You can address your own questions by providing a source. I’m doing all the legwork while you’re making assumptions.

In the USA, there are full-time employees who do not work at a sustainable income. 1.1% of full-time employees are underpaid by a factor of 2.

This is the point in you argument where you cite that 1 in 100 people are currently working entry level jobs at minimum wage ...

... which is totally not credible, but hey-ho, at least you’re showing Gario you have some form of imagination.

No, Turkey. I'm sorry. That's not how debates work. You must prove your own claims. You don't get to make a wide and sweeping generalization about the workforce and then demand you opponent prove you wrong. This is especially true when your own sources tend to disprove you. Considering teenagers are more than 1.1% of the workforce, you need to provide more to make your claims serious.

I'll accept this for the sake of argument. There are some bad bosses out there. Are any of these people making minimum wage? No? What is a "sustainable income"? How long have they been working? What are their family dynamics?

These aren't minor questions, even if we ignore that you're trying to dodge the original question of "how many families are trying to support themselves long term on minimum wage?" (The answer? O.) Everybody wants to make a million dollars a year. Do we define "sustainable" as a million dollars? "Well, no WB, that number is stupid. No one is sustainable at that wage." If a 20 year old, living with his parents, isn't making a "sustainable wage", however we define that....who cares? If it's Keith Lee working at McDonalds until he gets big at wrestling...and he makes the choice to work a dead end job to provide him enough money to survive....so be it.

You're throwing out broad terms (with no sources at that) that I couldn't disprove even if I wanted. If I could show that 100% of the people you're crying about have roofs over their heads and food in their bellies (which most people would consider sustainable), you'd whine that I didn't meet some arbitrary metric that you haven't given me.

ALL minimum wage jobs are entry level.

But consider what YOU just said. Ignore that I know the numbers don't work in my favor....believe me anyway!

I get you're a moderator, but it takes some hutspah (sp?) to accuse someone else of providing no sources, when it's your claim...and you're obviously wrong,.

I know.

So you writing:

doesn’t fly, since you can’t prove that.

It’s pretty blatant that there are people working at an unsustainable rate, so you kidding yourself that they don’t speak volumes about yourself.

You haven’t provided a link in this thread, so quit wasting our time

I really hope the rest of the users in this forum aren’t like the poster I’ve been talking to.

I can’t understand how people are unaware of this:

And fob these people off as

-Entry level (which it’s evidently not)

-Sustainable (when they’re barely getting by)

is disgusting, frankly.

It’s also sad that these people cannot recognise the gulf between minimum wage and a quantifiable living wage.

I recognise that this thread is about capping the maximum wage, but I think there’s something wrong at a fundamental level when there are people who wilfully accept that others live in poverty and that they are unable to extract themselves because the system is geared against them.

He's a libertarian. Many of them think that way, because that is what their political ideology reinforces them to believe - that somehow they are special, and they can make it on their own without any help (especially from government, which they believe makes people dependent, weak, and does more bad than good). They don't have much compassion for those at the bottom, or struggling, as they think it's their own damn fault for not trying hard enough to succeed.

One of the big problems with any minimum wage, is inflation , there are very few employers who follow yearly inflation trends & then when those are released ( as in my Province , just over 2.5% ). so If minimum wage is to work, a better set up system would be for annual increases to match that , so if you were making $7.50 at the Walmart ... & FYI I have been to a couple in the states as well as in Canada & they certainly ARE NOT FILLED WITH STUDENTS working for a couple months or a year !!!!.

This year 2021, your wage would be adjusted with a 2.5% or even 3 % raise.

This would see an increase of less than 1-25 cent piece per hour.

In doin this year after year , instead of allowing 4-6 or 10 years to pass & then doing a large increase that freaks out employers & allows politicians to freak out the buying public with "end of the world" price increases are coming .

But If all things are equal, minimum wage and lack of clear inflation compensation just increases poverty . But so did sending out millions of good paying jobs to third world countries where labour costs were in the toilet & then they ship it back for Americans to buy, causing more profit for a few , more hardship & lower paying jobs for those in America.

You do know if you wanted a proper wage it would actually be more like $18-$22 an hour if we wanted to get to Baby Boomer levels of prosperity like our parents when they were our ages. Plus if it did go to $15 all you would get back is a little bit more than what you lost through taxes and withholdings from the previous wage so its really not that much of an "effective" increase.

Fascinating, and yet you do not even ATTEMPT to do so.

I don't have to prove anything Turkey. You asked the question. You supplied the statistic. The burden of proof is actually still on you, and you have done nothing to satisfy it. That I accepted your figure (which actually seems a bit low) means nothing. I answered your unsourced question with every bit of sourcing that you have done: none.

You have supplied a link saying that 1.1% of the workers in the U.S. make the minimum wage. Your own link notes that these are almost all teenagers and tipped employees. It further goes on to note that the minimum wage increase movement is dominated almost exclusively by fast food workers (entry level workers). But except for the fact that your own link backs up what I said, I'm TOTALLY wrong for not supplying independent info to back up what you have already provided...which undermines your points.

You didn't read your own links did you bud?

