justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 2, 2021 23:39:50 GMT -5
So I was talking with my bff and this came up in conversation and I don't wanna post it on my fb at this time, so I'm doing it here!
For those of you against raising minimum wage - whether it's just a flat don't do it or those of you that think $15 is too much - what do you think of this idea?
Instead of raising minimum wage - at the end of the year the governments reconcile payroll with government benefits and then bill the companies for any benefits a person on payroll received.
For an example using hypothetical numbers
Jane works for Walmart, but she only works 35 or however many hours it is Walmart will schedule her for that is JUST below the requirement to provide health insurance and other benefits to Jane. Lets say she has one kid.
Because of this Jane receives this from federal/state/local governments:
$6000 per year in rent subsidies $3000 per year in food stamps $1500 in free breakfast/lunch for the kid at school $2000 paid out in medicaid claims $500 in subsidized after school programs $1000 in subsidized summer programs
So at the end of the year Walmart receives a bill for the $14,000 in government benefits their employee qualified for because Walmart is providing substandard wages.
Yes, there's some nuances as an employer shouldn't pay someone with 5 kids more than those with 1 or no kids, or the differences between a company with a profit of 2% vs 25% or $10,000 vs $10BILLION but lets ignore the outliers and the nuances and just say --- do you support billing corporations for the benefits tax payers pay out because they don't want to pay their employees more?
And if you don't support corporations paying for the government benefits provided to their employees - will you then admit that you are OK with people getting government benefits as long as they have a job and accept that your tax dollars will be subsidizing corporations?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2021 23:46:09 GMT -5
people who are anti-government should be STRONGLY in favor of FMW.
the lower wages are, the larger the welfare state.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 2, 2021 23:55:04 GMT -5
You'd think, but I've talk to so many that are just like higher wages = inflation and ignore the government benefits paid out preferring to think those only go to those that don't work. So the thought kinda hit me - ok so you think higher wages are bad, but they usually also think people receiving government benefits are bad. So instead of raising wages - let's just charge the corporations for the benefits their employees use! It'll keep wages low ( ) if the companies want it, but will put the benefits where they belong - corporations that want to keep wages low instead of tax payers.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 3, 2021 0:10:08 GMT -5
A person might not want to work full time or a company need someone full time. This would mean if you needed someone ten hours a week you just wouldn't hire them or hire a housewife with a working spouse so no welfare. It would make it hard for anyone who might get welfare to land any work. Having them work 35 hours and still need help with daycare or food would cost more than hiring someone without kids or working existing employees more hours. They would outsource more labor so they can get 5 part time workers and the agency would need to find them more work or more would be subcontractors not employees.
Not all employees work for the same employer all year so if they were working say 5 different jobs and unemployed part of the year which employer would be charged with any welfare cost? A young woman employee that got pregnant and on Medicaid because she wasn't married and worked part time would be very expensive even if she was 16 living with parents working after school.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 3, 2021 0:26:32 GMT -5
A person might not want to work full time or a company need someone full time. This would mean if you needed someone ten hours a week you just wouldn't hire them or hire a housewife with a working spouse so no welfare. It would make it hard for anyone who might get welfare to land any work. Having them work 35 hours and still need help with daycare or food would cost more than hiring someone without kids or working existing employees more hours. They would outsource more labor so they can get 5 part time workers and the agency would need to find them more work or more would be subcontractors not employees. Not all employees work for the same employer all year so if they were working say 5 different jobs and unemployed part of the year which employer would be charged with any welfare cost? A young woman employee that got pregnant and on Medicaid because she wasn't married and worked part time would be very expensive even if she was 16 living with parents working after school. I'm not asking about nuances. It obviously can't be as cut and dried as I make it in the hypothetical. But I without a doubt think COMPANIES limit hours way more than employees ever ask them. Not to mention a SAHM that only wants to work 10 hours a week likely has a husband that makes enough money so she wouldn't be receiving benefits anyways. There's ways to deal with nuances. If you're under 18 with no dependent there would be no government benefits being put under your SSN. There can be calculations that take into account number of employees vs number of FTEs that would catch companies that just hire a ton of PT employees but allow for some PT employees. As for working multiple employers - what fucking year is it? It's not that hard to say employee worked an X company from Jan - March and received $X during