Published: Thursday, March 20 2014 12:10 p.m. MDT
The more the right wing continues to vilify the working poor and deny them fair
pay, the more they will continue to lose elections.
the minimum wage should be a livable wage and should be tied to the same data
that determines the poverty level of annual income. same logic for the overtime
policy, it should be changed routinely based on inflation. that would be the
end of the emotional non arguments made by the rich against these policies which
benefit the poor and the middle class. that would be too easy though. that
would leave the politicians to face up to their need to work on more important
@dave4197Minimum wage was not ment to be a livable wage. It is ment to be
an entry level wage. Increasing the minimum wage will create more problems than
it solves. If the minimum wage is increased, two things will happen. Employers
will not be able to pay as many people, increasing the unemployment rate.
Companies will have to increase their prices for their products in order to
compensate for the extra money going out the door.
You want more jobs? Good paying jobs? The President's move may be one way
to get them.I worked for 20 years as a tech person for Wall Street
companies. It's not glamorous work. It pays well enough, but the hours
are crushing. Eighty and 100-hour weeks are not unusual. And, as a programmer,
analyst, or even a telephone support specialist, you're considered a
salaried employee, and even though you have no supervisory responsibilities (no
one reports to you), you're not entitled to treatment as an hourly worker.
They regularly slap AVP titles on systems people who no one reports to. Hence,
companies can fully exploit you, force you to work long hours for no extra pay,
and thereby keep their payrolls small.It's quite common in some
industries to regularly squeeze 60 to 90 hours out of their salaried
non-supervisory employee each week. With the new rules, making it very
expensive to do that, they'll need to employ more people.
Avenue: If minimum wage is not a livable wage, then workers on minimum wage
will qualify for government assistance. In the end, the taxpayer winds up
subsidizing a company's workforce. So your argument of saying that it is
meant to be an entry-level job doesn't match up with the realities of life.
After the Civil War many manufacturers in the north were relocating to the
southern states where labor was cheaper and heating costs were lower in the
winter. They were also escaping high taxes they experienced in the
industrialized north. The high taxing states wanted to end the bleeding. Their
solution was a federal minimum wage. The north remained prosperous and the
south remained impoverished.There are many problems with a wage
floor. We have a big problem in this country. It is called unfunded
mandates. The feds pass a law requiring states to spend their money in a certain
way. They consider the state budget to be an extension of the federal budget
(hint: it ain't their money). A minimum wage does the same thing. If a
businessman offers too little money he will not be able to hire anyone. WalMart
is paying from $12 to $15 per hour in North Dakota because the economy is
booming (oil). There is a shortage of labor so the price is higher.We are importing 1 million unskilled immigrants each year that drive wages
down. The entry wage would float to about $14 per hour if we shut that off.
I realize the minimum wage was not meant to be a livable wage. Today's minimum wage is slave labor. We speak out against slavery around
the world. Looking at ourselves for a moment and finding that we're
involved in paying less than living wages for goods and services, we must
conclude that today's minimum wage is unethical. to say the least.So
again I state that our politicians should get involved in something more
important than routinely adjusting (or failing to adjust because of their own
emotional lack of reasoning) the minimum wages paid in our economy. Link the
minimum wage to inflation, link the minimum wage to a regional living wage, and
get some of the poor out of poverty and off the backs of us taxpayers.To
those employers and their friends who threaten unemployment, I say the employer
needs to take their own pay cut until the difference in income between their
workers and themselves (the employer / manager) narrows and allows he business
to survive even flourish. we can't all be rich, nor should we all be poor.
Dave4197: If you agree employers should take a "pay cut until the
difference in income between their workers and themselves narrows," you must
agree the employees should shoulder the same risks, take a pay cut in lean
times, and work uncompensated overtime just like the employer. Now isn't
that what this Royal decree is objecting to?The minimum wage should be
tied to a minimum education and a government subsidy should be dependent upon
completion of a course of qualification improvement. If a person takes no
thought to improve their marketability, where is the social justice in
subsidizing that course of action? The surfer dude from your home state is a
prime example of such a shameless parasite. Sadly, I don't see much of a
future for him as a musician, but then, I remember when musicians actually
A Quaker:It's too bad you don't have a choice to work for some
other company. With an expanding economy, companies would have to compete for
fewer resources and would have to tailor their salary and working conditions
accordingly. In this flagging economy, an excess of IT talent (supplemented by a
surfeit of foreign labor) means you often must accept less pay and longer hours-
two ways of saying basically the same thing- if you can even find a job. Many in
the tech fields are unemployed. The solution? Get the government to do their job
of defending our borders and leave the economy to us (consumers). We can make
our own choices, given the opportunity.
The question is simpler than higher education for all, risk taking for all. The
question is how do we consumers get away with buying goods and services that are
produced thru slave labor (a wage less than a livable wage)?If I want to
continue eating a big mac and buying everything at walmart, where working poor
get to "live" on $7-8 per hour, then I am supporting slavery. You all
should try it. But I do share this burden with the managers, employers, stock
holders, who all live very comfortably in our economy and social strata. And
with those in this blog where who claim the rich have rights to taking more
money from their company while the taxpayer supports their too low paid workers
who actually make the company work day to day.Utah of all states should
promote a livable wage, it's only Christian, c'mon neighbors, join
this chorus about treating all of us fairly in the workplace. No more slave
wages. No more sub living wages. Do I hear acclaim? agreement?
If they don't work at Walmart for $7 or $8 an hour then where do they work?
At least they have a job. If you are still working for minimum wage after very
long then maybe one should improve their work ethic because most places, not
all, pay more as you become more valuable to them. Get a job and then work on
improving things.If Obama somehow could improve the whole economy instead
of making it worse, then all these bites around the edge would be unnecessary.
Overtime pay and minimum wage are distractions from the bigger picture.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments