"If you don't work, you don't eat." Do you generally agree or disagree with this quote?
Disagree. I would hate to see so many children starve since we have gotten rid of child labor.
Well, nowadays you get paid to sit around, so I have to disagree.
That's just how the world works, you have to work to produce something of value to get resources to survive
I find it hilarious that over 80% of each Christian group said you must work to eat, while less than half of non-theists did. I don't recall Jesus ever saying 'Here, beggar, have some food, but only if you do work to deserve it." Hypocrisy.
Actually, this question was inspired by a Bible verse.
Generally agree. There are exceptions.
Of course no prostitute eats when she's not working.
Without it, we wouldn't have a country
What about kids? D:
I thought about that too but I decided that to me kid's job is school.
Because I don't believe it is necessary to force everyone to work in order to have adequate economic results.
This user is currently being ignored
Or just let them die on the streets by their own decision not to work
Why? It's not our fault they aren't motivated enough by their own existence to work.
Unless you're physically incapable, yes I agree.
I'm for a social safety net, but against the social hammock we have now
Yes, but in the US, you have the problem of people who work hard, and don't eat.
Who is that?
The millions of American workers on food stamps
Not long ago I was filling up with gas at the gas station. An elderly Native American women was digging through the trash can. I asked her if she needed help. She said no, I'm just looking for something that eat. I guess she was working for her food.
If you consider that an acceptable way for Americans to eat, you have a problem
Demand, how many of those same people spend money in non-essentials instead? I'd say it's close to 100%.
Yea, because poor, hard working are just irresponsible and choose not to eat. Because that seems logical
Instead of making outlandish claims against Americans. Why don't you stand up for the working people of your country
Those jobs are meant for high school and college kids or, at worst, an entry level job to move up in the company. It's not meant to raise family on. They need to take responsibility for the decisions they've made. Can't afford kids? Don't get pregnant. Can't afford enough food? Don't buy lotto tickets, cigarettes, and beer.
Hey! Demand finally visited one of my polls!
I thought it was awful. Imagine your grandma looking for food in the trash. I gave her $20.
America is the only country in the history of the world where the poor are fat. The poor have homes with carpets and heat and light and air and fresh water, food every day. They give them money for food for their kids and then they feed them at school too. And don't reduce their food stamps to compensate. They get free phones and now, free internet. So I think Americans are pretty generous. No other country in history is that nice.
The arent for high school students. Actually the average wage of a McDonald's worker is 30. As inequality increases, less and less middle income jobs are becoming available, with more people being forced to take low paying service jobs. These are jobs that have to be done, hey are willing to do, and should be paid a fair salary for it. Also, the cost of an education is astronomical, and you shouldn't force people to go to pursue and pay for extra education so they can feed themselves
If you work hard you should eat, and that needs to start happening in the US
And the poor are fat because the only food that can be afforded is cheap, high fat, high caloric, low vitamin food. And even with that they are mal nourished. Being fat doesn't mean being well off, and you can even starve while being fat as the food you can afford you eat lacks essential vitamins
We don't force anyone to work at McDonald's. We don't have slavery or indentured servitude.
They're meant for high school and college-aged kids. That people fall into that rut of staying content with a min wage job is their own fault. College is not for everyone, I agree. But if you don't plan on bettering yourself and finding a way to earn more money then you'd better get used to living meagerly and not having kids. Can't expect others to support you your whole life. Welfare was meant as a safety net, not a hammock.
It's not about making more money, it's about earning a wage you deserve and provides the basic neccesities. No hard working person should live in poverty or have to rely on government benefits. Regardless of how you feel about minimum wage jobs, people are working hard to do those jobs, and deserve a living wage for their work. Someone has to do these jobs, so you shouldn't attack a person for doing the work you depend on
Shouldn't a low wage crappy job be terrible so that you'll try and do anything to get a better job? If we make people comfortable in mediocre jobs. They'll never try and do anything better. I'm pretty sure when you were in grade school and someone asked you what you wanted to be, you didn't say minimum wage burger flipper for 50 years. Even if we pay them $15 bucks or $10.10 like the president wants. You gotta do better or you'll never make anything with your life.
How much do you think a fry cook at McDonalds "deserves"? Income isn't based on how hard someone works anyway. It's based on the market forces of supply and demand and how much that position is worth to the company. Businesses don't get started to provide people with income. They're to provide a product or service. That they often require labor is a benefit to the people. The problem is you, and many of the same ilk, believe that you deserve more just because you're living. That society owes you stuff.
