I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should businesses be required to pay a living wage? I think the onus here is on those of you demanding they must.

So you also have no answer.

Apparently it is you who have no answer. You demand something and give no justification for it. And then you say it is I who have no answer. And that after I have given an answer in a previous post.

 

[ksen]

Good question.

Maybe eventually someone will answer it with an answer and not questions designed to avoid it.

Why should businesses be required to pay a living wage? I think the onus here is on those of you demanding they must.

For one, because they oppose the government programs that would alleviate the need for higher wages from them.

So if they want a near nonexistent social safety net then they are going to have to come through with higher wages.

 

[dismal]

Why should businesses be required to pay a living wage? I think the onus here is on those of you demanding they must.

For one, because they oppose the government programs that would alleviate the need for higher wages from them.

So if they want a near nonexistent social safety net then they are going to have to come through with higher wages.

People who don't support the programs that allow corporations to get away without paying a living wage have nothing to answer for.

It's the people who do support the programs that are causing the problem.

And the worst of all are the people who support the programs that allow the companies to get away with it while at the same time railing about how the companies get away with it. Those are some messed up people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

For one, because they oppose the government programs that would alleviate the need for higher wages from them.

This is news to me. Employers have banded together to stop you from voting in government funded universal health care or a basic government income? Why would they do that?

So if they want a near nonexistent social safety net then they are going to have to come through with higher wages.

Why? Why should your employer be morally or legally responsible for your welfare? Your employer is not your mommy. Nor does everyone have an employer.

And the worst of all are the people who support the programs that allow the companies to get away with it while at the same time railing about how the companies get away with it. Those are some messed up people.

That does sound like an interesting contradiction. But why call it "getting away with" something? It is like me saying you are getting away with not doing my laundry.

 

[braces_for_impact]

One question. Are people that make bad choices in life still people worthy of being alive and involved in society?

 

[ksen]

For one, because they oppose the government programs that would alleviate the need for higher wages from them.

So if they want a near nonexistent social safety net then they are going to have to come through with higher wages.

People who don't support the programs that allow corporations to get away without paying a living wage have nothing to answer for.

I'm sure that's what they think.

It's the people who do support the programs that are causing the problem.

People that are in favor of programs that help people make ends meet because of low wages are causing what problem?

And the worst of all are the people who support the programs that allow the companies to get away with it while at the same time railing about how the companies get away with it. Those are some messed up people.

I agree that there are some messed up people in this discussion.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How would that keep them from getting away with it?

Wouldn't people die if they didn't get a living wage?

Dead people don't generally make good employees.

But usually large numbers of people facing starvation in a rich society become violent and work to overthrow that society and radically change it. They have nothing to lose.

 

[KeepTalking]

How would that keep them from getting away with it?

Wouldn't people die if they didn't get a living wage?

Not necessarily.

Dead people don't generally make good employees.

That's why businesses generally only hire people who are alive.

But, you haven't answered the question:
"How would that keep them from getting away with it?"

 

[GenesisNemesis]

One question. Are people that make bad choices in life still people worthy of being alive and involved in society?

Is society worthy enough to make that call? Will society ever be worthy enough to make that call?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wouldn't people die if they didn't get a living wage?

Dead people don't generally make good employees.

But usually large numbers of people facing starvation in a rich society become violent and work to overthrow that society and radically change it. They have nothing to lose.

The above is also making the assumption that "a living wage" should be the only source of income and support a person has. Taxes and social support are far more effective.

 

[ksen]

But usually large numbers of people facing starvation in a rich society become violent and work to overthrow that society and radically change it. They have nothing to lose.

The above is also making the assumption that "a living wage" should be the only source of income and support a person has. Taxes and social support are far more effective.

And what's that say about a society that is against both high wages and taxes and social support?

 

[Eric H]

If however, you buy paper towels at Walmart or get an Egg McMuffin on the way to work, you just shaved a few pennies off your cost of living,

The Walton family are experts at shaving off a few pennies, they are worth around a $125 billion between them, for doing just that.

