$10 minimum wage costing Mass. jobs

[AURaptor 1,122]

Says the person that has trouble writing coherent sentences.

It's coherent. Don't act like you've never had a typo .

Loser.

Hahaha. I am always on my phone and I never have the autocorrect problems that you CONSTANTLY have.

Lie. Occasional, at most. Even still , it matters not. Just a childish excuse by you to run away from the issue.

You're just fine example of a dim witted government drone. Somebody in government says something, and you automatically believe it. "Living wage", " affordable care act"… just because somebody in government says it, doesn't make it true.

The issue here is there is no meaning to a "living wage". Is a 17-year-old kid living at home earning the same "living wage" as a 36-year-old single mother of three? Hell no. One has far greater expenses than the other. The minimum wage is just a base, entry-level pay into the work force. It's not meant to support a family , pay rent, pay bills and save for college.

Please wake the hell up

[aujeff11 6,243]

Says the person that has trouble writing coherent sentences.

It's coherent. Don't act like you've never had a typo .

Loser.

Hahaha. I am always on my phone and I never have the autocorrect problems that you CONSTANTLY have.

Lie. Occasional, at most. Even still , it matters not. Just a childish excuse by you to run away from the issue.

You're just fine example of a dimmer waited government drone. Somebody in government says something, and you automatically believe it. "Living wage", " affordable care act"… just because somebody in government says it, doesn't make it true.

The issue here is there is no meaning to a "living wage". Is a 17-year-old kid living at home earning the same "living wage" as a 36-year-old single mother of three? Hell no. One has far greater expenses than the other. The minimum wage is just a base, entry-level pay into the work force. It's not meant to support a family , pay rent, pay bills and save for college.

Please wake the hell up

What are you talking about. I have yet to suggest raising a family by minimum wage because I didn't need to. It's not even possible to live alone on minimum wage unless the house and car is already gifted to you. Sadly enough, people are living alone on minimum wage and people are attempting to raise families on minimum wage. If the minimum wage wasn't meant for the lower class to pay bills, what was it meant for?

[AURaptor 1,122]

Those who use the term "living wage" are the ones who do mean that. They mean that a single mother with two or three kids should be able to live comfortably while making minimum-wage. What is actually is an entry-level pay for those just starting to work. They are expected to achieve, and through merit, earn higher Pay as they become more valuable to their employer.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Those who use the term "living wage" are the ones who do mean that. They mean that a single mother with two or three kids should be able to live comfortably while making minimum-wage. What is actually is an entry-level pay for those just starting to work. They are expected to achieve, and through merit, burn hire Pay as they become more valuable to their employer.

"They are expected to achieve, and through merit, burn hire Pay as they become more valuable to their employer."

Another incoherent sentence... You're like a broken record.

I know where you are going with the sentence though. Don't you think if they had the opportunity to have higher pay, they would take it? They have kids to feed and clothe, isn't that enough motivation for the minimum wage earners to try and seek out better jobs? Work is hard to find. Good paying work is even harder to find. I know people that can't get hired for health and age reasons so they're stuck in the rut, having to work overtime at pisspoor jobs just to pay for rent and their bills. Maybe we shouldn't require the lower class to live to work, but to work to live.

And no, living wage doesn't imply single mothers with two or three kids... Where the crap did you get that idea?

[AUcivE09 582]

I actually know very few people who make minimum wage. Even people who hold down a job at Burger King for a year are typically above minimum wage. I worked at Red Lobster for about 2 years in the early college years (2002-2003) and was making $10.25 an hour when I left. If welfare was used as intended we would have no problem helping out those below a living wage make ends meet until they get to a livable wage. Increasing the wage does no favors to those who hold down a job and are trying - it rewards those who cant stay employed long term for whatever reason.

Big chain companies could easily pay the increase, but trying to open up a small "mom and pop" place becomes much more of challenge.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I got that idea from the very people who use the term "living wage". It's a con, a trick , A deceptive one at that. Those who try to make the minimum wage a "living wage" use it as a blanket statement. Politicians use this as a means to garner favor with as many voters as they can.

[quietfan 233]

They mean that a single mother with two or three kids should be able to live comfortably while making minimum-wage. What is actually is an entry-level pay for those just starting to work. They are expected to achieve, and through merit, earn higher Pay as they become more valuable to their employer.

I have never understood this reasoning. A 'minimum wage' position is NOT synonymous with a 'temporary' or 'entry-only' position, nor was it meant that way when minimum wage laws were written.