You get paid for the job you do. Are you willing to overpay someone to do a job that doesn't deserve that much pay? Are you willing to take half your salary in a job that you moved up the ladder for years, and give it to the guy sharpening pencils because it's just not fair? No you're not. You could take him under your wing and mentor him and get him motivated to get a better job. That's charity and it's noble.
Are you in college, demand?
The point of a job isn't "this should be bad so they can do something else". He point is doing work and getting a wage you deserve
And other problem with your point is that there isn't options without an expensive education. If we have free college, that would be different, but we shouldn't say "the only way to get a wage you deserve is if you pay 100,000 dollars in school"
That's insane, if you work hard, you should warn what you put in, at least enough to be able to eat without government handouts
And no, income isn't based off of supply and demand. The wage of a ceo executive have gone up dramatically over the past few decades, even though supply and demand for this position has barely changed. On the other hand, while demand of low wage service jobs has increased, wages have not gone up. To think wages work perfectly in supply and demand is insane
I know someone with a high school diploma that took a two week class and became a real estate agent. She worked her way up for a few years and now makes $1.8 million a year. So don't tell me that you need a $100,000 degree in art appreciation to make a good salary. Most jobs don't require a college degree. I also know people that washed planes to pay for flight time and now make $300,000 as airline pilots. It's all about motivation and the burn in the belly.
Personal anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to facts. And the facts are that's a rare occurrence
"I know someone who became a rapper without a high school diploma"
So should minimum wage workers just become rappers and the fact that they aren't just shows laziness. No, but if they are working to make a living, they deserve a wage to make said living
Demand, you keep dealing in emotion and not economics. That is why I asked you what a fry cook deserves. You also sound like Hillary with the continued use of "working hard". Again, that's an emotional context and not related to wages. Anyone can work at McDonald's. The only "real" job there is the Manager. It's an unskilled position.
As for college, there are tons of million- and now billionaires that never graduated college or even high school.
Stop sniveling about CEO wages. You never snivel about baseball players or actors making $20 million a year. Or multi billionaire Oprah. If you took the yearly salary from the CEO of Southwest Airlines and gave it to all the workers, they'd only get $150 bucks. So stop it.
You obviously don't understand CEO wages. They get salaries around $1M/ yr. It's the bonuses and other benefits that takes their total compensation up so much higher. They're tied to results, which isn't always based upon direct involvement in those results. In other words, other people may be fully responsible for making more money for the company but the CEO gets the bonus.
I gotta go. Good debate you guys. Thanks.
I'll ask again, are you in college? If so, what's your major?
Actually based on data from the IMF, it is economics. If you pay workers more that's better for everyone, but the corporations are denying economics, by paying a wage that isn't efficient for the economy. It is economics to pay workers more, and even tax the rich more. Income inequality plays a negative factor into economic growth and economic opportunity
Jobs are not to provide employees with a "living"!! They provide an income to work for said company. You can take the job or not. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere.
"people may be fully responsible for making more money for the company but the CEO gets the bonus."
Does that seem like a fair or efficient system to you. Many would even call it a form of socialism considering people are doing the work while a few receive the benefits
Actually yes the are, that's the purpose of the minimum wage and the reason children aren't working pennies an hour. The American principle of hard work leading to a decent living is not being met, as too many people who work hard rely on government benefits because rich corporations won't pay them a decent wage. And the benefits are costing you and me, the taxpayers
Life's not always fair, kid. Te sooner you learn that the better you'll be. See, that's where humanness comes in. Not everyone is kind or empathetic. This is also why socialism is an even worse system. At least capitalism gives you a fighting chance.
You're a taxpayer? What do you do?
Actually wrong again
Data shows that there is more economic opportunity in European "socialist" countries. Not only do you get a fighting chance, but you get a fair chance. In the US a child's future earnings is more dependent on their parents wealth than a child in socialist Europe.
"Fair" is an emotional word that denotes jealousy. It has no real
value in an economic discussion. Which, I'm through with, since you're avoiding some simple questions.
Good luck with McDonalds! Hope you get promoted to manager.
