A full time worker in a first world nation should not be living in poverty

April 3, 2017, 10:24 am

Agree24 Disagree4

86%
14%

The debate "A full time worker in a first world nation should not be living in poverty" was started by Nemiroff on April 3, 2017, 10:24 am. 24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

neveralone posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, human posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.


Nemiroff, neveralone, PsychDave, wayneSPEC, wmd, ProfDoke, ChloeLMc, Azzah, diana26, MrShine, human, Ematio, redstar, esuth_999, SirIntegra and 9 visitors agree.
4 visitors disagree.

Nemiroff
replied to...

the thing is that increasing the minimum wage wouldn't affect the economy much since the government is giving them the difference, out of our collective tax dollars instead of from the employer they are actually working for. without these benefits no one would do these work, we wold have rampant crime and disorder, and then we would have to spend that money anyway policing it.

just giving them the money ended up costing similar + avoiding chaos, but making the businesses pay them themselves is the right move in my opinion. in addition, the extra money they earn will be invested into their local economies as they have urgent needs that require spending money they currently don't have, whereas the employers may very well toss it into a savings account or in the stockmarket enriching wall street, silicon valley, or any of many prospering places while the neighborhood the worker lives in starves with shuttered small businesses as Noone can afford to be a customer.

by increasing minimum wage and cutting back entitlements, the amount of $$$ remains the same, it's the source and distribution that not only changes, but changes decidedly for the better.

2 years, 4 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

well let's set some definitions.

rather than examining arbitrary numbers, let's look at expenses, and define a minimum standard of living for workers. certainly welfare recipients can't expect to afford much in the way of leisure and toys, but an American worker shouldn't be working for just food and rent. the extra funds can be used for a week off in a cheap Mexican resort for some soul recharging, or to pursue an education so that... they won't be in a poverty cycle forever, neither of which is doable currently and that is an injustice, it is a betrayal of the American dream (not the resort, the social mobility)

as for medical, that has bankrupt many among the middle class... the poor don't choose between food and medicine, the don't do medicine. they usually choose between rent and food, and leave medicine to the tax payer when they finally end up in the emergency room.

I propose
full time = 40 hours for the sake of our math.
poverty = unreasonable relative to expenses.

2 years, 4 months ago

Oh yeah, I asked about hours and income levels because of poverty expectations. Are the choosing between eating and medicine? Is it their inability to accumulate money? Borderline homeless? Americans make more than any other country, but it is an expensive place to live, and so making more can still result in homelessness. This should not happen.

2 years, 4 months ago

Back again.

I agree full time workers should not be living in poverty either. There are also general definitions for full time workers and poverty, though? Do we go by hours worked and the actual baseline for income groups?

Obviously, work needs to be rewarded, and minimum wage does guarantee better than the invisible market hand, as some business are capable of tricking their employees into bad deals. I know of one, one of my first jobs, I didn't realize I was off the papers because of my inexperience. Assuming it was the taxes hurting my check, I didn't realize my hourly was throttled until the government cracked down on them. Their excuse was I'd have to pay taxes, but then I got a tax return when filing!

It wouldn't be that I'm anti minimum wage, but that raising it can have irreversible effects on the dollar bill. Plus, it works more with the less spending, and less trust in groups that operate without accountability or efficiency.

2 years, 4 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

instead of comparing to arbitrary periods of our brutal history, let's look at today.

you think minimum wage is bad, and I'm assuming you think government assistance is also bad... what do you think would happen if both dissappeared? when the working poor who currently work long hours with no break to barely afford food and rent have to work all that and not even be able to afford those basics?

many have said that they want to promote people to work rather than be on welfare... would you work long hours if you can't even afford rent and food afterwards? I wouldnt!

please, explain to me how you see that situation playing out.

2 years, 4 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so what your saying is that if your situation is better than some arbitrary point in the past? in your example, the specific lowest point of humanity, then you should be satisfied?

forgive me for bring race into this but it is the most obvious example: what your saying is black people during Jim crow should have no reason to complain because they are no longer wearing shackles!!!

I hope you would agree arbitrary comparisons to random time periods, especially when back then there was far more down time and family time, their lives were argicultural, so there were times of non stop work, but there were also whole seasons of leisure. what made their lives horrible were rampant disease (for them and their crops) as well as their lords right to kill them at will. I don't think you suggest being that back, but economics only, the current situation is far far worse.

what comforts do they have today? 10 hours of work, 4 hours of travel to and from work, 6 hours of sleep leaves 4 hours to take care of child care, figure out how to feed yourself, handle house chores, doctors appointments, school meetings, and everything else life throws at you... being poor today is nonstop anxiety and stress, and any misstep can make you homeless. there is no buffer. the poor have always been under threat of arbitrary death and disaster, but never have they been under so much constant expectations to perform for nothing. even asking for basic sick time was a battle that took decades compared to whole seasons of downtime in the middle ages.

2 years, 4 months ago

No, whats happening is, you have to realise that a company is not one thing, but lots of people.