Many people work for minimum wage for years or their entire lifetime, but not because they are lazy, untalented, or simply not motivated to 'move up'. Some are stuck in minimum wage jobs because they never had the opportunity to attend college or get other training that would qualify them for higher paying positions due to limited financial means, time constraints, or family obligations. Some are stuck in minimum wage positions because they reside in economically-depressed areas and there are no better paying jobs in their locale, but again financial, health, or family constraints do not afford them the freedom or opportunity to pack up and re-locate in search of better paying employment elsewhere. And some folks have a genuine talent and love for the duties of their current position, but no desire or ability to move 'up' to a different role.

Regardless of 'why' anyone is in their current position, I believe in the dignity of all honest labor and consider a minimum wage position to deserve just as much respect as better paying jobs. I don't look at minimum wage labor as something meant for, or only good enough for teens, college students, or the extreme poor/uneducated. "Dignity of labor' is not ranked or measured by size of paycheck.

I think anyone who works hard full-time should earn enough at that job, whatever it is, to provide life's minimal necessities for his/her family (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare), as well as occasional, moderate, quality-time family activities like an occasional movie, a family night out, or a rare trip to the local ballpark. That is what I consider a 'living wage'.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I actually know very few people who make minimum wage. Even people who hold down a job at Burger King for a year are typically above minimum wage. I worked at Red Lobster for about 2 years in the early college years (2002-2003) and was making $10.25 an hour when I left. If welfare was used as intended we would have no problem helping out those below a living wage make ends meet until they get to a livable wage. Increasing the wage does no favors to those who hold down a job and are trying - it rewards those who cant stay employed long term for whatever reason.

Big chain companies could easily pay the increase, but trying to open up a small "mom and pop" place becomes much more of challenge.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/archive/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

According to this table, there were 1.3 million workers in the United States working at the rate of 7.25. Obviously many jobs that start out at the 7.25 wage floor do offer raises but I'd be willing to guess that many of them takes years to come close to reaching 12 dollar wages (which is where I think we should be at.)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/minimum-wages

Some people just simply cannot get 12 dollar jobs though and it's not fair to judge them, or to compare them to a pot head who has parents that are forcing them to work.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Those who have an education of at least high school level, and work "years" at minimum wage are quite simply lazy. They may dig ditches 12 hours a day, but they're not using their mind. Whatever it is, if they cannot get out of a job that only pays minimum-wage, never getting a raise at that job, then they are where they need to be.

[aujeff11 6,243]

They mean that a single mother with two or three kids should be able to live comfortably while making minimum-wage. What is actually is an entry-level pay for those just starting to work. They are expected to achieve, and through merit, earn higher Pay as they become more valuable to their employer.

I have never understood this reasoning. A 'minimum wage' position is NOT synonymous with a 'temporary' or 'entry-only' position, nor was it meant that way when minimum wage laws were written.

Many people work for minimum wage for years or their entire lifetime, but not because they are lazy, untalented, or simply not motivated to 'move up'. Some are stuck in minimum wage jobs because they never had the opportunity to attend college or get other training that would qualify them for higher paying positions due to limited financial means, time constraints, or family obligations. Some are stuck in minimum wage positions because they reside in economically-depressed areas and there are no better paying jobs in their locale, but again financial, health, or family constraints do not afford them the freedom or opportunity to pack up and re-locate in search of better paying employment elsewhere. And some folks have a genuine talent and love for the duties of their current position, but no desire or ability to move 'up' to a different role.

Regardless of 'why' anyone is in their current position, I believe in the dignity of all honest labor and consider a minimum wage position to deserve just as much respect as better paying jobs. I don't look at minimum wage labor as something meant for, or only good enough for teens, college students, or the extreme poor/uneducated. "Dignity of labor' is not ranked or measured by size of paycheck.

I think anyone who works hard full-time should earn enough at that job, whatever it is, to provide life's minimal necessities for his/her family (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare), as well as occasional, moderate, quality-time family activities like an occasional movie, a family night out, or a rare trip to the local ballpark. That is what I consider a 'living wage'.

Exactly!

"I think anyone who works hard full-time should earn enough at that job, whatever it is, to provide life's minimal necessities for his/her family (food, shelter, clothing, healthcare), as well as occasional, moderate, quality-time family activities like an occasional movie, a family night out, or a rare trip to the local ballpark. That is what I consider a 'living wage'."

^^ This. Work to LIVE, not live to WORK!

[aujeff11 6,243]

Proverbs 26:4

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." (NIV)

[Grumps 3,704]

It is truly fascinating at how dependent we, as a nation, have become on the government. Apparently we should all have the "right" to quit high school, be an unreliable employee, have as many kids as we want to have with a house big enough to accommodate them, have a smart phone and some entertainment.