No, actually fair lead to economic efficiency, and more inequality leads to a lack of economic opportunity and creates a sort of aristocracy . In the link I have provided, there is data showing a relationship between how much wealth is concentrated amount top earners (1%) and the economic opportunity of the next generation. Fairness is economic efficiency, as wealth and income become merit based , while inequality leads to an oligopoly, with less qualified people doing high paying jobs because where they were born
My mother was born at the hight of the Great Depression. My grandparents came over from Italy and started up a grocery general store that was very successful. They would be considered upper middle class until the depression hit and they lost everything. They worked very hard but stuff happens.
And who's gonna pay to attain the skills? Will you be willing to pay for everyone's college education or job training, or even their benefits when their wage doesn't afford them to eat. If not, then you should be in support of raising the minimum wage
Great example of hard working people suffering from actions of wealthy (stock market bubble and crash). And like the 2008 recession, sometimes it's up to the government to step in and save the economy. Had they not in 2008, the recession would look much more like a depression according to every economist
Another point that you all may have already addressed. Depending on who you are, you may be so fortunate that you can travel all over the world in a life of leisure and eat the best food in the world and never have to get your hands dirty.
So what, love? Their parents and grandparents earned that money and have every right to pass it down to their progeny. It's not anyone else's to decide what to do with. You're using the jealousy argument lust like demand.
News flash...the government did not save the economy.
Actually it did. Without the bailouts and fed stimulus, every economists have predicted the recession would have turned into a depression. And now we have 5% unemployment, low inflation and at least 200,000 created every month since 2010
Now, we have a contradiction. We have a lot of jobs being created, and yet we have so many people on food stamps. You can't paint a beautiful picture and complain about such gloomy statistics at the same time.
Contraction?? The economy has been growing at 2%, faster than Europe. To say there has been economic contraction is pure ignorance
And all unemployment have been going down, and the recent jobs report shows a rise in wages. People are taking food stamps because corporations don't pay a fair wage, but that will change once the minimum wage is raised
Kscott: because of the poll question. Some don't have to work to eat. Also, some cheat and are a holes to earn their pay. I don't consider effing people over as working.
Despite your babbling, I just would like to point out that it's not a business's job to provide a living wage. Furthermore, corporations such as Wal-Mart have raised their wages.
Wal-mart has raised their wage by a dollar. That doesn't even put a dent into their workers pay as they still depend on government programs to make ends meet even though they work.
And yes it is, that's the point of the minimum wage and the reason we don't have children working for pennies and hour
Love, I see what you're saying now but those people aren't getting money from the Gov't or anyone else to eat, which is the basis of the quote.
Considering the cost of a college education, which is astronomical impaired to every country, I think high school students deserve a raise as well.
Raising the minimum wage only hurts those who are unskilled the most. You should try thinking from the Supply side every now and then.
So $1 is not enough. $15/hr is? What's the magic wage? And if paying people higher wages is better for the economy then why not pay them $40/hr?
Kscott. I was just bringing up a relevant point to the poll question. However, I do believe the rich do get benefits from the government. Some of the laws make it legal to cheat and avoid taxes. Did you ever look up the definition of frugivore or do you still think that it means only eating fruit?
$12 is a good number, but depending on the cost of living in an area maybe $15 in large expensive cities
And no political, data shows that raising wages for lower income helps not just them but the economy overall, ever heard of the multiplier effect?
And supply side has failed, trickle down has proven not to work
Paying less in taxes is not equal to receiving benefits unless what they use in services is more than what they actually pay in. In the case of the wealthy, they pay more than what they use, by far. That point simply doesn't hold up.
Poor people don't create very many jobs.
Why only $12? What about the multiplier effect? Pay them $40/hr. You said the more they get paid the better the economy.
Trickle down economics is not an actual policy. That's a pejorative term denoted by objectors to tax decreases.
Actually yes they do. Data from the IMF shows that as the income of the bottom quintile increases, the overall economic growth increases. While more money in the top quintile actually leads to economic contraction
So why not $40? Let's get this economy jumping!
The wealthy also have 40% of the gains and have been taking a disproportionate amount of the new wealth created, so I wouldn't praise them for paying more taxes . The 1% also pays a lower fraction of their income into taxes, which is unfair to hard working Americans that make larger sacrifices
Corporate welfare exists. The rich get far more benefits than the poor. Screwing others over, damaging the environment and slavery isn't a good way to create jobs. I'm a business owner and I do create jobs but I'm not a greedy psychopath either.
