Should 40-50 hours a week mean paying the bills?

So there has been much discussion about raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour as of late. They have raised it in several other states, and today I heard Obama seems to be under the impression that working 40-50 hours a week, regardless of what it is you do, means that you should be able to pay the bills and feed your family.

Personally I'm not so sure about that. Shouldn't one be paid what they are worth regardless of just how physically demanding that job is? Let's be clear here, I understand that being on your feet for 8 plus hours a day is more physically demanding than say my management position at a bank where I sit in the office making decisions about what's to be done at my company. However my position is not as easily replaced as the Walmart greeter or the people behind the cash register. This is the reason why a person in my position is placed a far greater value to a company than a person who never has to break a mental sweat.

What do you guys think? Does working full time really mean you should be able to pay your bills and feed your family (provided you have a family)?

Cost of living needs to go down and stop appraising this money concept as so valuable

Yes, people should be able to live off their fucking jobs. What's wrong with you?

I doubt the increase in minimum wage would mean you don't get paid "what you're worth" since you don't work a minimum wage job

There is talk at my company about getting rid of the managers, just pointless work getting paid more for being just another layer of layers all trying to justify their place in the company, middle management is a joke. There is a store near my house where the woman at the cash register is also the manager, ordering stock and organising staff rotas and basically being the boss. She gets paid cash register pay for that and yet manages it just fine even though it's essentially two jobs.

Pretty funny how a single person can do a managers job as well as her own at the same time.

You sound like a fucking douche, OP. Everyone who works full time should earn enough money to pay their bills and feed their family. They shouldn't necessarily be making bank, but they should be able to get by. For you to be against that is ridiculous and reveals your elitist and snobbish mindset. You disgust me, OP.

Another issue that should be considered is the number of days per week devoted to work. I don't think anyone should have to work more than four days per week.

shit, 40-50 hours a week is barely enough to keep individuals afloat, let alone raise a family

That's just dumb

Bingo

Short answer: it's complicated

Long answer: It's extremely complicated and there's not an easy answer

But I tend to be skeptical of minimum wage increases and of 'guaranteed minimum income'.

Agree. We should have 2 days of work and a 5 day weekend.

The problem people don't seem to understand is McDonald's isn't meant to be something you can use to support a family. Most successful people use minimum wage jobs for pocket money while in high school or college, and move up from there after graduating college. If you are still flipping burgers in your 30s and 40s you probably screwed up somewhere. Especially since unless you're a felon you can qualify for financial aid. I got financial aid approved while making over $70,000 a year because the school I'm attending right now costs more than what my job will pay per credit hour.

I think people working full time jobs should be able to pay for necessities like food, shelter, clothes and heating.

I do not think that increasing the minimum wage will achieve this.

If you're making minimum wage you should be working more than 40-50 hours a week. That's not that much. I work more than that and I make much more than the average person in their 20's. Want to improve you situation? Sacrifice.

Hahaha... what? No, no, no, no. The cost of living here is expensive, 10 dollars is not enough to support a family, it's enough to support yourself.

society needs all its gears to run smoothly in order to Work, so yeah warking a full time job SHOULD cover the cost of living.

You know a sewer worker is far from a glamorous line of Work, but I am sad to say that thier job is far more important then that of a bank manager, despit it sounding odd to some people (WHO have no insight in society and infrastructure). If one goes, a bank goes Down, if the other goes the entire city will crumble. Ironically the one that is expendible by the large scheme of Things are the highest paid one, go figure.

Add to that that all jobs there is are there for a reason. Be it a necessity or to make life easier, is secondary as since the society supports such a job it holds value. Raising minimum wages may determine if some of those jobs will not be needed, which is generally a good thing in my eyes, getting stuck in a job in an area where there are none other to be had, and still not be able to support your Family is a pretty good indicator that a society needs to reevaluate the job openings it has.

And if a society does not allow for the basic jobs to be a livable one, then a society might need uprooting or rebooting.

this.

like you?

Quite the pointless semantics there, as any job can be filled, point was what many consider a low income job is more important then a presticious job, and ofcourse you know this, you are just looking for an argument, and Water treatment and sewer infrastructure is not simple.

By raising minimum wage some jobs will be lost, the estimate is around 50.000 right? if those go they simply were not needed. Basic simple effective. People will pay for what is needed, if something is a deadsink of Money you can bet they will vanish.

alot of the most needed jobs to run a society are not well sought after because they are dirty and the pay is poor. more Things are more complicated then people give credit for.