that time. Etc etc. It's literally not that hard. How fucking complicated is our personal tax law? Trust me this would be ridiculously less complicated than that. Like the IRS and tax companies legit built software to deal with the stimulous payments 6 months and the 1 month in advance respectively - don't try to tell me that "tHiS Is ToO coPLlICatEd". As for the "it would be hard for anyone who needs welfare to land any work" - you do realize that companies like Walmart hire these people specifically BECAUSE they don't have to pay them higher wages because the government will pick it up? It's not like Walmart is hurting for cash - like they would suddenly be in the red if they either raised wages so all their employees don't need government benefits or said fuck it and just paid the government benefit bill. Hiring employees that will still get government benefits IS A PART OF THEIR CORPORATE STRATEGY. Odds are most likely they'd raise wages enough to not to deal with paying back benefits - it's a simpler option.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 3, 2021 1:02:22 GMT -5
Isn't this kind of leading to the idea of "basic income" or something along those lines --like say if you have any sort of W2 income below some set amount you get some amount of basic income (and you can spend it anyway you want) from the Government. And then the taxes on business rise. I would think there would be some sort of "share the burden" so small businesses don't get hammered. It would probably be best if ALL bigger employers paid into this - even if they don't hire "minimum wage earners". I'd sell it as a new "trickle down" tax... instead of high income people getting more money to spend on stuff that doesn't actually cause much "trickle down" - the money can be given to hundreds of thousands of working consumers who can use it to consume the stuff the companies are making.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,367
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 3, 2021 1:06:32 GMT -5
A person might not want to work full time or a company need someone full time. This would mean if you needed someone ten hours a week you just wouldn't hire them or hire a housewife with a working spouse so no welfare. It would make it hard for anyone who might get welfare to land any work. Having them work 35 hours and still need help with daycare or food would cost more than hiring someone without kids or working existing employees more hours. They would outsource more labor so they can get 5 part time workers and the agency would need to find them more work or more would be subcontractors not employees. Not all employees work for the same employer all year so if they were working say 5 different jobs and unemployed part of the year which employer would be charged with any welfare cost? A young woman employee that got pregnant and on Medicaid because she wasn't married and worked part time would be very expensive even if she was 16 living with parents working after school. I'm not asking about nuances. It obviously can't be as cut and dried as I make it in the hypothetical. But I without a doubt think COMPANIES limit hours way more than employees ever ask them. Not to mention a SAHM that only wants to work 10 hours a week likely has a husband that makes enough money so she wouldn't be receiving benefits anyways. There's ways to deal with nuances. If you're under 18 with no dependent there would be no government benefits being put under your SSN. There can be calculations that take into account number of employees vs number of FTEs that would catch companies that just hire a ton of PT employees but allow for some PT employees. As for working multiple employers - what fucking year is it? It's not that hard to say employee worked an X company from Jan - March and received $X during that time. Etc etc. It's literally not that hard. How fucking complicated is our personal tax law? Trust me this would be ridiculously less complicated than that. Like the IRS and tax companies legit built software to deal with the stimulous payments 6 months and the 1 month in advance respectively - don't try to tell me that "tHiS Is ToO coPLlICatEd". As for the "it would be hard for anyone who needs welfare to land any work" - you do realize that companies like Walmart hire these people specifically BECAUSE they don't have to pay them higher wages because the government will pick it up? It's not like Walmart is hurting for cash - like they would suddenly be in the red if they either raised wages so all their employees don't need government benefits or said fuck it and just paid the government benefit bill. Hiring employees that will still get government benefits IS A PART OF THEIR CORPORATE STRATEGY. Odds are most likely they'd raise wages enough to not to deal with paying back benefits - it's a simpler option. This might be the people who actually can't work. There's that "if you don't work, you don't eat" cliche that assumes there's a job for everyone. Well, there isn't. Unless we as a society want to pay people to do 'made up jobs that may or may not entail any sort of actual "work" other than they have to be at X place Y hours per week. And then we as a society might need to have someway to get people to X place (since they may not have transportation or public transportation or not be able to walk or see or some other issue.) Would there be a separate "welfare system" for those who can't work? Again the idea of a business paid for "basic income" seems to be somewhat of a solution. If anything it might simplify the current 'system'... (but then I suspect the current system is intended to 'create' jobs for people to maintain the current welfare system... if we simplify it - we may have more unemployed "government workers" and the people who support those jobs that are not paid by the government. )
