>>>>>>>>>> If you work 40hours a week you should be able to afford these things. Today you can not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Depends what your skill is.
>>>>>>>>>Some jobs weren't ever meant to be a "career".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So your belief is that just because you have a full time job doesn't mean it should pay enough to live off of? Or am I mistaken here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Right.
>>>>>>>It depends on your skill set.
>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well then we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not possible for everyone to have a job with a high level skill set or even go to college. Personally I don't think it's right to toss these people under the bus, they should be able to survive on their full-time job's income. Companies (and society) have a responsibility to ensure that their workers earn enough to live on. If a firm can’t pay its workers enough to live on, then it isn’t a viable business, because it is dependent on wage subsidies.
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>They're responsible for your well being?
>>>>>They're responsible for your welfare?
>>>>>Really? That would be nice.
>>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>If a company is paying its workers so little that they qualify for and need public assistance, then we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing that company. Sometimes, we may choose to do that because the company is doing something we really need and no one else is willing to do it. But if that's not the case and the company is making a profit, then shouldn't we be asking why that's okay?
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>.
>>>
>>>I guess encouraging people to acquire a skill, or learing a trade, doesn't work anymore in today's society.... it's too preachy
>>>It's much easier to demand "someone owes me a living".
>>>
>>>People who have never run a business, telling others how to run their business.... that's rich.
>>
>>So you think it's okay that big companies pay some workers so little that the rest of us have to make sure they have food and shelter? Seriously?
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Big companies? Who are the "Big Companies"?
>
>So, someone comes up with an arbitrary figure and we all give in and say yes?
>
>Why just $15.00/hr?
>Why not $25.00/hr?......Why not $50.00/hr?
>
>Artificially raising wages isn't the answer either.
>
>What ever happens, the consumers, pay for it. Either through higher prices for goods, or through [higher] taxes.
>So, wouldn't it be a better if more able bodied people try to better themselves by learning a marketable skill, a skill worthy of $15.00/hr...or what ever the figure the market is willing to pay?
>.
>If you really want to find out, start your own business. You can pay your employees as much as you want.....and try to stay in business.
>But, than again, I guess we are where we are because too many people expect someone else to pay for their cost of living.

First, just happened across this today: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/26/one_of_the_most_popular_arguments_against_raising_the_minimum_wage_is_getting_demolished/. The gist is that, so far, there's no sign in Seattle of increases in minimum wage raising prices or closing businesses.

Second, by big companies, I mean like Walmart and McDonald's. Significant numbers of their employees are also receiving government aid.

As for what the minimum wage should be, can't find the source right now, but ISTR reading recently that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would now be something like $21 per hour. I think that's an unrealistic number now, but certainly $7.25 is too low.

To me, the issue is that we have jobs we need done. People who do them should be paid enough to live. If we're not willing to pay someone a living wage, then we don't actually want that job done.

Tamar