Poll of the Day > 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/30/stubborn-inflation-forces-more-americans-to-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-.html

And the fed says to get regular wages lower

How's that math work

How are the billionaires supposed to afford yachts so big they have their own yachts if the rest of us are making enough money to eat.

papercup posted...

How are the billionaires supposed to afford yachts so big they have their own yachts if the rest of us are making enough money to eat.

I guess we all just need to budget even more. For them. They deserve it.

let them eat bootstraps

Woo, violent uprising, eat the rich!

*goes to bed in tears since my entire existence is dependant on rich people tax dollars*

60% is honestly a little lower than I thought

Jen0125 posted...

And the fed says to get regular wages lower

How's that math work

If wages are lower that means businesses can hire more people.
More people with jobs means more people getting paychecks.
Now more people can live paycheck to paycheck because they were below that before.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If wages are lower that means businesses can hire more people.
More people with jobs means more people getting paychecks.
Now more people can live paycheck to paycheck because they were below that before.

lol this is how out of touch with reality the conservative mindset is.

Businesses only hire as many people as they need. I know the conservative lie is if you throw more money at billionares and corporations they'll just spend it to hire people for no reason but this is just a lie completely devoid of common sense. Wages are higher because it's where they need to be to get anyone willing to work the job.

There is a labor shortage not a job shortage.

Now he's acting like inflation isn't crazy, especially with food.

I walkes into the gas station to get 3 energry drinks and peanuts and was told it would be 17 dollars. I was like wtf. Im bout to change everything in terms of spending now cos i cant make it even living at home with my rents

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If wages are lower that means businesses can hire more people.
More people with jobs means more people getting paychecks.
Now more people can live paycheck to paycheck because they were below that before.

If a business can't afford to pay employees they should close. Why do we live in a capitalist society where there is little risk for the business and all the risk for the worker? That's not capitalism.

Having a job doesn't mean anything when the wages the company pays aren't enough to live off of. If a company can't pay a decent living wage they shouldn't be open.

Man thats not a good %

I live my mom's paycheck to my dad's paycheck

Better than that, minimum wage laws should be abolished in favour of UBI, which enables small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage (which is a function of cost of living and not necessarily the value the business brings to the area) to succeed. That way, businesses are competing on the basis of how much people want them, rather than how little they can get away with spending on their staff.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I know the conservative lie is if you throw more money at billionares and corporations they'll just spend it to hire people for no reason

I never said to give businesses money.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Wages are higher because it's where they need to be to get anyone willing to work the job.

And because wages are high so is the cost of goods and services to bring in the revenue to pay those wages.
Which in turn means people need higher wages to be able to afford them.

Jen0125 posted...

If a company can't pay a decent living wage they shouldn't be open.

Okay, so now the employees are getting paid nothing. How is that better than getting paid 'not enough but still something'?

adjl posted...

minimum wage laws should be abolished in favour of UBI, which enables small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage

Why can't people live off the UBI? Why do business have to provide a living wage if people are already getting paid without working? It seems like having the one would remove concern over getting the other.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why can't people live off the UBI? Why do business have to provide a living wage if people are already getting paid without working? It seems like having the one would remove concern over getting the other.

Because UBI isn't enough for luxuries. It's a basic income. Do you understand the concept? In the strictest sense you can live off UBI but you won't have much luxury or budget for fun.

Jen0125 posted...

In the strictest sense you can live off UBI but you won't have much luxury or budget for fun.

And a living wage does include that? I thought the term living wage meant it provides enough to live.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And a living wage does include that? I thought the term living wage meant it provides enough to live.

Enough to survive. You seem to think living is just working and paying bills until you die. Do you do anything fun?

You liberals are so silly. Stop drinking your $5.68 Starbucks Mocha Loca Choca FrappaprressoChino and you can save $2,073.20 a year! Thats enough for you to pay rent for *checks notes* one month.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why can't people live off the UBI? Why do business have to provide a living wage if people are already getting paid without working? It seems like having the one would remove concern over getting the other.

That's... exactly my point. Establish a livable UBI, then a job's wages don't have to be legally regulated because it's guaranteed that all of their employees will be able to survive regardless of what the job pays.

Jen0125 posted...

You seem to think living is just working and paying bills until you die. Do you do anything fun?

So UBI gives people enough money that they can live off of. And a living wage pays people enough to survive. This just tells me that people can survive on either one alone. You seem to be focusing on the point that they would want both to afford luxury items. But at that point does it still have to be a living wage? Seeing a few movies and buying a video game don't cost the same as paying for your rent, food, and utilities for a month.

In other words, I understand why they would be motivated to work. That wasn't my question. I want to know why wages still have to be high. If UBI were implemented would that not allow businesses to pay less, and thus bring down the cost of their goods and services?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So UBI gives people enough money that they can live off of. And a living wage pays people enough to survive. This just tells me that people can survive on either one alone. You seem to be focusing on the point that they would want both to afford luxury items. But at that point does it still have to be a living wage? Seeing a few movies and buying a video game don't cost the same as paying for your rent, food, and utilities for a month.