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 3, 2021 1:17:12 GMT -5
Isn't this kind of leading to the idea of "basic income" or something along those lines --like say if you have any sort of W2 income below some set amount you get some amount of basic income (and you can spend it anyway you want) from the Government. And then the taxes on business rise. I would think there would be some sort of "share the burden" so small businesses don't get hammered. It would probably be best if ALL bigger employers paid into this - even if they don't hire "minimum wage earners". I'd sell it as a new "trickle down" tax... instead of high income people getting more money to spend on stuff that doesn't actually cause much "trickle down" - the money can be given to hundreds of thousands of working consumers who can use it to consume the stuff the companies are making. I could see how it could be tied to that, but I don't think it has to be. Same with a blanket business tax - it definitely could be across the board, I'm not going to say no to that. If it was enough to cover the welfare needed for low wages that would work, but it would also impact those companies that DO pay higher wages. ie It'd be taxing McDonalds and In-and-Out the same even though McDs has low wage employees that get a lot of government aid while I-a-O has a starting wage close to $15 already and their workers get less aid - even though the price of their food isn't that different. According to this article www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html 71% of those that received aid work full time. So it's not like we're giving aid to a lot of people that won't work full time (keep in mind these numbers also include those that are disabled and not able to work). Walmart had around $15 BILLION dollars in profit in 2020 - WHY ARE THEY THEY THE COMPANY WHOSE EMPLOYEES RECIEVE THE MOST GOVERNMENT BENEFITS They could give each employee $1000 and still have $13 Billion in profit.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 3, 2021 1:20:59 GMT -5
I'm not asking about nuances. It obviously can't be as cut and dried as I make it in the hypothetical. But I without a doubt think COMPANIES limit hours way more than employees ever ask them. Not to mention a SAHM that only wants to work 10 hours a week likely has a husband that makes enough money so she wouldn't be receiving benefits anyways. There's ways to deal with nuances. If you're under 18 with no dependent there would be no government benefits being put under your SSN. There can be calculations that take into account number of employees vs number of FTEs that would catch companies that just hire a ton of PT employees but allow for some PT employees. As for working multiple employers - what fucking year is it? It's not that hard to say employee worked an X company from Jan - March and received $X during that time. Etc etc. It's literally not that hard. How fucking complicated is our personal tax law? Trust me this would be ridiculously less complicated than that. Like the IRS and tax companies legit built software to deal with the stimulous payments 6 months and the 1 month in advance respectively - don't try to tell me that "tHiS Is ToO coPLlICatEd". As for the "it would be hard for anyone who needs welfare to land any work" - you do realize that companies like Walmart hire these people specifically BECAUSE they don't have to pay them higher wages because the government will pick it up? It's not like Walmart is hurting for cash - like they would suddenly be in the red if they either raised wages so all their employees don't need government benefits or said fuck it and just paid the government benefit bill. Hiring employees that will still get government benefits IS A PART OF THEIR CORPORATE STRATEGY. Odds are most likely they'd raise wages enough to not to deal with paying back benefits - it's a simpler option. This might be the people who actually can't work. There's that "if you don't work, you don't eat" cliche that assumes there's a job for everyone. Well, there isn't. Unless we as a society want to pay people to do 'made up jobs that may or may not entail any sort of actual "work" other than they have to be at X place Y hours per week. And then we as a society might need to have someway to get people to X place (since they may not have transportation or public transportation or not be able to walk or see or some other issue.) Would there be a separate "welfare system" for those who can't work? Again the idea of a business paid for "basic income" seems to be somewhat of a solution. If anything it might simplify the current 'system'... (but then I suspect the current system is intended to 'create' jobs for people to maintain the current welfare system... if we simplify it - we may have more unemployed "government workers" and the people who support those jobs that are not paid by the government. ) It's not a separate system. It's literally - did you work a job full time or close to it but they didn't pay you enough so you still had to get benefits? Bill them. Otherwise there's no one to fucking bill. I think a basic income would be a way harder sell than having employers pay an benefits for their employees because they couldn't give a fuck, but maybe I'm wrong. Corporations will decide to 1) pay their employees enough so they don't need benefits or 2) pay for their benefits. The companies that receive the most government benefits can't outsource their low income jobs and while technology might be able to take part of it there's only so much it can do (and that could possibly be taken care of in the nuance).