40 hours a week is not enough.

There is a valid social argument that people should be able to raise families if they are contributing meaningfully to society, but that doesn't necessarily involve any kind of wage control at all.

A "minimum wage" is not a "livable wage" per se.

Giving people more money for doing the same thing they are now isn't going to solve the poverty problem. The cost of living needs to be lowered, if there is to be any lasting impact. Raising the minimum wage will only create a bigger buying power amongst the lower-income sphere, which will either increase the amount of stuff they buy, or more negatively, cause companies to increase their prices and thus boosting inflation even more (making the minimum wage increase useless).

If the government wants to do something effective, they need to come in an put regulations on things like junk food and luxury items and subsidize the cost of essentials (such as fruit and vegetables and basic living requirements). Throwing money at the problem is how America seems to solve all it's problems, and it's not going to work here. There is more underlying issues playing a role than people not making enough to live on.

Lets get down to the heart of the matter. Please be specific and tell me what type of lifestyle a cashier at a supermarket, working full time, should live.

Give specifics about what type of dwelling, vehicle, clothing/shoes, internet access, grocery bills, etc.., someone working a menial position should have as a result of their "skills." Should that job afford them a mortgage for a house? A loan for an automobile? How about credit cards?

Wouldn't subsidizing be throwing money at the problem too?

It isn't "throwing" so much as "logically helping". Making the necessities cheaper for the very poor will help much more to make their wage livable than just giving them more money "just because".

Where does personal responsibility come into play? Shouldn't we, as a society, push for people to better their lives and become responsible rather than expecting the tax payer to foot the bills? Is it preposterous to expect an individual to make every attempt possible at bettering their life rather than just deciding it is best to make the tax payers responsible?

It's kind of hard to act like people should "better themselves" and do other work, when we sort of demand the low paying work to be done. If I say to a minimum wage cashier that he should better himself and find a higher paying job, then that's sort of implying that the job isn't worth doing. So I'd better not be shopping at that store, and thus relying on someone to be doing the work.

If you don't want to better yourself you need to understand you are going to live a life where you are constantly going without. People need to keep their expectations in line with their skills but our society buries its head in the sand and is too afraid to tell people like it is. Someone working a low-skilled job won't have the same life as one who is skilled or has an actual career. For whatever reason a portion of people believe it is the job of the tax payers to pay for those who didn't make something out of their life.

Now that you mention people keeping their expectations in line...people need to realize that you get what you pay for. If I want a guy to paint my fence, then I'm gonna have to pay him a reasonable amount or else he'll just go do something else instead. The point is, if we want a job to exist, then at some point we're gonna have to pay a "reasonable" amount for it, otherwise those jobs are just gonna go away.

A worker gets paid what he/she is worth and that is determined by the market, skill-set, etc..,

Menial jobs are not going anywhere. Minimum wage will eventually increase time and time again but that won't turn a menial, entry level, low skilled job into one providing for a family or offering you a lifestyle reserved for those in a higher tax bracket.

@timothyrolls: Lol yea right, it doesn't take some paragon of vital importance to sit on your ass and make people do things that you are too lazy to do yourself while you sit in your office and try to figure out the best way to get into your secretary's pants.

Go nail your bosses wife then tell us how easily replaced you are.

Workers get paid what they're worth, but they also won't work if they don't think it's worth it. This doesn't just go in one direction, dude.

And whether a fry cook's WAGE is high enough to live on, we still pay for it either way, in the form of government assistance.

And I agree that menial jobs aren't going anywhere, but it isn't because people will just continue to work regardless of how little we pay them. Menial jobs aren't going anywhere because we need those jobs to exist, so one way or another we're gonna pay enough to keep people doing those jobs.

If a worker doesn't feel as if they are getting paid enough and decides to quit or not show up for work, there are plenty of other people who will take the job unless it is some sort of niche profession. Argue all you want but there are always people working fast food, at Walmart, etc.., These places aren't going out of business because they lack low skilled employees.

The government wants as many people as possible to be dependent on it which is why our leaders feel it is far better to expect tax payers to support the choices of others rather than pushing people to better themselves. One can live on a full time minimum wage job as long as you understand the realization of what you will have and what you will not have. A minimum wage job is not nor was ever intended to be the only job needed to support a family and the full complement of expenses that come along with a family. That idea is Greek to many people though.