In other words, I understand why they would be motivated to work. That wasn't my question. I want to know why wages still have to be high. If UBI were implemented would that not allow businesses to pay less, and thus bring down the cost of their goods and services?

Wages have to be high because corporations artificially inflate the cost of everything while they have kept wages stagnant. If they didn't constantly raise prices in the race for infinite profits they wouldn't have to keep raising wages. You seem to think a business is just going to have low prices anymore lmao. No.

Capitalism is a failed experiment and we're seeing the end phases. Enjoy.

Edit: If UBI was implemented wages paid by businesses, like adjl said, wouldn't have to be high. The adjustments would be made to UBI, not wages. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.

It is indeed horribly naive to believe that potential savings from lower wages would be passed on to the consumer. That's just not how companies work, especially large ones. When their costs go up, prices increase to match (as much as the market will bear), but if costs go down, prices will generally stay the same and they'll pocket the difference. Once consumers are used to paying higher prices, there's relatively little incentive to bring them back down because people aren't going to buy more in response.

Jen0125 posted...

The adjustments would be made to UBI, not wages. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.

So if costs went down UBI would go down. But you still want wages to be high? It sounds like you want it both ways. Give people enough to survive without working, but also businesses have to pay people enough to survive as if they weren't already getting that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if costs went down UBI would go down. But you still want wages to be high? It sounds like you want it both ways. Give people enough to survive without working, but also businesses have to pay people enough to survive as if they weren't already getting that.

You are not representing what I said at all.

Jen0125 posted...

You are not representing what I said at all.

I'll just quote the same thing I did at the start of this. In adjl's words...

adjl posted...

minimum wage laws should be abolished in favour of UBI, which enables small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage

UBI enables small businesses to pay a living wage. I guess because people can now afford what the small business offers, thereby generating the revenue they need to pay a living wage.
So UBI + living wage.

What am I not representing? Cost of living is high. Therefore a living wage would be high. You said "wages paid by businesses... wouldn't have to be high". So if the cost of living went down UBI would be adjusted and what constitutes a living wage would also go down. But you still want it be a living wage that meets the cost of living. Even though the cost of living would already be met by UBI.

You're conflating the argument. UBI is the living wage when UBI is present. Wages from jobs would be secondary.

I'm not going to get in a never ending argument with this guy who sucks off capitalism and pretends he can't read.

Jen0125 posted...

UBI is the living wage when UBI is present.

UBI isn't wages... unless you're suggesting that everyone has been made a government employee.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

UBI isn't wages... unless you're suggesting that everyone has been made a government employee.

You could characterize it as a wage paid by the government for simply being alive, if you want to take a slightly out-of-the-box approach to thinking about it, but that would be more of an academic exercise than anything else. The takeaway point is that UBI negates the need for businesses to pay a livable minimum wage to ensure their employees' survival.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

UBI isn't wages... unless you're suggesting that everyone has been made a government employee.

You're trying to detail using a semantics argument when you understand my point. This is all I need to see.

adjl posted...

You could characterize it as a wage paid by the government for simply being alive, if you want to take a slightly out-of-the-box approach to thinking about it, but that would be more of an academic exercise than anything else.

That would be broader reaching than an academic exercise. If living is a task that is assigned to people by an employer then the employer can rate their job performance. The employer can set goals for how they perform the assigned task. The employer can reprimand the employee for not meeting said goals. Government is suppose to represent the interest of citizens. What you suggest would make citizens subservient to government.

For example, the government is allowed to censor itself. If anything a person says can be interpreted as representing the government as an employee then there is no freedom of speech. If a persons every action is done as a government employee then there is no freedom of expression. They would have no civil liberties.

adjl posted...

The takeaway point is that UBI negates the need for businesses to pay a livable minimum wage

That is different from enabling small businesses to pay a living wage. I think that is where the earlier confusion came from and why it seems like we've been talking about different things.

Lokarin posted...

Woo, violent uprising, eat the rich!

*goes to bed in tears since my entire existence is dependant on rich people tax dollars*

Not sure you understand how taxes work, you think "rich people tax dollars" exist?

Interstella5555 posted...

Not sure you understand how taxes work, you think "rich people tax dollars" exist?

Just because the 0.1% dodges insane amounts of taxes doesn't mean that the upper 20% isn't paying more than their fair share

That doesn't surprise me

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I never said to give businesses money.

And because wages are high so is the cost of goods and services to bring in the revenue to pay those wages.
Which in turn means people need higher wages to be able to afford them.

Okay, so now the former employees are getting paid nothing. How is that better than getting paid 'not enough but still something'?