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Mar 3, 2021 2:35:21 GMT -5
While you don't want to talk about outliers, you made multiple assumptions in your scenario (e.g., companies are purposely not approving full-time employment, the cost of living is the same for the entire US, people aren't pooling their resources, etc.). What about people. who work for tips (e.g., waiters and cab drivers)? Small business owners?
For your method, the biggest winner would be the accountants who would have to run their numbers on each individual person. Person M has no dependents, so his tax bill is X. Person N has three kids, one of which is an adult and filing for himself, and has a working spouse, so his tax bill is Y. Person O has no dependents, his spouse is working fulltime for higher than minimum wage in another state, so his tax bill is Z. Not only is this an accounting nightmare, but it will cause people to mess with their W-2s even more.
Your heart is in the right place, but our country was built on the American dream, which is different for each individual. There cannot be one solution. I would rather the law makers focus on reducing the tax benefits/income for the 1%s (e.g., CEOs) than figuring out a way that they think is right for the money to be spread out to the lower 99%ers.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,117
|
Post by alabamagal on Mar 3, 2021 5:50:24 GMT -5
How many people have started out working for minimum wage? I think the number is pretty high. It is a way to start out, even if you are in school and living with parents.
Companies should not be punished for hiring workers that receive benefits, as that will just lead to discrimination.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Mar 3, 2021 8:30:04 GMT -5
I am a big believer in knowledge. Another option could be for companies who pay the minimum wage or who don't offer benefits to establish a "pathway to success" program... identify real ways for the employee to earn more, to communicate these ways to the employees, and to provide the training or percentage of their profits to the training. For example, an average starting wage for a forklift driver is $1/hour more than a stock clerk, from there, an average starting wage for a truck driver is $3/hour more than a forklift driver. Or the stock clerk can go to cashiers, to accounts receivable to logistics, etc. Then, the company can train the people on the skill set each would need. Obviously, not everyone could be Logistics leader as that may require a degree, but there has got to be some skills that each employee can learn to make them more desirable. Small companies can pull their resources to have a "school." I haven't thought this through and there are likely major holes in this type of program.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 3, 2021 11:18:04 GMT -5
I think you have to acknowledge that the employees need health insurance for their children, and small employers can not afford to provide it. My husband has an employee who keeps her hours under the income limit for her to receive CCHP? health insurance for her kids from the state. DH would give her more hours, but that would disqualify her for health insurance.
I actually am in favor of a program on the order of Medicare for all. They can pay for it via a payroll tax just like they do for SS/Medicare. I also think UBI is something we should seriously investigate - it would not disincentivize working more to earn more like our current system does. I think a lot of low income workers have income under the table.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 3, 2021 15:53:51 GMT -5
Yeah, there's definitely nuances that would have to be enacted if it happened. I don't want to entirely get bogged down into trying to decide what those nuances are exactly to say yes or no on it.
People don't want to raise the minimum wage but are ok with tax payers paying a ton of benefits for those people even though they're employed but at the same time go on and on about how horrible people getting welfare are.
Well you can't bitch at people getting welfare if you won't do anything to hold the companies accountable that are keeping them on welfare. So you'd either need to 1) raise the wages so most won't need benefits or 2) charge the companies for said benefits. That's the only way to get it off the tax payer's fund.
