Going out to eat post COVID

[dolphins4life]

I don't understand why so many people are super invested in ensuring that more profit goes to McDonald's owners instead of their employees... especially when the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage is made up by you, the taxpayer.

When you say, "People shouldn't be able to provide for their family with a minimum wage job," you are necessarily saying one of two things:

a) Their family should be homeless and starving
b) We should subsidize the profits of the business owner by providing assistance to their family (so they are not homeless and starving)

Every dollar in profit that is not being pad in wages, but is being paid in safety net assistance, is money that is coming out of YOUR pocket to prop up the profit of business owners.  Welfare for the poor is paid for by the middle class so the rich can have a greater profit margin.

This is why we have a wealth inequality problem in this country.

  What about those who don't work? 

[Spider-Dan]

Those who don't work are not particularly relevant to a discussion about the minimum wage, which necessarily only applies to those who have jobs.
Remember, the point that you are making is that these folks who are working nevertheless don't deserve to have a living wage.

Seems to me that if you raise the minimum wage, you would have more people who could afford to work.  For example, if you're a married parent with young children, you literally cannot afford to take any job that pays less than the cost of child care you would now need (because you're no longer at home watching your kids).

[dolphins4life]

So, Spider, do you believe everybody should be able to have as many children as they want and everybody else has to pay for it?    In terms of people not working, I meant those who get disability since childhood and never work, and then have children on the taxpayer's dime.  Do you think that is fine?

[Spider-Dan]

I don't share your obsession with intense interest in punishing promiscuous women.  My primary concern is giving children the best chance to grow up and become functional & contributing members of society, and I don't see a way to do that without the parents being able to ride along for ~18 years.

I do notice that you have repeatedly mentioned "disability," which has nothing to do with children.  If a person is on disability, that means a government authority has judged that they are currently unable (or less able) to work.  And although I know you have stated that you don't think they're really disabled, I don't believe that you're professionally qualified to make that determination.

[ArtieChokePhin]

If parents are unable to provide for their children, should these children starve? Is that an outcome you're comfortable with in the united states?

Then they need to be declared unfit parents and the children need to be put into an environment where they won't starve (foster care).  Children shouldn't suffer for their parents bad decisions but the rest of society shouldn't either.

[Dolphster]

Rugged personal responsibility and pro-business capitalism are not compatible with an unwillingness to watch homeless children starve.

You are being overly dramatic to make an incorrect point.  There are plenty of people with kids who are working minimum wage jobs.  None of those kids are "starving".   Yes, they are leading a pretty shitty life (not "living the good life" like D4L says), but they aren't starving because close to 100% of the children of minimum wage earners are getting some form of government assistance which keeps them from being at the point of starving.  There are also no homeless children starving.  For the same reason.  Food banks, homeless shelters, etc are never going to turn down feeding a child.  Again, don't equate living a shitty life because the parents are imbeciles with starving.  There is a HUGE difference.

[dolphins4life]

You're such a sucker, dude.

You're getting fucked in a shit job and making excuses for your boss.  Wake up.

Not sure how this response concerns the post of mine which you quoted.  Care to elaborate? 

[dolphins4life]

You are being overly dramatic to make an incorrect point.  There are plenty of people with kids who are working minimum wage jobs.  None of those kids are "starving".   Yes, they are leading a pretty shitty life (not "living the good life" like D4L says), but they aren't starving because close to 100% of the children of minimum wage earners are getting some form of government assistance which keeps them from being at the point of starving.  There are also no homeless children starving.  For the same reason.  Food banks, homeless shelters, etc are never going to turn down feeding a child.  Again, don't equate living a shitty life because the parents are imbeciles with starving.  There is a HUGE difference.

Right now it’s a better of life for a single parent to not work than to work

[dolphins4life]

Then they need to be declared unfit parents and the children need to be put into an environment where they won't starve (foster care).  Children shouldn't suffer for their parents bad decisions but the rest of society shouldn't either.

I don’t understand how it’s possible to be too mentally disabled to work but not too mentally disabled to raise a child.

[Dolphster]

Right now it’s a better of life for a single parent to not work than to work

D4L, believe me, we are all extremely aware by now of your viewpoint on that topic since hardly a day goes by where you don't say it.

[Spider-Dan]

Then they need to be declared unfit parents and the children need to be put into an environment where they won't starve (foster care).

So, to clarify:

Instead of the government giving poor people money so they can raise their own children (i.e. how things work now), some government bureaucrat will come and take children away solely because their parents are too poor.  These government bureaucrats will then take these children to foster homes, which the government will pay even more than we are paying poor parents now.

I would not consider such a scenario an improvement over the status quo.

[Spider-Dan]

There are plenty of people with kids who are working minimum wage jobs.  None of those kids are "starving".  Yes, they are leading a pretty shitty life (not "living the good life" like D4L says), but they aren't starving because close to 100% of the children of minimum wage earners are getting some form of government assistance which keeps them from being at the point of starving.