You're using a slippery slope fallacy, instead of arguing the point I made you're just making outlandish extremes
Yes, corporate welfare is when the Gov't picks winners and losers and gives some companies a subsidy. This happens often with green energy companies that typically fail. Tax deductions are not welfare or subsidies.
Slippery slope fallacy? C,mon demand. Here's your exact quote:
"Data from the IMF shows that as the income of the bottom quintile increases, the overall economic growth increases."
So what's wrong with $40, even $30? You're proving my point that your argument is emotionally and not based in economics.
Actually, the government has given far more benefits to fossil fuel industry. And considering clean energy are public goods, (clean air, clean water, climate change) I can understand the purpose of the spending. And no they haven't been failing, and have been predicted to surpass fossil fuel use in the next few years. Also there are huge barriers of entry for green energy companies into the energy sector , so in order to have "free market competition" government subsidies level the playing field
Of course you can't raise the wage to an impractical amount, but a living wage, which many economist agree upon is around 12-15 depending on cost of living, would not just Benefit the workers, but the overall economy
Paying subsidies is not part of the "free market competition". That's the Gov't deciding who should succeed. And, you could t be more wrong about alternative energy surpassing fossil fuels in the next few years. While I know you'd like to see that happen, again an emotional plea, it simply is more expensive and less efficient than oil and gas. Now, if we got behind nuclear energy then there's a real challenger.
Let's logically go through what happens when you raise the minimum wage. Businesses have to pay more for input. What does that mean? Businesses might have to make cuts. That means hours might be reduced or eliminated. On the consumer side, prices increase because it is more expensive to produce a product. This harms the poor the most.
I'd make an agreement: I'll support raising the min wage to $15 if we eliminate food stamps, welfare, and healthcare subsidies. Deal? I mean you said that would be a living wage.
Actually renewables are strengthening as the world loses its dependence on fossil fuels. And considering renewables provide a public good (clean air, clean water, climate change) it's the governments duty to provide goods that are societal benefits and overcome the "tragedy of commons" issue. Society is better off with renewables rather than fossil fuels
And data predicts that renewables (especially solar) will become the dominant source of energy, even more than nuclear
Politcal, actually your statement isn't supported by facts. There is no relation between unemployment and raising the minimum wage, so your statement is false
Solar will never be enough. But this will. youtu.be/IZf6e0ntFrw
And political, while you say raising the minimum wage will lead to inflation, the minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation as shown by the data, so your statement is again false
Also, the US is in a deflationary period, so a little more inflation would actually help our economy
Your link doesn't really support your claim, mainly because it's difficult to isolate factors and there has not been a substantial amount of time to conclude analytical data on this issue.
So since you admit that there is no clear evidence to support either sided you can't say that "raising the minimum wage will create unemployment" a fact, like you previously did. Studies will agree with me and the department of labor has found that raising the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. And with data, it may stimulate the economy creating more consumer spending and growth
That defies logic. Anytime more regulations are created, businesses will likely have to cut back. It's ironic that you complain about corporations, but you support policies that only benefits corporations because they are the only ones who can pay such a high wage.
"Anytime more regulations are created, businesses will likely have to cut back"
The data does not support that claim. And corporations are the only places minimum wage workers can afford to shop. If they are given a raise, they can shop at local businesses and expand growths. Raising the minimum wage will allow workers to be able to afford small business goods, rather than just corporations. And the data from the DoL shows most small business owners are in favor of raising the minimum wage
And no - I was saying that not enough time has passed for minimum wage increases in Seattle, DC, etc.
You want experts' opinion? I'll give them to you.
"Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.
Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.""
Let's first deal with people with low income is hurt.
Less low income teenagers were hired when New York raised its minimum wage in 2006. www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~jsabia/docs/Sabia_Burkhauser_Hansen_ILLR2012.pdf
It reduces the number of jobs for low skilled labor.
In Indiana, there were 500,000 fewer part-time jobs. Of those 500,000 jobs 300,000 were teenage jobs. Previously, you talked about how expensive college is. This isn't helping kids invest into their college education.
Oh! Of course, here's the link. Don't worry! I'm not done. I got several more areas to cover. cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/MillerCollegeofBusiness/BBR/Publications/MinWage.pdf
"While a large body of evidence suggests that minimum wage increases cause adverse employment effects among low-skilled workers (Neumark and Wascher, 2007; 2008), most national studies have found that these effects are relatively modest (elasticities of -0.1 to -0.3), and some case studies of states have found no negative employment effects"
Did you even read this
Consumer Impact -
Food prices increased due to the minimum wage increase. object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf
There's also a study that was conducted in Chicago about restaurants' prices. I did not include that source in my research paper, so you can do your own research.
