One Year Later, Here's What San Jose Looks Like After Raising the Minimum Wage

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Makes perfect sense to me
a good society makes sure that legal work occupying a third of the day of an adult should provide a living wage
this UK and Switzerland definition will do fine

These natinos have WAY higher taxes and as a result are able to not spend THEIR money on these things.

Also, read your statement. The only people equilizing mini wage to LIVING wage is those who are ACTIVISTS aka Idealogues.

And on top of that, NONE of this says anything about a mini wage...only CONCEPTS of a living wage.

Try again.

not sure why this matters
this is about protecting the least of us

Sure. But that doesn't mean "the least of us" therefore must be able to have XYZ on a mini wage.

people who make more can keep making more

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

What does this address?

No, I understand just fine

Nah...you don't.

A mini wage SHOULD NOT (in my eyes) be equivalent of a living wage. The latter depends on what companies decide to do.

says who?

says me. Stop trying to push the idea that people should be living comfortably off a minimum wage. Thats just assinine.

ambiguous? living wage is not some exotic concept, everyone knows the basic definition and if they don't, google is right there with wikipedia waiting for them

I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm thinking you're in the same boat

so STOP equating what you think people should be paid as a bare minimum as being equal for them to live with NO worries.

and those people are protesting for a higher minimum wage and I support them100%

$10? maybe.

$15? Get the fukk outta here.

you first!


yeah we have different views on what society should be, I like mine better than yours

I don't like the idea of paying entry level people FIFTEEN DOLLARS PER HOUR.

Are you insane??

the delusion


I have no idea what this means

bro...that's a cool story

well thanks for sharing your view

Thsi is just some passive aggressive shyt you're trying to push without giving serious answers so I'll dismiss it.

regardless, mini wage provides incentives TO NOT MAKE MINI WAGE.

Societies MUST inspire individuals to find ways to contribute MORE TO SOCIETY and a minimum wage is one way to do that....otherwise you'd have teens making fukking careers out of flipping burgers

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I am glad raising minimum wage worked out for them. But this sounds like a major case of confusing correlation with causation. Are they trying to say that minimum wages helped businesses grow and drop unemployment? What about all the rest of the cities in the country that have grown and dropped UE without raising minimum wage?

Plus how many people in San Jose were making minimum wage AND working full time? Most minimum wage jobs are not full time.

I'm just not buying it.......

I know a jedi mind trick when I see one...they were quick to publish preliminary data and use sensational headlines to make their point.

I'll concede if it ends up working out, but dont blow the horn after ONE year.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Its not even a matter of holding onto the data... its a matter of proving that minimum wage is the cause of the city's success, or that the increase didn't hurt it significantly.

The whole country is in recovery...... odds are pretty high UE would have gone down and the economy would have grown without them playing with minimum wage.

Labor Shortages Pop Up in Many U.S. Cities - Businessweek

Not to mention San Jose is attached to San Fran and Silicon Valley.... $10/hr is still not enough to live there. Median rent is $1400.... someone making $10/hr full time is taking home $1666/mo before taxes. shyt going on is way bigger than minimum wage.

 

[tmonster]

$10? maybe.

$15? Get the fukk outta here.

I always hear this type of stuff
and "get the fukk outa here"' is the only explanation the proponents have for it, rarely when pushed one can manage to uncover the jealousy and sour grapes underlying these sentiments


these people who have no savings, no job security are willing to strike, for that extra $5. I for one believe them when they say they need it and they should get it

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I always hear this type of stuff
and "get the fukk outa here"' is the only explanation the proponents have for it, rarely when pushed one can manage to uncover the jealousy and sour grapes underlying these sentiments


these people who have no savings, no job security are willing to strike, for that extra $5. I for one believe them when they say they need it and they should get it

Again showing how flawed your argument is.

You're talking about UNIONIZATION AGAINST COMPANIES...NOT GOVERNMENT.

 

[tmonster]

Again showing how flawed your argument is.

You're talking about UNIONIZATION AGAINST COMPANIES...NOT GOVERNMENT.

so a labor union is not a legal entity? :youthink:
and the whole idea of a union is not that they can marshal the force or inaction of the government through the courts when bylaws are violated?

and the core of my thesis is not that government should set a living wage that prevents even the need for strike action by the most insecure of workers:youthink:

flawed indeed:yasure:

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Fair enough I disagree that its the only option, but you make a strong case for it.

