In response to:

25 Questions about What the Hell has Happened to America

believersss Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 3:08 AM
"16) People stop becoming ashamed of taking welfare, school lunches, food stamps, receiving handouts, and living in their parents’ basements" If companies actually paid a living wage then this wouldn't be an issue. I know several people in my community who work 40hr+ weeks (admittedly in not well regarded jobs like janitors, clerical, cleaning) and simply cannot afford to pay the rent, pay for their kids schooling, pay for gas, pay for medical expenses, etc. They don't expect riches, but a FIRST WORLD society should provide enough income fulltime workers to meet their meager needs. We lived on a single income when I was a little girl and we had more than many 2 income households do today... Offshoring and wage stagnation are evil.
same10 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:41 AM
So is twenty million illegals!
Ron4594 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:34 AM
Barry's putting 23,000,000 Americans out of work caused the problem.

Excessive tax rates started the outsourcing.
MadisonWannabe Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:21 AM
If companies actually paid a living wage then this wouldn't be an issue.--- All people have to do is voluntarily pay higher prices and then your company could pay you more.
You need to realize that your company must meet the competitor or the customer goes down the street exactly like you do to get the best price for yourself. Your complaint is that of a person who has never seen both sides of a business. Your company will pay 200 dollars an hour to mop floors if the competition is doing the same.
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 11:16 AM
And this where the logical fallacy of the "race to the bottom" comes in. The libs think that if minimum wage laws were done away with that the bottom would drop out of everyone's paycheck overnight. It's not true. Businesses still have to compete with one another for a limited number of qualified employees and those employees will go somewhere else if they are given a better deal. The only person who lowers wages is the one who doesn't mind being left with imbeciles and layabouts for employees who end up ruining their business when all the qualified workers go elsewhere and no employer wants that.
MadisonWannabe Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 2:27 PM
You are correct. A business must meet the competition on more than one front. If the prices are too high the customers leave. If wages are too low good employees leave. The method in vogue now seems to be government intervention via the "fix" to an elected official.
Frank391 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:11 AM
Please define what is a living wage? Perhaps your friends are simply being paid for what their labor is worth. Don't like it. Start your own company.
Big O7 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:03 AM
We saw through you the moment you started in with "living wage", amiga. But thanks for playing. Stage left please.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 7:00 AM
Companies pay what workers are worth. They are businesses, not charities.

People who want to make more money have to make themselves worth more money by proving their diligence, reliability, willingness to take on new tasks, etc.

Nobody owes anyone anything. People have to work for what they want.
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 4:49 AM
Idiot, if companies paid a living wage then nobody would be able to afford to buy anything. We've already seen a living wage in action in any business that has to deal with a labor union and most of those jobs end up going overseas. The businesses that are left are ones that CAN'T go overseas so they will just fire staff or go out of business.
believersss Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 5:10 AM
But isn't there something intrinsically wrong with a system where someone could work full time and yet not have enough money to have a home, family and at least some sort of leisure?
Hard Thought Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 6:02 AM
No.

Simply put, a "living wage" is a fallacy. I'll even try to be polite, but economics is neither fair nor polite.

Companies pay what the labor is worth in regards to the business. Highly skilled workers are in demand and earn much better pay. Companies will not, can not, and should not pay more for labor than the labor contributes to the business.

If you want a "living wage" become a skilled worker, learn something valuable and provide more value for your labor. Pay will be commensurate.
Hard Thought Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 6:05 AM
There is nothing wrong with our system. There is equality of opportunity, but there will never be equality of outcome.

As Benjamin Franklin said, and I paraphrase; "I do not wish to make people comfortable in their poverty. I wish to make it so uncomfortable that the poor will do anything to escape their poverty." On this, I agree.

"Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

It is too bad that so many don't want to learn to fish.
wmou Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 7:45 AM
When I got out of HS I worked full time at a car wash for minimum wage. I shared an apartment with two people, did not own a car and ate a lot of rice and potatoes.

I did not expect a wage high enough to raise a family from working in a car wash. If the govt forced them to pay a living wage, I may have stayed there instead of going to college
Frank391 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:13 AM
NO! It is a sign that you need to increase your worth to the company so that they pay you more.
same10 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:43 AM
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 11:10 AM
People who are unskilled are not justified in receiving high wages. So, no, they are not entitled to live as well as workers with more skills or experience.
Red Spot in a Blue State Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 2:31 PM
For the first time, I agree with you.
Lars795 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 3:21 AM
Just please do not ask for the minimum wage to be increased. You increase that and ALL costs will go up; so it is as if it never happened, or more like that it was a decrease.
I remember in the military that we got a pay increase, it was great to hear until we receive our first check and actually had less take home because we all moved into the next tax bracket.

And yes, it used to be that all one needed was a single income, one car, one TV, everyone took vacations, most people saved up to buy a home, and medical was not problem, Dr's and hospitals worked with you.
MarineCorpsVet Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:10 AM
I wish people would quit substantiating the claim that America has been "dumbed down" about economics. The major change since the Nirvana of single paycheck families is that the government has been taking more and more and distributing it to those that contribute less and less. That is the problem in a nutshell. We could have our high standard of living back if the government would just leave more for of our earnings for us to determine where it should be spent.
Frank391 Wrote: Sep 04, 2012 8:13 AM
You can't afford things because 1) the government is taxing you to death and 2) you demand more. Did you parents have cell phones? Satellite TV? More than 1 car? You thinking is what is seriously out of whack
Conservative abroad Wrote: Sep 05, 2012 1:41 AM
Vet, you are completely correct. The government has been taking more from productive families and giving the money to Great Society programs whose sole outcome is to decrease the productivity of the recievers. That's why welfare recipients have more children than taxpayers. The government is also swamping our workforce with mass immigration at the behest of companies to push down wages.

When did...

1) ....Educated people become so unfamiliar with small business that they began to believe that a company will practically build itself as long as the government provides roads, street signs, and police?

2) ...Freedom change from something we should all be seeking to something we're supposed to be terrified to face without the government holding our hands?

3) ...We stop asking, "Can we afford this?" along with "Is this a good idea?" when it comes to government programs?

4) ...Demanding that people come to this country legally if they want to stay...