 

[Toni]

Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

If we stopped programs like food stamps they couldn't.

We have programs like food stamps because businesses did exactly that.

McDonald's and its ilk can complain all they like about paying decent wages, and decent working conditions and lobby very very hard--with money it's not paying its workers to reduce its taxes and regulations but the truth is, it's financially to their advantage to pay as little as possible, to demand maximum flexibility re: employees schedules while giving no quarter themselves and providing the least amount of benefits possible than it is to pay the paltry tax rate they do pay now. Which has the side benefit of ensuring a workforce desperate enough to take what they can get.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm triggered.

Me too. The article should have a "trigger warning" posted or something. I mean if it's required for Greek classics, it should be required for this dross.

That woman whines that she is not paid much for low skilled work but she made a choice to work in food service for 16 years even though she (presumably) has a college degree. She made a choice to have children. Why should the rest of us feel guilty about her choices in life?

Feeling insulted because one is assumed to be lazy and/or stupid is not asking anyone to feel guilty about her situation. That is a distinct difference that anyone who is not lazy or stupid should be able to make.

 

[dismal]

Wouldn't people die if they didn't get a living wage?

Dead people don't generally make good employees.

But usually large numbers of people facing starvation in a rich society become violent and work to overthrow that society and radically change it. They have nothing to lose.

There wouldn't be large numbers of starving people if companies paid them a living wage.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But usually large numbers of people facing starvation in a rich society become violent and work to overthrow that society and radically change it. They have nothing to lose.

There wouldn't be large numbers of starving people if companies paid them a living wage.

There wouldn't be large numbers of starving people if we all chipped in to support them.

This demand that employers pay for all of this while the idle rich and low-labor intensive companies walk off untouched is patently unjust.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So you also have no answer.

Apparently it is you who have no answer.

Wrong. Ksen asked the question first. Instead of an answer, he got more questions. Asking questions in response to a question is not answering the question. And you have yet make a declarative statement on the query at hand. Let's try it again.

Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

You demand something and give no justification for it. And then you say it is I who have no answer. And that after I have given an answer in a previous post.

I demand nothing. If you had no answer, you could have posted nothing. You chose to engage, just not with the actually question asked, Must be a scary question.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Apparently it is you who have no answer.

Wrong. Ksen asked the question first. Instead of an answer, he got more questions. Asking questions in response to a question is not answering the question. And you have yet make a declarative statement on the query at hand. Let's try it again.

Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

You demand something and give no justification for it. And then you say it is I who have no answer. And that after I have given an answer in a previous post.

I demand nothing. If you had no answer, you could have posted nothing. You chose to engage, just not with the actually question asked, Must be a scary question.

When you see a homeless person on a street, is it your moral obligation to make sure that person has a roof over their head and food in their stomach? Do you board them and feed them?

 

[dismal]

Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

Because it would be wrong to round up the people who vote for the policies that enable them to do it and send them to camps?

 

[prideandfall]

another big factor in all of this which is one i think is consistently trivialized or overlooked is a cultural perception which i find very, very weird:
why are the jobs that have the biggest direct impact on our lives day in and day out the ones that we as a society deem unimportant, lazy, and deserving of both disdain and paltry wages?

simple fact is that one fry cook at mcdonald's has VASTLY more impact on the quality of my experience as a customer than every executive and corporate VP in the company combined. the cashier at wal-mart does more to influence my perception of the company than every member of the walton's put together. as memes and internet gossip will tell you, the customer service reps at big companies like comcast are seen to represent the entirety of the company as a whole, much more so than any management or executive position.
so why is it that we are so dismissive of these vitally important and tremendously customer-facing positions? it's incredibly common to see yelp reviews or articles or internet comments about people refusing to frequent a given business just on the basis of their interaction with the front line grunt workers... so why the hell do we consider front line grunt workers to be disposable yard trash with no value?

IMO that goes a long way to addressing the problem - our culture sees them as "low-skill" useless drones, and treat them that way.
then, they're *actually* unbelievably important faces of the company and the well-being of the business rides on their shoulders, and we pay them shit for it.