As for training them for higher paying jobs - that's all well and good and I'm not saying it's not a good thing -- but a Walmart with 50 forklift drivers and only 1 cashier because all the rest were trained as fork lift drivers because that's the only way to get a higher wage. The amount of people that just say "so get a better job" seem to delusionally think that they themselves don't rely on people that are working these lower paid jobs. I would have thought the pandemic would have changed peoples thinking of hey I wouldn't have survived without those grocery store workers - but so many are still screw them if they want a higher wage they should get a better job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 18:01:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 16:18:14 GMT -5
So I was talking with my bff and this came up in conversation and I don't wanna post it on my fb at this time, so I'm doing it here! For those of you against raising minimum wage - whether it's just a flat don't do it or those of you that think $15 is too much - what do you think of this idea? Instead of raising minimum wage - at the end of the year the governments reconcile payroll with government benefits and then bill the companies for any benefits a person on payroll received. For an example using hypothetical numbers Jane works for Walmart, but she only works 35 or however many hours it is Walmart will schedule her for that is JUST below the requirement to provide health insurance and other benefits to Jane. Lets say she has one kid. Because of this Jane receives this from federal/state/local governments: $6000 per year in rent subsidies $3000 per year in food stamps $1500 in free breakfast/lunch for the kid at school $2000 paid out in medicaid claims $500 in subsidized after school programs $1000 in subsidized summer programs So at the end of the year Walmart receives a bill for the $14,000 in government benefits their employee qualified for because Walmart is providing substandard wages. Yes, there's some nuances as an employer shouldn't pay someone with 5 kids more than those with 1 or no kids, or the differences between a company with a profit of 2% vs 25% or $10,000 vs $10BILLION but lets ignore the outliers and the nuances and just say --- do you support billing corporations for the benefits tax payers pay out because they don't want to pay their employees more? And if you don't support corporations paying for the government benefits provided to their employees - will you then admit that you are OK with people getting government benefits as long as they have a job and accept that your tax dollars will be subsidizing corporations? I would come out as sort of against the minimum wage of $15, that's at today's dollar value. Going by the amount of QE we will be seeing shortly, and when the $15 is fully realized, it won't really change anything. The Federal Reserve announced unlimited QE last March. At that time the Federal reserve banks had a debt balance sheet of 4.7 trillion. Q3, Dec 2 update at approx 4.9 trillion. Thats huge condidering it was 2.5 trillion approx a year ago, and 500 billion in 2010. Total Federal debt is at 27 trillion Your explanation is fine using Wal-Mart as an example, not so much for smaller business. To sustain servicing the debt, the dollars value has nowhere to go but down. Minimum wage increase will also be an inflation driver, negating it's positive aspects.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Mar 3, 2021 16:44:47 GMT -5
Yeah, there's definitely nuances that would have to be enacted if it happened. I don't want to entirely get bogged down into trying to decide what those nuances are exactly to say yes or no on it. People don't want to raise the minimum wage but are ok with tax payers paying a ton of benefits for those people even though they're employed but at the same time go on and on about how horrible people getting welfare are. Well you can't bitch at people getting welfare if you won't do anything to hold the companies accountable that are keeping them on welfare. So you'd either need to 1) raise the wages so most won't need benefits or 2) charge the companies for said benefits. That's the only way to get it off the tax payer's fund. As for training them for higher paying jobs - that's all well and good and I'm not saying it's not a good thing -- but a Walmart with 50 forklift drivers and only 1 cashier because all the rest were trained as fork lift drivers because that's the only way to get a higher wage. The amount of people that just say "so get a better job" seem to delusionally think that they themselves don't rely on people that are working these lower paid jobs. I would have thought the pandemic would have changed peoples thinking of hey I wouldn't have survived without those grocery store workers - but so many are still screw them if they want a higher wage they should get a better job. Or you need to show them a way to get ahead. I understand that some people probably had a poor education or had poor role models growing up. That would be want I would want to address. Just because someone has a job, doesn't mean that they get the "participation trophy" of $15/hr; he should earn it and be proud of himself for achieving that goal and knowing that he can move to $20/hr or $30/hr if he works hard enough. Taxpayers still pay for the minimum wage earners, it is more indirect. The cost of the products go up, the company passes that price onto consumers who now have to pay more for the items. Yet the people's skills remain at the same level and some know that they don't have to work to get anywhere. It's like the old joke of what do you call a student who graduated at the bottom of his medical class... doctor. Five years from now, people are going to argue for $20/hr. "So get a better job" is not a feasible option for most adults. Getting more training or guidance is (or it should be). I used forklifts as an example. HVAC, plumbing, or any of the trades are also avenues that could be done in small chunks as an adult/apprentice. I think if people who may feel they are stuck in a job have a way to improve their circumstances with a little mentorship, most would take it. People don't go to work and plan to do a bad job. Use Carl for an example, we have seen him advance tremendously over the last 10 years. He uses his grit, continues to take chances, got beaten-up by life multiple times, but he is a success in my book not because of what he has now but because of the challenges he has faced and won. If someone gave him his current job or paid him a set amount because the federal government "told them to", would he appreciate that? No, he would strive for more. MPL is another great example. She's been reading this board and quietly saving a good chuck on money week in and week out for years on limited income. She has gotten and taken advise from this board, has furthered her financial knowledge in multiple ways, and she has even tried talking to her coworkers about how to invest money. Now she is a millionaire and this group is extremely proud of her. Would she be as knowledgeable a person if she was "given" $15/hour? Yes, both Carl and MPL have worked to find the opportunities and seek out knowledge to get where they are now. Some people are not going to work that hard and they should not obtain the same financial freedom if they choose not to do that work.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 3, 2021 17:19:53 GMT -5
My thing though is who actually works for minimum wage. As an employer if my DH tried to hire someone for the federal minimum wage - there would be no takers. Target, Costco, Walmart all pay $15/hour according to DD. Minimum wage is probably closer to $10 in reality. Imho, those that object should just propose minimum wage be = to whatever the current realistic minimum is.
