We are not talking about the rest of the world, we are talking about first world countries.
A living wage is simple, you do a full time job and you can afford food, recreation and a roof over your head.
This was always a normal thing right up into the 1980's.
These days people end up working three jobs to have this.

The rich keep getting richer, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing and you keep banging on about how a tiny bit trickles down on their heads every now and then.
No one is saying to ban jobs, only to pay an amount for them that dignifies the person doing it.
I know that sounds impossible and yet we always managed to do it before neo liberalism.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 13 2019 12:10am

Why not?
You just claimed "all of human history"



Banning jobs that offer more than the majority of the world offers, or feeling that people should make more money doesn't magically make everyone have a high paying job.

The government and more specifically the federal reserve have been inflating the money supply and the housing market for some time now.
I think we should be looking into that, instead of supporting living wage mandates and falsely claiming all of human history had it, or misrepresenting the arguments against it.


I am not a fictitious caricature you painted in your imagination.
I am not banging on about tiny bits of 'trickle down'.
I am directly disputing the claims made by kiseki and yourself, and correctly identifying that certain policies have downsides that are not being addressed and they are not 'no brainers'.


If they are advocating outlawing the action of offering wages below a certain amount then that is exactly what they are saying.
Who is to say $12/hr isn't dignified and shouldn't be allowed? Why should people not be free to accept that job?
How does banning it help people who would then be priced out of the labor market and overlooked for more experienced/educated workers?

If you admit that in previous generations and in most other countries workers are paid much less and live much worse, how do modern wages compare negatively in your mind?

If not banning jobs you deem below a living wage, what is the actual solution you are proposing?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 13 2019 12:24am

Simple.
Less.
Corporate.
Profits.

Amazon has over 2,000 workers on food stamps and the richest person in the world running it.
People are not priced out of the labor market, they are exploited.
Change the laws, if you want to be a corporate entity you should bring benefit to the local communities you parasitically feed on.
Believe it or not amazon could pay their workers enough to live on and still be a viable company with plenty of profit.
No need to ban jobs, ban exploitation.

Why should people not be free to accept $12 an hour?
Because by allowing themselves to be exploited they help enable the system that causes it.
No one should be doing 40 hour weeks for $350 in 2019 in the richest country on the planet.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 13 2019 12:31am

what does this mean in practice? what policies?


If I had to guess they probably have a lot more than that. They have hundreds of thousands of employees.
What is the point?
Single income workers with families often qualify for food stamps.
Does that mean everything below $15 an hour should be banned? does that remove the negative effects of such a policy? No and no.


Claiming people are exploited doesn't mean people aren't priced out of the labor market if you mandate a much higher wage floor, which bans jobs below it.



What corporations are only parasitic and don't benefit communities? do you think that is the usual business?



So you think you know better than the people who want to accept a job and think government force is justified to stop them from working and to stop people from offering them jobs they want to accept. I disagree.
Declaring no one should make below a certain amount doesn't address or remove the problems with such a policy that I have been referring to.

I would also advocate sweeping changes, including a percentage of company profits HAVING to go towards non executive wages, banning share options in salary packages, removing expanding corporations as a tax write off, capping executive wages country wide at a certain multiplier of the average wage of employees and more.
If you cap the ceo and boards wages at a multiplier of the base company wage watch them magically find the money to pay their workers more.

What does the average wage of an employer have to do with the wage of an executive?

You are correct in part that it disincentivizes hiring lower income workers, but that isn't a good thing.
Businesses shouldn't be punished for hiring the less fortunate and given added disincentives from doing so.
Some jobs are not viable paying people above a certain wage, and higher wages pushes out poorer people who have less education and experience.