No, I do not think that everyone making minimum wage is lazy, but, as others have said, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SHOW UP ON TIME TO WORK EVERY DAY AT ANY JOB AND DO WHAT IS EXPECTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE ONLY MINIMUM WAGE. If you are not making enough at your job then find another one. Work ethic and attitude are free, but they can earn millions.

[cooltigger21 0]

It is truly fascinating at how dependent we, as a nation, have become on the government. Apparently we should all have the "right" to quit high school, be an unreliable employee, have as many kids as we want to have with a house big enough to accommodate them, have a smart phone and some entertainment.

No, I do not think that everyone making minimum wage is lazy, but, as others have said, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SHOW UP ON TIME TO WORK EVERY DAY AT ANY JOB AND DO WHAT IS EXPECTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE ONLY MINIMUM WAGE. If you are not making enough at your job then find another one. Work ethic and attitude are free, but they can earn millions.

Bad decisions have consequences. It seems we are trying to eliminate this.

[channonc 466]

Those who have an education of at least high school level, and work "years" at minimum wage are quite simply lazy. They may dig ditches 12 hours a day, but they're not using their mind. Whatever it is, if they cannot get out of a job that only pays minimum-wage, never getting a raise at that job, then they are where they need to be.

I believe it takes all kinds to be in this world. If one loves to dig ditches, by all means, digging ditches should provide that person enough money to pay for life's essentials. Raptor, your lack of compassion really makes me very sad. You must live a miserable life.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Those who have an education of at least high school level, and work "years" at minimum wage are quite simply lazy. They may dig ditches 12 hours a day, but they're not using their mind. Whatever it is, if they cannot get out of a job that only pays minimum-wage, never getting a raise at that job, then they are where they need to be.

I believe it takes all kinds to be in this world. If one loves to dig ditches, by all means, digging ditches should provide that person enough money to pay for life's essentials. Raptor, your lack of compassion really makes me very sad. You must live a miserable life.

The world needs ditch diggers too.

Don't like it ?

Tough.

[channonc 466]

It is truly fascinating at how dependent we, as a nation, have become on the government. Apparently we should all have the "right" to quit high school, be an unreliable employee, have as many kids as we want to have with a house big enough to accommodate them, have a smart phone and some entertainment.

No, I do not think that everyone making minimum wage is lazy, but, as others have said, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SHOW UP ON TIME TO WORK EVERY DAY AT ANY JOB AND DO WHAT IS EXPECTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE ONLY MINIMUM WAGE. If you are not making enough at your job then find another one. Work ethic and attitude are free, but they can earn millions.

Not true. Life is not so black and white. Again, people willing to work and have a job should not need to live on assistance. As I highlighted in an earlier post, it costs much more than people think to cover life's basic needs.

[channonc 466]

Those who have an education of at least high school level, and work "years" at minimum wage are quite simply lazy. They may dig ditches 12 hours a day, but they're not using their mind. Whatever it is, if they cannot get out of a job that only pays minimum-wage, never getting a raise at that job, then they are where they need to be.

I believe it takes all kinds to be in this world. If one loves to dig ditches, by all means, digging ditches should provide that person enough money to pay for life's essentials. Raptor, your lack of compassion really makes me very sad. You must live a miserable life.

The world needs ditch diggers too.

Don't like it ?

Tough.

You are the one that suggested that digging ditches for minimum wage makes someone lazy because they aren't earning more. It must be great to be Raptor, to have all the answers and be rich too! (One would have to assume you are a billionaire the way you post).

[AURaptor 1,122]

My compassion isn't measured by how much the govt forces / compelled others to pay a person.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Those who have an education of at least high school level, and work "years" at minimum wage are quite simply lazy. They may dig ditches 12 hours a day, but they're not using their mind. Whatever it is, if they cannot get out of a job that only pays minimum-wage, never getting a raise at that job, then they are where they need to be.

I believe it takes all kinds to be in this world. If one loves to dig ditches, by all means, digging ditches should provide that person enough money to pay for life's essentials. Raptor, your lack of compassion really makes me very sad. You must live a miserable life.

The world needs ditch diggers too.

Don't like it ?

Tough.

?????

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't have a problem with establishing that someone who works full time (40 hrs a week) should make enough to pay for life's basics - decent food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. There's nothing wrong with saying that should be the floor for what a person makes and has here in this country. And I don't think the solution to that is to allow employers to use their superior bargaining position to press wages down to the bare minimum they can get away with, then expect taxpayers and charity to make up the difference.

[channonc 466]

I don't have a problem with establishing that someone who works full time (40 hrs a week) should make enough to pay for life's basics - decent food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. There's nothing wrong with saying that should be the floor for what a person makes and has here in this country. And I don't think the solution to that is to allow employers to use their superior bargaining position to press wages down to the bare minimum they can get away with, then expect taxpayers and charity to make up the difference.