Demand, you should continue reading my source.
And how about 1.3 million jobs being lost if the minimum wage is raised to $9.50?
These are so much better sources than your's. Your sources don't even support your argument half the time. While you are posting opinion polls, I'm posting data.
Political, I've read the first one and it sided with my statement. If there is any effect the minimum wage has on unemployment, it's very modest and minimal.
But overall the minimum wage increases, as shown by the stats tics from the department of labor, has lead to more economic growth
And the data you showed even admitted nothing was conclusive and other studies showed different results. And unemployment has been DECREASING since the most recent minimum wage hikes. There's no validity to your arguments
Of course - that's what happens when you artificially grow the economy. Unemployment will go down. You see wages remain low too. Government regulations will not bring up wages. Less will.
Actually I'm this current jobs report, wages have increased. And raising the minimum wage has lead to growth in small businesses
And the studies cities only measured short term. But due to economic ripple effects, there is more growth in the long run
And the minimum wage was the highest in 1968 under Lyndon, when GDP growth was at 5% and wages were growing faster
Wait...wages aren't low? Why do we need to increase the minimum wage? This kind of double talk doesn't help your argument.
But your argument remains invalid, as you state that minimum wage will destroy job creations, while since the most recent raise interest the minimum wage, unemployment has gone done to 5% and 200,000 jobs have been created months since 2010. Copying and pasting articles you clearly haven't read (since the first one backs up my point) doesn't back up your point
Actually that's wrong also. Wages have been stagnant since the 1980s and even going down for middle and lower class workers since reagan's deregulation of the 1980s. There is a negative correlation with deregulation and wages as shown by the data, and the only wages that have been increases are the wages of the 1%
Of course my argument is not invalid. Economic logic is backed up by the data. Unfortunately, you won't read the data. You rather stick with poll numbers.
I've read the data and even quoted when it stated that any unemployment created was modest. Have you read that you would not have copied and pasted it
Chimichanga likes to declare his blow up sex doll as dependent on his taxes and thinks he created a job for it. Because that's the conservative way.
Round and round we go
Love, come on. That's not nice.
I was playing the tit for tat game
Ok. But he didn't attack you personally. Just liberals. It was kinda funny though.
He attacks me and other people's all the time. He's an ass. Don't worry he loves the tit for tat game. One thing I will say from him is that he's careful to wear a condom while engaging his blow us doll since he's pro life and doesn't want to pay any child support.
@ Demandside what do you think of trade liberalization?
I could go on, but for the most part while there is good in trade liberalization has to be made in a way that works, either from domestic policies or international institutions that work (IMF and world bank haven't been) . Countries have to respond to globalization that provides the most efficiency to their economy, but at the same time it requires regulation (either state or international). And overall while liberalization has benefited the west (for the most part) and some developing nations(India and China) is many cases it has made life worse for citizens of other developing nations through forced removal of state sovereignty (tariffs, subsidies, barriers) that haven't been reciprocated by the west. Advanced nations still have large barriers to trade which make it impossible to compete for emerging markets. Trade liberalization needs to be implemented In a way that works for all rather than for a few.
If you don't work, you don't eat well or eat a lot, but I think people are entitled to basic sustenance.
There's that word. Entitled
And you are entitled to be forced to pay for them or go to prison.
Great quote. The Indians had a name for sociopaths that translates to "he who will not work"
"...For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers."
I consider school work, and I would consider retirees as those who have already worked. If someone is disable, of course that is a unique circumstance. Please do not answer, "it depends."
I agree. My little kids don't work too hard for what they eat, but it's a good age to start teaching them the concept.
Screen, actually Dave Ramsey has a great teaching tool for kids that has a magnetic white board and you put down all the chores for the week and what each one pays. There's a place at the bottom where the weekly money will go. Saving, spending, charity. It teaches the value of work and how to plan for spending. My granddaughters love it.
Actually, political, that's what I was going to say - haha - so I won't . 🙂
It's a really good program. The granddaughters love it. Remember, the goal is not to raise good kids. The goal is to raise good adults.
Yep, we use it :)