but if you're in some small town in Kentucky somewhere that might be much more than you need for your necessities.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

How far I've pushed the envelope? You are saying in the event that someone has no family help, has no additional benefits from the federal/state/city, has no partner, has no roommates, has no desire to work more than 40 hours, has no chance at getting a raise, then they can't live off of the minimum wage. That's a very small group of people and I would argue in that case, they have the option to work more hours if they aren't making enough money. And why is expecting someone to work more hours to be able to make more money absurd? There are plenty of first world countries (specifically Asian countries and the US) where people often put in 60+ hour weeks.

40 hours a week is a staple. Where are you from? How many hours a week do you work? Expecting people to work 60+ hours a week for a livable wage is elitist mentality. Let's set our standards to before the industrial revolution and put our kids to work. Grease for the gears.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Well I think that's because the government doesn't trust the minimum wage workers to save money for their healthcare and food. The average cost of healthcare per person in America is $11K. If you simply add $11K to the $15K and set the minimum wage to equate to that, do you believe that people would save $11K for healthcare costs? I don't think so and I think the government recognizes that problem as well. If you simply give people more money they are more likely to spend it frivolously. That's why we also have things like 401ks, government pension funds and mandatory insurance coverages. Do you think the average person is going to save for the case that they get into a car accident if they simply got their mandatory car insurance payments waived?

So are you advocating for a low minimum wage but that comes with a robust welfare and healthcare system?