Why can't people live off the UBI? Why do business have to provide a living wage if people are already getting paid without working? It seems like having the one would remove concern over getting the other.

Oh lord, one of those.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That would be broader reaching than an academic exercise. If living is a task that is assigned to people by an employer then the employer can rate their job performance.

The nature of the term "universal" precludes that: By definition, everyone receives it regardless of any other factors.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That is different from enabling small businesses to pay a living wage.

Which has never been what I was talking about, so you were indeed confused. It seems we're on the same page now.

adjl posted...

Which has never been what I was talking about, so you were indeed confused.

Indeed. So what were you talking about? It certainly sounded like you were saying small business would pay their employees more if there were UBI.

rexcrk posted...

Oh lord, one of those.

Yea, he literally said "Wages should be lower so they can hire more people" which is part of the same old "if we just give all our money to the richest people in the country they will do the "right" thing with it for no reason whatsoever" then goes "no I didn't say that". I don't get why conservatives just can't help themselves but to tell silly lies.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Indeed. So what were you talking about? It certainly sounded like you were saying small business would pay their employees more if there were UBI.

No he didn't? He explicitly said whatever businesses pay would be in excess of the UBI and there wouldn't need to be minimum wage.

It's really annoying watching you purposely misrepresent what people are saying.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Indeed. So what were you talking about? It certainly sounded like you were saying small business would pay their employees more if there were UBI.

I think you're confused by the parenthetical remark. If we take it out:
adjl posted...

minimum wage laws should be abolished in favour of UBI, which enables small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage [snip] to succeed.

In your defense, it's an awkwardly worded phrase because it's got two layers of verbs, and I put the parenthetical remark right between them such that one could easily be forgiven for thinking the sentence ended with "to pay a living wage." In this case, "small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage" collectively comprises the object of the sentence, so if we replace that with a pronoun to simplify matters, it becomes "[Obviating minimum wage laws] enables them to succeed."

Jen0125 posted...

It's really annoying watching you purposely misrepresent what people are saying.

It is, but I get it in this particular case. Some of the blame rests on me for communicating awkwardly this time.

My mom never complains about my vidya game checks.

#breadwinnah

Jen0125 posted...

It's really annoying watching you purposely misrepresent what people are saying.

Then why don't you stay out of it and let the person I posed the question to answer it them self?

adjl posted...

In this case, "small businesses that can't generate enough revenue to pay a living wage" collectively comprises the object of the sentence

Yes, that does clarify it. Thank you.

Employers wanna still pay people what they did in 1985 while pretending the cost of everything hasn't changed but it has. Something has got to give. Pay people according to inflation or accept that they are going to quit or not work themselves to death for you. And most of the people I know that own successful companies are either old or inherited their parents company back when it was easier to start your own business and succeed

HornedLion posted...

You liberals are so silly. Stop drinking your $5.68 Starbucks Mocha Loca Choca FrappaprressoChino and you can save $2,073.20 a year! Thats enough for you to pay rent for *checks notes* one month.

If your rent is $2000, you need to move lol

GanglyKhan posted...

If your rent is $2000, you need to move lol

2000 gets you a roach infested shit shack in most places now

OhhhJa posted...

2000 gets you a roach infested shit shack in most places now

At least, most places within a two-hour drive of jobs that will allow you to afford half of that. You can pay less if you're willing to spend 20% of your life commuting or settle for a much lower-paying job.

adjl posted...

At least, most places within a two-hour drive of jobs that will allow you to afford half of that. You can pay less if you're willing to spend 20% of your life commuting or settle for a much lower-paying job.

Or being an independent adult living with 1-3 other adults.

OhhhJa posted...

2000 gets you a roach infested shit shack in most places now

adjl posted...

At least, most places within a two-hour drive of jobs that will allow you to afford half of that. You can pay less if you're willing to spend 20% of your life commuting or settle for a much lower-paying job.

Tell me you live in a shitty city without telling me you live in a shitty city.

GanglyKhan posted...

Tell me you live in a shitty city without telling me you live in a shitty city.

Welcome to the modern housing crisis. It's slightly hyperbolic, but that's an accurate description of the housing situation in most major cities these days. This is why homelessness is such a growing problem and traffic is so bad,

adjl posted...

Welcome to the modern housing crisis. It's slightly hyperbolic, but that's an accurate description of the housing situation in most major cities these days. This is why homelessness is such a growing problem and traffic is so bad,

I am aware of this and I do apologize for being flagrant in my last post. I just can't understand why people freely decide to live in cities when it's been shown time and time again that there is a sweet spot between population size and available incomes. It also has much to do with career choices as well and what not. As for those that are born into the cities or moved there as children, I do understand and am sympathetic with the overwhelming challenges that poses to them. Specifically, my beef is with the types that claim that they simply MUST live in a city because rural/suburban living is crap, then all they do is get a regular 9-5, order take out all the time, and complain about costs.