It's funny how much we pay people in non-essential sectors of societies to do what they do, such as sports figures and college basketball coaches and so forth. It's obvious that we don't value knowledge and scientific progress as much as we value being entertained: it's what we spend most of our dollars on. I agree with you that executives should probably have caps on what they earn from their positions as executives. There should be fewer tax loopholes for the rich and for corporations. There are people in America that are suffering from poor health and starving to death. Seriously. It's sad, but I've noticed an amazing amount of selfishness and callous behavior on the part of the "average" person. I really don't have too many close friends for this reason. I don't hang out with people on a personal basis if I don't really like them. I don't know what it is that makes people such severe assholes, but sometimes I wish I had a magic spell that would allow me to bend people over an imaginary knee in the air and spank them no matter how far away they are. Some people just never mature despite their physical age.
Enough for people to live on but not a huge amount more. I think it would be better to spend the money on free education for those who can't afford it.
No more than $10. People need to understand that a jump up to $15 will be very detrimental to the economy, as many businesses will be forced to lay off workers and close stores because they cannot afford to hire enough workers. $15 minimum wage is almost as much as someone who has just graduate college, and that alone is crazy high. Below $9.50 might be too little for people to get by. $10 an hour for a 40 hour week is just fine for people who don't overspend and live within their means.
Australia's hardly in a state of economic collapse and massive unemployment with its minimum wage of almost $17 per hour, Skaros.
Australia's economy is much different than that of the United States. We shouldn't be treated every country's system the same. In truth, I would be fine with going above a $10 USD minimum wage, but it would have to be done so gradually, as to go up as the economy changes. We can't make a major jump from $7.25 to $15, that would just be a major mess.
If politicians don't get an instant pay increase, sure, I'd be down for a gradual increase. I find it rather insulting, and even infuriating, that politicians will bump their wage, to accommodate for rising costs of living, but expect the rest of us, to just bend over and accept it. If the government is going to fuck me, this bitch here is worth, at least, double digits at bare minimum. I'm terrible... LOL.
Over a fifth of NYC live in poverty. I imagine it'd be rather disheartening to be told to wait it out so it's easier for everyone else to adjust to it. And I don't imagine either of us are professional economists.
Pretty similar to what a lot of other people have been saying - at least £10 an hour, with a maximum wage as well to prevent massive inequality.
Enough to cover the costs of living, which differ in countries. Hence I cannot give a clear answer to this question. =)
Minimum wage was never intended to be enough to live. It is a starting pay for unskilled labor. The goal should be to move up in a company or get better education and better yourself. My first job as a teenager paid me $3.45/hr when min wage was $3.35. I was making over $5 an hour within 3 years. Having said that I don't think minimum wage is necessarily the answer. I think a cap only allowing the highest paid employee of a company (Usually the CEO) can only be so many times as much as an entry level employee. A law like that will pull entry level employees up since the CEOs will not want to have their pay cut. It would create regular raises too, since the CEO would want to raise his salary as well. Having said that, welfare should be no more than 75% of the minimum wage at 40 hrs/week. That would give incentive to get off welfare since minimum wage would be a raise.
How do you mean? It's pretty vague what exactly he's saying but the principle that someone who is capable should receive less on welfare than if they were employed is something which has to be true, no? I'd like to see the gap between unemployed income vs employed income increased by raising the minimum wage and tax free allowance instead of cutting welfare, but still. I guess the living wage would be a good place to start in the UK. It wouldn't hurt anyone that much, it's a consumer economy and the extra money paid in wages will all get spent one way or another.
He says that those on the minimum wage should not earn a living wage, and that those on welfare should get even less. Were the general principle not to involve enforcing privation, then I would agree with it. In short, the implication of that belief is that the poorest people do not deserve the right to afford basic necessities.
Ha, I sort of completely missed the first part about minimum wage shouldn't be enough to live on. That anyone, especially those who work full time, doesn't deserve something of a living wage, is pretty crazy.
I said that it was not meant to be a living wage, but a stepping stone. Besides if you put the constraints on companies so that for instance a CEO cannot make more than 50x what is least paid employee makes that would end up pulling everyone above minimum wage. My CEO for instance is Charlie Ergen. He makes $1.3Million total compensation. If he continued to make 1.3 million his least paid employee has to make at least $12.50 and hour. Minimum wage here in Wyoming is $5.50/hr so the $7.25 federal minimum wage would take effect. But because Charlie makes 1.3 million his employees would have to make at least $12.50.
I think it probably needs to vary by cost of living in the area you live in...it's much more expensive to live in DC, LA, NY than Topeka or Tulsa. But I think it needs to be a real, living wage, and I can see that being from $10-$20/hr., depending on where a person lives.