$15/hour is dead. 10 is realistically where we were at, and the proposed minimum wage was supposed to gradually get to 15. Just let it die and move on to something more important. I think affordable health care, and affordable prescription drugs are more important.
The only things the Republicans hold dear are keeping Democrats from voting, or having and equal voice, and keeping rich people's tax burden as close to zero as possible.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 3, 2021 17:28:06 GMT -5
Why should an employer be on the hook for employees decisions? A single mom with 5 kids is going to get a heck of a lot more in government benefits than a single mom with only 1 kid. And a single woman with no kids probably won’t get any benefits (it’s not easy to get benefits in my area without children).
We can’t legally discriminate when hiring but do you honestly think single women with kids won’t be hurt by this? If you had to choose hiring a man or a woman with 4 kids who you know will be getting benefits, it’s pretty easy to see who the better option is for the company
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Mar 3, 2021 17:54:29 GMT -5
Why should an employer be on the hook for employees decisions? A single mom with 5 kids is going to get a heck of a lot more in government benefits than a single mom with only 1 kid. And a single woman with no kids probably won’t get any benefits (it’s not easy to get benefits in my area without children). We can’t legally discriminate when hiring but do you honestly think single women with kids won’t be hurt by this? If you had to choose hiring a man or a woman with 4 kids who you know will be getting benefits, it’s pretty easy to see who the better option is for the company I dont think candidates are required to tell you how many kids they have or if they are married or not, so how would you know?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 3, 2021 17:55:42 GMT -5
Why should an employer be on the hook for employees decisions? A single mom with 5 kids is going to get a heck of a lot more in government benefits than a single mom with only 1 kid. And a single woman with no kids probably won’t get any benefits (it’s not easy to get benefits in my area without children). We can’t legally discriminate when hiring but do you honestly think single women with kids won’t be hurt by this? If you had to choose hiring a man or a woman with 4 kids who you know will be getting benefits, it’s pretty easy to see who the better option is for the company I dont think candidates are required to tell you how many kids they have or if they are married or not, so how would you know? Simple things like google a candidate or checking their Facebook page. It’s amazing the information you can find about a person.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Mar 3, 2021 17:59:00 GMT -5
I dont think candidates are required to tell you how many kids they have or if they are married or not, so how would you know? Simple things like google a candidate or checking their Facebook page. It’s amazing the information you can find about a person. So how do you know if the person in the picture is their brother or sister? Or the kids are nieces and nephews?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 3, 2021 18:04:07 GMT -5
Simple things like google a candidate or checking their Facebook page. It’s amazing the information you can find about a person. So how do you know if the person in the picture is their brother or sister? Or the kids are nieces and nephews? You don’t always. But a lot of times you can tell. I always searched potential employees or tenants. You can argue “what if” all you want. A lot of people are very open with their Facebook and information Then there is the issue that the woman might not have kids now but she could get pregnant next week. So the day I hide her she isn’t get benefits, but once she is pregnant she gets benefits. Seems like the safest choice would be to hire men. Single men are much less likely to receive welfare. Most of that is due to the fact that it is usually the moms that get custody of the children
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Mar 3, 2021 19:12:11 GMT -5
So how do you know if the person in the picture is their brother or sister? Or the kids are nieces and nephews? You don’t always. But a lot of times you can tell. I always searched potential employees or tenants. You can argue “what if” all you want. A lot of people are very open with their Facebook and information Then there is the issue that the woman might not have kids now but she could get pregnant next week. So the day I hide her she isn’t get benefits, but once she is pregnant she gets benefits. Seems like the safest choice would be to hire men. Single men are much less likely to receive welfare. Most of that is due to the fact that it is usually the moms that get custody of the children Yikes! You come across to me as one of those women who goes out of her way NOT to support other women. But to each their own.....