Its called right wing, When theory dosent work. Take the UK cor instance. I live there, and there fore do not mean eany abuse, but I'm against the conservatives ( who are coherently in power of parlement(ish) ) and their Idea is to give lots of tax payers money to British companys in London, and let them invest, but what realy happens is the men get greedy, take most of the money, ( say 6 million pounds) and then sell off the company for a bit more money, and then go and live off the tax payers money.

Then the workers have to move house withthe company if they want to keep their job, or find a new one (not easy) so they lose some of the little money they have, and live in poverty, all becouse the rich man takes their mony for his own.

2 years, 4 months ago
Ematio
replied to...

In a free market economy, a buisness should be allowed to pay its workers however much it wants to.

Think of a business like a castle. The King will let the people live there, but under his own conditions. If he says you must wear a red shirt every day, then you can choose to wear a red shirt every day and stay, or you can leave. It's the same with a business. You can accept the pay of 10 dollars and hour, or you can choose to not work there.

The biggest problem with people having a hard time with money is because of the government. They put way too many regulations on business and too many taxes.

2 years, 4 months ago

Our definition of poverty is much different than back then. Americans living in our definition of poverty are living like kings compared to the medival times. We're just accustomed to this level of living

2 years, 4 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

thats kinda a mute point when the people with the outsized tax burden are the only people actually prospering in our nation. most of the lefts taxes are aimed at the wealthy, and not because they have wealth, but because their wealth is growing. they are the only ones prospering while everyone else struggles to stay afloat. what happened to the "a rising tide lifts all ships bull?"

that aside, psychdave gets to the core of the question you didn't really answer. should this situation even exist? my solution, btw, involves decreasing government spending, which can then be used to lower taxes properly, or address the debt. Either of which would be good.

my solution was outlined in the post directly below yours (not counting the bump). no worries on lateness, we all got lives. (mostly). I have been waiting for engagement on this. I think I can make this a bipartisan issue. let's try to avoid using words like leftright and conservative/liberal, let's stick to math, economics, logic to see how we can make America work again.

2 years, 4 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

But whether you look at it from the perspective of the left or right, you still seem to be agreeing that people need to be able to live on their income. You have different ideas of how best to get there, but you both want people to be able to have enough money at the end of the day to survive.

2 years, 4 months ago

This might be a bit late, but I'll explain an ideological difference between the right and left. The left thinks in terms of social benefit by giving. Nothing too bad with giving, we need our safety nets, parks, and so on... but we can't say the government is competent with the money given. Last year (correct me if I'm wrong) several trillion went missing, and snowballing with the need to fix missing money rolled to a total of about 7 trillion missing. in terms of our debt clock, that is significant as we get closer to 20 trillion.

By removing unnecessary taxes and regulations, people get to keep their money. That isn't so much as the wage is bigger as it is the drain is smaller. The prices on government mandates drive prices up, as we've seen with health insurance big pharma and insurance providers were paid more not less, and people had less to provide in the face of bigger deductibles. Sure, more people had insurance, but without their plans or enough to pay for a deductable their plan was useless.

In terms of buisnesswise, consider small businesses that make profits. They aren't billionaires shelling out money however they like, some work hard to cut even, and most buisnesswise in general are closed before a full decade. Raising minimum wage, as much as I would argue against lowering as well, is also a step in the wrong direction. It is still tied to inflation, banks and landlords would be able to charge more (as would other buisnesswise) not to mention the pay for a business is typically allotted to a certain amount, then the employee hours are planned (no incent to work harder, less payraises for MVPs)

Long way short, more money into a broken system wont stimulate as it will suck money. I think we can accept that the means or directives that say such taxes (not all, but many are created to be theft) make the system broken. Let's even say spending too. Military does create jobs, can concede to less.

2 years, 4 months ago

bump

2 years, 4 months ago

there is, so far, unanimous agreement on this issue, yet no one from the right wishes to comment.

a living wage is not only obvious, it should be bipartisan. think of all the right wing ideals that will be accomplished with this basic compromise.

if you pay people enough, the need for "dependencies" will not be systematic. "entitlement" programs can be canceled. working people will be able to sustain themselves, and even participate in the economy! they may even be able to actually afford insurance.

and once the need for all that spending is gone, the taxes can follow, we will not need as much money to run the gov... or maybe, we can finally pay off that debt.

and despite the cost on the private sector, don't you think that the increased spending power and decreased taxes won't help them out somewhat? besides that, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, and back when it was worth more... wasn't that our boom days? so it can't possible hurt as much as many on the right claim.

2 years, 4 months ago

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
FDR

2 years, 4 months ago

$9/hr (above minimum)
x 40 hours
x 52 weeks
= 18,720

considering most low wage work is in high rent cities, without "entitlement" (in quotes for a reason) how exactly is this math supposed to add up?

if you don't want the government supporting the citizenry, then stop subsidizing corporate payroll with tax dollars.

2 years, 4 months ago

there the ones who make u first class.

2 years, 4 months ago
Discuss "A full time worker in a first world nation should not be living in poverty" finance politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.