This. I think if you are willing to work to support yourself then your wages should support your basic life needs (food, clothing, shelter, transportation to your work, healthcare and childcare) without direct help from the government or charities.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I don't have a problem with establishing that someone who works full time (40 hrs a week) should make enough to pay for life's basics - decent food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. There's nothing wrong with saying that should be the floor for what a person makes and has here in this country. And I don't think the solution to that is to allow employers to use their superior bargaining position to press wages down to the bare minimum they can get away with, then expect taxpayers and charity to make up the difference.

This. I think if you are willing to work to support yourself then your wages should support your basic life needs (food, clothing, shelter, transportation to your work, healthcare and childcare) without direct help from the government or charities.

And that still doesn't change the fact that some will always just be at that 'floor' because they either aren't able to do higher paying work (limited intelligence, physical limitations) or they are unwilling to put in the work and time to develop skills and knowledge that would allow them to. People who want to work harder, study longer, take risks, develop new skills will move up and be able to have more than the basics - a nice vehicle, live in a bigger/nicer home and area of town, take vacations, buy some luxuries and so on. It doesn't remove incentives to better oneself. But it does get people to a solid place from which to move - not constantly fighting and making ridiculous choices like whether to pay the light bill or get prescriptions this month. Or whether to eat and feed their kids or pay the rent. Someone trapped in that cycle will find it almost impossible to fight out of that rut. You expend every bit of energy just keeping your nose barely above water.

[Grumps 3,704]

It is truly fascinating at how dependent we, as a nation, have become on the government. Apparently we should all have the "right" to quit high school, be an unreliable employee, have as many kids as we want to have with a house big enough to accommodate them, have a smart phone and some entertainment.

No, I do not think that everyone making minimum wage is lazy, but, as others have said, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SHOW UP ON TIME TO WORK EVERY DAY AT ANY JOB AND DO WHAT IS EXPECTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE ONLY MINIMUM WAGE. If you are not making enough at your job then find another one. Work ethic and attitude are free, but they can earn millions.

Not true. Life is not so black and white. Again, people willing to work and have a job should not need to live on assistance. As I highlighted in an earlier post, it costs much more than people think to cover life's basic needs.

Can you give us one example of a person who goes to work everyday on time with a good attitude and does what is asked of them who still makes minimum wage after working at that job for more than 13 months?

[aujeff11 6,243]

It is truly fascinating at how dependent we, as a nation, have become on the government. Apparently we should all have the "right" to quit high school, be an unreliable employee, have as many kids as we want to have with a house big enough to accommodate them, have a smart phone and some entertainment.

No, I do not think that everyone making minimum wage is lazy, but, as others have said, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO SHOW UP ON TIME TO WORK EVERY DAY AT ANY JOB AND DO WHAT IS EXPECTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE ONLY MINIMUM WAGE. If you are not making enough at your job then find another one. Work ethic and attitude are free, but they can earn millions.

Not true. Life is not so black and white. Again, people willing to work and have a job should not need to live on assistance. As I highlighted in an earlier post, it costs much more than people think to cover life's basic needs.

Can you give us one example of a person who goes to work everyday on time with a good attitude and does what is asked of them who still makes minimum wage after working at that job for more than 13 months?

There are plenty of people working two or three 8 dollar an hour jobs.

[channonc 466]

I don't have a problem with establishing that someone who works full time (40 hrs a week) should make enough to pay for life's basics - decent food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. There's nothing wrong with saying that should be the floor for what a person makes and has here in this country. And I don't think the solution to that is to allow employers to use their superior bargaining position to press wages down to the bare minimum they can get away with, then expect taxpayers and charity to make up the difference.

This. I think if you are willing to work to support yourself then your wages should support your basic life needs (food, clothing, shelter, transportation to your work, healthcare and childcare) without direct help from the government or charities.

And that still doesn't change the fact that some will always just be at that 'floor' because they either aren't able to do higher paying work (limited intelligence, physical limitations) or they are unwilling to put in the work and time to develop skills and knowledge that would allow them to. People who want to work harder, study longer, take risks, develop new skills will move up and be able to have more than the basics - a nice vehicle, live in a bigger/nicer home and area of town, take vacations, buy some luxuries and so on. It doesn't remove incentives to better oneself. But it does get people to a solid place from which to move - not constantly fighting and making ridiculous choices like whether to pay the light bill or get prescriptions this month. Or whether to eat and feed their kids or pay the rent. Someone trapped in that cycle will find it almost impossible to fight out of that rut. You expend every bit of energy just keeping your nose barely above water.

Completely agree with everything you said.