Again, I get that you're a ban happy moderator. But considering you haven't shown a single statistic that backs up your point that there is a single person trying to live off of the minimum wage (let alone large numbers), you really need to get off your high horse. The fact that you provided links showing everything that I said, then challenged me for not proving you MORE wrong, shows you have really let your moderator position go to your head.

Of course, even the briefest look at minimum wage disproves you. Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics They are almost all part time workers, and more than half of them are teenagers. Excluding tipped positions, they are exclusively entry level positions.

I mean, even the NAME undermines your argument. The MINIMUM wage is the entry level wage, because it is the MINIMUM. But, hey, ignore logic and stuff, and statistics...and common sense. Just mock your opponents for pointing out that you're basing your political views on pure fantasy. RAINBOW LAND - The Campaign - YouTube

Yes, using critical thinking is terrible.

I know we've been over this, but it really bears repeating? Are you stupid Turkey? Or just dishonest?

You are linking to entry level positions (fast food) complaining about the minimum wage, and then ridiculously claiming that minimum wage jobs are not entry level. All those poor triple doctorate owners flipping burgers.

You really are a trip.

But virtually all minimum wage employees get a raise within the first six months. So when people cry about this, they are ignoring the fact that we're no longer talking about the same workers. (Ignoring that Walmart pays above the minimum wage in every state.) The minimum wage is not meant for long term workers, because no one makes it long term.

By deliberately misrepresenting the debate, you come up with the wrong answer. Ironically, it hurts only the poor unskilled workers you guys so claim to represent.

I supplied the statistic. That’s the burden of proof.

You make a claim about them being entry level people. The burden of proof shifts to you.

Right, I’m looking at this report and it says:

Full- and part-time status. About 6 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of full-time workers. (See table 1.)

My point was that there are full-time employees working at minimum wage, which is half that of a sustainable living wage.

I don’t know what you think my point was, but I think you need to stop and take a step back, as it looks like you’ve misunderstood it.

That article from the Bureau of Statistics definitely doesn’t say anything about entry level positions.

Ah, I think we’ve hit the problem.

I don’t think you know what a minimum wage is.

It’s the lowest-wage that is set by the government for what an employee can be legally paid.

It’s not necessarily an entry level wage.

You do yourself no favours.

Minimum wage? sure. Maximum wage? Absolutely not. I mean, if we lived in a perfect world sure, but no civilization succeeded with that way of thinking.

Think about this: If you are gonna make, say 100k annually, and that's the flat wage, everybody is gonna make that money, no matter what their position is... what drives you to excel? Most of your work life you are trying to climb to they top to make more money, or trying to start a company to make more money.... if you cant make money out of a company... whats the point?

Id argue that yes, they are. Think about it, how much does a crew member generate for the company? And then, how much does the CEO generate for the company? One generates far far far more than the other. The CEO makes choices that could make the company go bankrupt, generate or lose millions of dollars. And unlike popular belief, CEOs dont sit on their asses all day doing nothing... at least the successful ones dont.

The sad thing is that you dont even need their money to achieve this. If the country administrated properly what they got off taxes, they could have good public services... instead it all goes to buying missiles to perform an airstrike on some shack in Afghanistan.

Well the CEO B doesnt do half the stuff the CEO does.

Because its engraved in american culture to get fucked by college debt

Oh yes, thats something I like to hear. My friend, I present to you... Bitcoin.

That's kind of the point. CEO's don't actually generate anything. Their job is to steal profit from the crew to invest in expanding the company, to steal more profit. "Creating jobs" is just a side effect.

No-one working in the company asked the CEO to be in charge and making decisions that affects their lives. There is no vote on who gets to run a company from the people doing the actual, physical work (which far outweigh the number of people in the board room who do get a vote).

Also, here's a link with some more general information on the subject.

well... in that example in the video, theres a chef. The chef generates about $2000, but only gets around $500, or something like that. Now, you have to remember that the chef is working for someone, someone who owns the place, gets all the equipment needed and all the ingredients. The owner of the restaurant gets to decide how much he pays the chef (of course taking into acount minimum wage and all the laws), but at the end of the day the owner can pay the chef 50$/h or 1000$/h. If the chef isnt happy with how much he makes, he can move to a better paying restaurant(which requires more skill) or best and hardest of all, he can make his own business. If he is his own boss, he can keep the $2000 he generates.

Well, for one, the CEO could very well be the owner of the company, ie the company is his property and you cant tell him what to do with it. Some big coorprations have the board vote and what not... but at the end of the day, if its a private company, then the name says it all, you wont be able to vote... same way people dont go vote if you yourself should have pizza or burgers today as your dinner.

you also have to remember that the workers (at least in the 1st world) arent slaves. They are not oligated to work for a company. They can just leave. They can start their own business.