Why should successful businesses that employ thousands or hundreds of thousands of people not be allowed to pay an executive a lot of money/more money than a smaller or less successful business?
What if they determine paying them well is worth it and will allow them to make more money selling goods and services and employing more people?
Why should a company be forced to have a certain percentage of profits going to non-executive wages? Do you not think that will be worked around and isn't a significant inhibition/disincentive to economic success and market entry?
As it is now CEO pay is typically a small fraction of total wages paid. People often bring up Walmart CEO pay compared to the average worker. Its one guy vs hundreds of thousands of workers. Dividing his pay up and giving it to the workers would not leave an average worker with much more pay. Thats not a real solution. Nor is mandating a CEO is only allowed to be paid something like 20M instead of 35M going to do anything productive. They aren't going to double or triple wages and keep the same employees. Its going to result in fewer stores and fewer jobs available.

How are you or a bureaucrat or politician in a better position to determine wages than the actual people involved in those transactions and businesses? Are you aware of the inherent faults of centrally planned economies?
What makes you think you have it right and that there wouldn't be significant drawbacks?


You have listed a number of authoritarian policies you would like to enact, but there isn't much there that makes sense upon inspection and nothing to suggest it would achieve much better paying jobs for everyone in a given country.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 13 2019 01:07am

I'd like media to be less bias. Sucks for Bernie. Good for the US tho cause fuck a socialist in the white house.

Bullshit, all jobs are viable to pay a living wage and always have been.
Why is it that inflation can rise at nearly triple the speed wages do and you corporate apologists can keep claiming this same bullshit?
Why is is that full time work is dropping and corporate profits have never been higher?
Shouldn't your bullshit line about more jobs being available be kicking in when the corporate economy is in over drive?
In 2010 the 388 richest people on earth had the same amount of money as the bottom 3.5 billion.
9 years later in 2019 the top EIGHT hold that same position.
And yeah its still too hard to put people on full time and pay them benefits.

If there is no money to go around for workers WHERE ARE THESE RECORD PROFITS COMING FROM?
This crap you libertarians go on about how much better everyone has it these days is actually a lie, things are going backwards for the poorest in western nations, wages are stagnant and inflation is well in front, fulltime jobs are becoming part time, part time jobs are becoming casual or even worse, gig jobs.
Why is it that in the 60's and 70's nearly anyone could find full time work and now suddenly its too hard to employ anyone?
Corporations have not got any smaller..
Endless corporate expansion does not benefit anyone, kraft buying bega does not benefit anyone working at bega, kraft got a tax write off and a share price bump, the workers at bega get exploited more, the first thing kraft does is makes any cuts it thinks it can get away with to generate more profit faster.
So no, more money for the corporation does not lead to more jobs, because these days most expansion either buys existing businesses or puts existing businesses out of business through competition.
A society should work to benefit those who have the least, not exploit them.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 13 2019 01:22am

This is a ridiculously false declaration based on kneejerk feelings, not facts.
No, not all jobs are viable at $15 an hour or more.
Jobs vary in productivity and people do not think every single job is worth paying someone $15 plus benefits and red tape and other costs and considerations.
They will choose to forgo hiring people for certain jobs if lower paying options are not legally available to them.

Calling people a 'corporate apologist' when you get reality checked and your policies get taken apart is not a valid rebuttal.

Regurgitating anti-rich statements and statistics is not the same as defending your points or addressing mine.



High profits in a given industry are an incentive for more businesses to enter that industry.
Regulatory capture and excessive costs and regulations are inhibiting businesses from competing. The number and extent of regulations have exploded in recent decades.
Your solution to is say rich people bad, declare a high living wage that is higher than almost everywhere(while falsely claiming it existed throughout human history), and adding more nonsensical regulations that do weird things like tie executive pay to average employee wage.

You can deny reality all you want, but it won't change it.
Nor will getting mad at me for stating facts and presenting logical questions and analysis.

The facts and reasonable questions/points I have presented are not to say that I endorse everything that is happening or that everything is great.
I also have a number of issues with the status quo.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 13 2019 01:39am

Answer this question, was there more full time work and less inflation 40 years ago than today?
End of debate, you can stop with the lies now.

Will ignore the fairy tail you started about competing with corporations.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Dec 13 2019 01:24am