That is exactly my point: arguments about how these "bad decision makers" don't deserve to make more than (current) minimum wage are pointless, because - as a result of our society deciding that people should not starve - the taxpayer is going to make up the difference anyway.

So when you insist that business owners should not be required to pay a livable wage (even for people who have made bad life decisions), what you are really saying is that the taxpayer is going to subsidize that job so the business owner can keep more of their profit.  This has been Wal-Mart's business model for decades.

[dolphins4life]

Spider, your point seems to be that the government should continue to grab money from some people and give it to others.  This is why I worry about my financial future.  As we continue to promote the idea that some people can do whatever they want and other people pay for it, more and more people will try to be part of the some people who get to do whatever they want.   My other point was what about the irresponsible people who don't work, but continue to breed and force other people to pay for it?  Should we even try to do something about that?  We can't pay them a living wage because they don't work.   

[Spider-Dan]

Spider, your point seems to be that the government should continue to grab money from some people and give it to others.

This will necessarily be the case as long as we have a safety net.

So as long as we are unwilling to let people starve on the street, someone has to pay for their food and shelter.  If the person in question is working a full-time job and still can't afford to make ends meet, either we can force employers to pay higher wages, or government assistance will make up the difference.  Personally, I prefer the former.

As we continue to promote the idea that some people can do whatever they want and other people pay for it, more and more people will try to be part of the some people who get to do whatever they want.

Consider that the vacation home that your employer buys is funded by your labor.
Specifically: the difference between the value your labor creates and the amount of money you get paid.

There are always going to be people who get to do whatever they want.  I'm just saying that maybe we should try to ensure that employees at the very bottom of the food chain get a little bit more of the profit from the work they perform.

My other point was what about the irresponsible people who don't work, but continue to breed and force other people to pay for it?  Should we even try to do something about that?

I don't think we can.

Do you think it's a good idea to spend even more money on funding and administrating a greatly expanded foster care system, instead?

[Dolphster]

That is exactly my point: arguments about how these "bad decision makers" don't deserve to make more than (current) minimum wage are pointless, because - as a result of our society deciding that people should not starve - the taxpayer is going to make up the difference anyway.

So when you insist that business owners should not be required to pay a livable wage (even for people who have made bad life decisions), what you are really saying is that the taxpayer is going to subsidize that job so the business owner can keep more of their profit.  This has been Wal-Mart's business model for decades.

There definitely isn't an easy answer to the problem.  And I get what you are saying, but I think that you and I have a basic fundamental difference regarding economic theory.  I apologize if I'm not remembering correctly, but I think you have stated before that you favor a socialist system of government.  Whereas I am pretty solidly on the capitalist side. So we are always going to approach these types of issues from very different angles.   When I was a lot younger (and poorer, LOL) I actually leaned much more towards your own stance.  So I really do understand where you are coming from.  I know you will vehemently disagree with me on this just because we are so fundamentally different, but I think that even though the NUMBER of people making minimum wage is pretty high, the PERCENTAGE of Americans making minimum wage (excluding high school kids, etc.) is very small.  Corporations making a healthy profit benefits a much greater percentage of society because much of that profit is reintroduced back into the economy in a myriad of ways from creating more jobs to conspicuous consumption by the people with the money which keeps the economy strong and all the way to stockholders making money because the company is making money.  And when I say stockholders, I don't just mean rich investors.  Anyone with a 401K makes money when publicly held companies are profitable.  Falling back on some of the research I had to do when working on my MBA, there is pretty solid research that also delves into the unintended negative societal consequences of "forcing" companies to overpay for jobs with a very limited skill requirement.  If the cost of doing business (payroll, etc.) reaches a certain point, it becomes a barrier to entry for a huge percentage of small businesses and a thing that most people don't talk about is that if you make a large increase to the minimum wage, that is going to create a domino effect of the other levels of wages will also increase (you obviously can't have a McDonalds manager making the same as the french fry machine guy).  This domino effect absolutely without question leads to companies increasing their prices to cover a large part of those additional costs to them (if not all of the additional cost).  So ultimately you have increased pay, yet increased prices on every day goods goes up a similar percentage and the minimum wage earners are essentially still in the same position as before when it comes to buying power for things they need for survival.  And as I have pointed out before (but you conveniently didn't address), keep increasing the cost of doing business and small companies will be forced out of business and large companies will move their production facilities offshore.  Thus completely eliminating the jobs of the working class whom we are trying to help.  See the Detroit auto industry as an indisputable bit of evidence of this concept. 

Also, corporate profit is where innovation and advancement comes from.  Cutting edge products and technology advancement comes directly from the Research and Development sectors of corporations and without a good profit, R&D will be poorly funded and innovation (including new medicines, etc that benefit every segment of society) will slow to a crawl or stop altogether.  Yes, the rich get richer under capitalism, but all of society gains from that system to one extent or another.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  Not just the yachts.