And that's the theory of capitalism, but mega-companies and chain restaurants make sure that's not practice at every angle. There's several things that need adressing here:

1. Wageslaves absolutely exist. Most people simply can not take days off to rest, take care of their children or even look for a better job because they won't have food on the table. There are millions of people looking for jobs every day, making the one that costs them the least and doesn't complain the most appealling to the company. Profit before anything else.
2. Big companies and food chains try to crush any small potential competitors by any means necessary. That's no cartoonish description, it's literally what they have to do to stay afloat. They get to write the rules through disproportionate amount of wealth and lobbying power. No amount of "bootstraps" can compete with that, no matter what rich people might claim.
3. As an adult, you absolutely have a say in what you want to make or buy for dinner. Workplaces should treat its employees as such. If you really, truly ARE "a valuable member of the organization" (as many of them seem to claim), they should let employees have a vote on where the company is headed. Yes, even if it means profits go down. The happiness and comfort of the many should be top priority of any society.

Look, I'm not advocating for anything insane here. I'm arguing for basic means of living for all. Human rights are being violated on a daily basis by these terrible institutions. You and I deserve the right to not go hungry, we deserve the right for decent healthcare, we deserve a roof over our head, all without being forced to work for it. And finally, people deserve votes on what rights they think they should have, on the basis of simply being people. Whether that is inside a company, or outside.

The irony is... I'm currently defending the idea of capitalism, whilst you're defending corporate oligarchy.

At 1/29/21 02:57 PM, test-object wrote:

1. :Wageslaves absolutely exist. Most people simply can not take days off to rest, take care of their children or even look for a better job because they won't have food on the table. There are millions of people looking for jobs every day, making the one that costs them the least and doesn't complain the most appealling to the company. Profit before anything else.
2. Big companies and food chains try to crush any small potential competitors by any means necessary. That's no cartoonish description, it's literally what they have to do to stay afloat. They get to write the rules through disproportionate amount of wealth and lobbying power. No amount of "bootstraps" can compete with that, no matter what rich people might claim.
3. As an adult, you absolutely have a say in what you want to make or buy for dinner. Workplaces should treat its employees as such. If you really, truly ARE "a valuable member of the organization" (as many of them seem to claim), they should let employees have a vote on where the company is headed. Yes, even if it means profits go down. The happiness and comfort of the many should be top priority of any society.

Oh yes these are legit problems, and there are human rights and workers laws that exist(and not applied to big corporations).

1) In the post before this one I put in between parenthesis that companies can pay their workers whatever they want as long as they comply to "minimum wage and whatever workers laws apply". Having time off is in most 1st world countries mandatory.

2) That would be a sort of "food monopoly". There are "laws" ("laws" because real laws dont seem to apply to big corporations) that are meant to avoid this, like why Disney couldn't buy Sony. But what are very much possible are local businesses, and those can slowly grow over time, and generate quite a bit of capital with appropriate management.

3) Well, Im all for the well being of employees, happy workers = better work after all. Big corporations dont and never will care about employees as individuals. But here is a life lesson I learned the hard way: If you treat your many employees like family, you give them too much trust and power, even if it seems like just a tiny bit, you will get screwed over and have the possibility to loose it all.

You, assuming are a regular worker, may have a good heart, but the guy next to you may not. The guy next to you may be a worker that has the viciousness of a cold blooded me-first capitalist imperialist that only cares about himself, and let me tell you, those people succeed, and when they have the chance, they'll take it.

And Im not too sure on the whole "employees get to vote on where the company is headed". What are they all majored in finance? What does the guy that drives the skid steer know about company management?

Oh yes I know that. Im in favor of the more old school capitalism (no big tech, no monopolies), thats kinda what Im defending here.

Well I must've expressed myself wrong. What Im defending is financial freedom and classical capitalism, Im all against Monopolies and fiat moneylike we have nowadays (I know this isnt against fiat, but wanted to include it to make what I stand for clearer). But the argument you presented before, if made law, would only affect small businesses, because we all know any changes made now by the new US government wouldnt affect the big guys.

Which is why a maximum wage would be a good thing; these big monopolies would theoretically seize to exist.

Personally, I would prefer to explore a limit on the amount of money elected officials can have in direct relation to the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up, their livelihoods go up. If it goes down, theirs goes down. A proper representative's wage. Using it as a guideline also makes defining a "high wage" slightly easier.

McDonald's made like 8 BILLION in just the US in 2019 and you really think them paying their employees a living wage is going to make them hurt for money so bad they will just be forced to fire people they can't afford to pay?

When these corporations pay their employees such low wages, those employees end up on government assistance which costs the taxpayer's money.

Hmm still not digging the whole maximum/flat wage thing. There are many, many other solutions.

I'd like to share this video about the economy of cuba: https://youtu.be/uzvcztUmMwA

The solution I would propose for the US would be to tax the rich like every other first world country(which is highly unlikely), and cut military spending(which is even more unlikely, the whole country basically lives off of this).

Look, with good public services, the stress level plummets down and life is much much easier, and there would be no need for this maximum wage stuff. The most gifted of people will leave your country if another gives them far more benefits... And those are the people you don't want to see leaving.

Here's a question we can use as a pivot point for this discussion: what is, in your opinion, the best country in the world to live in?

I'm not talking about corporations. I'm just talking about my local boss's budget.

Plus inflation. Sure, we make more money, but everything is gonna be more expensive now.

Inflation's been happening regardless.