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 3, 2021 19:16:54 GMT -5
You don’t always. But a lot of times you can tell. I always searched potential employees or tenants. You can argue “what if” all you want. A lot of people are very open with their Facebook and information Then there is the issue that the woman might not have kids now but she could get pregnant next week. So the day I hide her she isn’t get benefits, but once she is pregnant she gets benefits. Seems like the safest choice would be to hire men. Single men are much less likely to receive welfare. Most of that is due to the fact that it is usually the moms that get custody of the children Yikes! You come across to me as one of those women who goes out of her way NOT to support other women. But to each their own..... Because I’m pointing out a major flaw in charging companies for the benefits employees receive? Women are much more likely to receive benefits (a quick google search will confirm). If we start charging companies for this, women are going to be harmed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2021 20:04:47 GMT -5
I think you are properly framing the abysmal FMW as corporate graft. that is precisely what it is.
the neocon agenda is internally contradictory. you can't have a civil society, low wages, and low taxes. that combination is pure fantasy. you can have a civil society with any other combination of these things, but not this one. or you can have an uncivil society, which is where we find ourselves.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Mar 3, 2021 20:46:40 GMT -5
Yikes! You come across to me as one of those women who goes out of her way NOT to support other women. But to each their own..... Because I’m pointing out a major flaw in charging companies for the benefits employees receive? Women are much more likely to receive benefits (a quick google search will confirm). If we start charging companies for this, women are going to be harmed. Well I don't think this is ever going to happen, but I think that if it ever did, and companies all of a sudden were only hiring men, especially for positions women have more often held (like retail), those companies would be in a whole lot of hot water! So I don't think only men would get hired. The fact that you seem to come across as thinking they should be the only ones hired is where my statement came from. If I misread it, my apologies. Also, some statements you have made in the past on other threads lead me to believe you are not very supportive of women, because you have done it all yourself, so why shouldn't others....just my opinion.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 3, 2021 21:48:21 GMT -5
The government is giving aid to citizens so Bezos and the Waltons can get even richer.
I am totally in favor of stopping their exploitation of labor being used to subsidize their already massive wealth.
There is no plan that won't be subject to criticism. There isn't a financial law in our country's history that doesn't have the "but that one guy used the law for bad..." How do we make this law reasonable? Beats me - maybe if we had some kind of group that was skilled at making laws, we could ask to represent us and make laws that benefit the country.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,043
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 3, 2021 22:32:46 GMT -5
I saw something on Twitter earlier today - AOC pointed out that McDonald's in Finland (I think) paid workers $22/hr. Not $15, but $22. A Big Mac was only $.35 more in that country vs in the US.
Objections were raised that that country doesn't have a minimum wage. But they do have essentially universal union representation. So not only do they receive a decent wage, they also have 6 weeks of vacation, health insurance, paid family leave...
So please explain to me again why the US can't also do this.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,149
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 3, 2021 23:11:07 GMT -5
I saw something on Twitter earlier today - AOC pointed out that McDonald's in Finland (I think) paid workers $22/hr. Not $15, but $22. A Big Mac was only $.35 more in that country vs in the US. Objections were raised that that country doesn't have a minimum wage. But they do have essentially universal union representation. So not only do they receive a decent wage, they also have 6 weeks of vacation, health insurance, paid family leave... So please explain to me again why the US can't also do this. Because we don't pay half or more of our salaries to the taxman?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 3, 2021 23:12:31 GMT -5
I saw something on Twitter earlier today - AOC pointed out that McDonald's in Finland (I think) paid workers $22/hr. Not $15, but $22. A Big Mac was only $.35 more in that country vs in the US. Objections were raised that that country doesn't have a minimum wage. But they do have essentially universal union representation. So not only do they receive a decent wage, they also have 6 weeks of vacation, health insurance, paid family leave... So please explain to me again why the US can't also do this. That same Twitter post also said that that $22/hour worker in Denmark is paying $11 of their $22/hour in taxes.
|
|