I (wholeheartedly)believe all "value" to be subjective, so when you say "The value of a lower-tier worker should increase at the same rate that an medium or upper-tier worker" I see it as pure opinion, and not something we should legislate.
I also disagree that govt. should "force employers to regard their workers' value", and I don't believe a 3rd party far removed from the exchange, is even capable of assessing that value.

How would you feel about removing the min wage and implementing a negative tax? This is what I really want/ think should happen. It catches those at the bottom, and increases the flexibility of those at the top.

Negative income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is companies evaluating the benefit of their workers is also subjective. The point of a self-regulating marketplace valuating the workforce is no longer feasible due to the economic history. So either the government decides on what workers should get or companies do, and the corporate world has repetitiously shown that they don't favor fair labor costs. And before you hit me with what is "fair"; fair is paying a livable wage by allowing workers to have a salary that would provide the necessities to function in society. That includes being able to rent a place in the same city, enough to consume food according to the ERS average, and provide a disposable income that is compatible with CPI estimates.

Negative state tax could be a viable supplement but the burden shouldn't be on the government to adjust their yearly budgets to accommodate workers, but on the companies since they are the main beneficiaries of the expanding economy.

and @Ed MOTHERfukkING G why do you always dip when I enter the thread

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

so a labor union is not a legal entity? :youthink:
and the whole idea of a union is not that they can marshal the force or inaction of the government through the courts when bylaws are violated?

and the core of my thesis is not that government should set a living wage that prevents even the need for strike action by the most insecure of workers:youthink:

flawed indeed:yasure:

YOURE MISSING THE fukkING POINT.

Governments can't tell businesses how to pay people BEYOND a minimum floor!

Thats the point.

SOME entry level shyt just AINT worth paying people "so called" living wages.

a labor union IS NOT the US Federal or State Government. Keep trolling.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The problem is companies evaluating the benefit of their workers is also subjective. The point of a self-regulating marketplace valuating the workforce is no longer feasible due to the economic history. So either the government decides on what workers should get or companies do, and the corporate world has repetitiously shown that they don't favor fair labor costs. And before you hit me with what is "fair"; fair is paying a livable wage by allowing workers to have a salary that would provide the necessities to function in society. That includes being able to rent a place in the same city, enough to consume food according to the ERS average, and provide a disposable income that is compatible with CPI estimates.

Negative state tax could be a viable supplement but the burden shouldn't be on the government to adjust their yearly budgets to accommodate workers, but on the companies since they are the main beneficiaries of the expanding economy.

and @Ed MOTHERfukkING G why do you always dip when I enter the thread

*sigh*

Here we go... you're ASKING for minimum wage to cover this.

Tell me why I should advocate this idea?

I PERSONALLY do not think MINIMUM WAGE JOBS should afford these things, especially if they're entry level.

You gotta pick a struggle out here. If youre gonna be minimum wage you CANT be entry level too!

 

[Nintendough]

@ certain coli weirdos being pissy about $15 being minimum wage as if they own a business.

 

[tmonster]

YOURE MISSING THE fukkING POINT.

Governments can't tell businesses how to pay people BEYOND a minimum floor!

Thats the point.

SOME entry level shyt just AINT worth paying people "so called" living wages.

a labor union IS NOT the US Federal or State Government. Keep trolling.

no one is trolling but
you are avoiding the point repeatedly, that's more like trolling :yasure:

and yelling irrelevant things, that reminds me of trolling:youthink:

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

no one is trolling but
you are avoiding the point repeatedly, that's more like trolling :yasure:

and yelling irrelevant things, that reminds me of trolling:youthink:

what am I avoiding?

I'm TELLING you that I currently dont see why door greeters at walmart deserve $15/hour

 

[tmonster]

what am I avoiding?

I'm TELLING you that I currently dont see why door greeters at walmart deserve $15/hour

I'm telling you I do, because they are an important part of the company's corporate image and help them make those billions
and if a company wants to occupy an adults time they should give them an adult salary :youthink:

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm telling you I do, because they are an important part of the company's corporate image and help them make those billions
and if a company wants to occupy an adults time they should give them an adult salary :youthink:

Then you're part of the problem IMO.

Not all "work" is created equally.

 

[tmonster]

Then you're part of the problem IMO.

Not all "work" is created equally.

that's why not all people need to get paid the same
but we don't ever need to devalue another man's time below his need for dignity and community