@Solaryellow: You can live on a minimum wage job? Really? The federal minimum wage is what, $7.25/hr? That's $1160 gross per month, so you must live in the middle of nowhere with your girlfriend Beverley the bovine because it costs like $1250 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment around here, just in rent.

The real problem is that for the past few decades worker productivity has risen substantially while wages have stagnated. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the minimum wage in the United States would have been $18.28 in 2013 if the minimum wage kept pace with labor productivity.

I made something out of my life. In other words I am not dependent on the government for my existence nor am I forced to limit myself to a low skilled, low paying menial job while expecting tax payers to provide me with subsidized food, rent, insurance, etc.., Such a novel idea, huh? What you somehow ignore is that you can live on minimum wage but you need to live within your limits. For example, you might need to have a roommate. You might need to drive a shitty car. Sacrifices have to be made but in today's day and age it is much easier to say you can't do something while blaming someone else rather than actually doing.

Try and be realistic. A cashier at Walmart or the person selling you tickets at the box office of the movie theater is not worth anywhere near $18.28 per hour. Why? Because the jobs require barely any skill besides basic reading and comprehension. Any person with a minimally functioning brain could so such jobs. Of course it has to suck making such a low wage but that's all some people bring to the table.

Are you the type of person who expects others to do for you?

@deeliman: If you can't live off your job, you need to do whatever you can to find a better one.

If our society can't value full-time work enough for those workers to get by then the problem is with our society. As to this argument that what a worker gets paid is exactly what their labor is worth, that's not taking into account that labor costs cut into profit margins and business owners have an incentive to pay workers as little as possible in order to increase their own monetary gain. It's also not taking into account that walking away from jobs that don't pay what the worker thinks they're worth isn't an option for most workers, they need to eat. If I take ten dollars worth of materials to make an object and then am unable to sell it for more than five dollars that doesn't mean the object is only worth five dollars. All it means is that people aren't willing to pay the full worth of the object, and that I don't have the option to wait for a better price because I have to consider my living expenses. The same principles are at work with individuals selling their labor.

Seems you really missed the point about gamefan's last point there.

It probably shouldn't, but if you don't have any skills or work ethic that makes your time worth more than 7.25 to employer the government shouldn't make them pay you that. Minimum wage jobs are intended for young people trying to gain some skills and working part time and the vast majority of people working minimum wage fit that category. Despite what some people seem to think, if you go to work at a fast food restaurant or store that pays you minimum wage, it is not hard to get a raise and promotion. Another thing to keep in mind, in the case of most fast food restaurants, it is typically not the billion dollar company that employs people. It is a franchisee who isn't making that much money. The average owner makes about $95k a year (from what I found with a quick search). If they have an average of 4 people working 16 hours a day (2 shifts) and they give each of them each a 2.75 raise to go to the new minimum wage, that eats up 65k of the owners 95k paycheck and is enough where the owner will close it and invest his money elsewhere.

Full-time work is not always 40-50 hours a week. The minimum is thirty-two hours a week, but full-time status can vary depending on the business. That means the hours you suggest are well above-average, though I understand that by multiplying the proposed minimum wage by those hours you can get an answer for a decent living.

To answer your question, that many hours would have to come with a talented and dedicated team to make working like that bearable.

People are still taking those jobs because those jobs still pay enough to be worth it for them. Lower the pay enough (and by "pay", I'm talking about direct wages and government assistance), and things will change really fast. You might not be able to feed yourself if you're unemployed. But if a 50 hour work week STILL doesn't get you close to being able to feed yourself, then why would you do it? If you're gonna starve either way, then what benefit is there in working your ass off for 50 hours a week?

Well lets put it this way, lets say the minimum wage were lowered to $6.00. How many people would quit and how many of those new openings would be filled by other workers who wouldn't mind the 6 bucks?

And you should try to be realistic. If you think that such jobs are basically worthless, then that's fine, just don't expect those jobs to be there if the relative pay goes low enough. No one works for free, dude, and there does come a point where the pay can be so low that it isn't worth taking the job. If you think that the guy stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart isn't worth enough money to live, then that's fine. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't be shopping at Wal-Mart and expecting the shelves to be stocked. If that labor is essentially worthless, then we'd might as well cut out the jobs entirely. Similarly, if we rely on this or that menial task to be done, then we should probably be realistic and continue to pay workers enough to ensure that they keep doing it.

I'm not even saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised or that expecting to live off of minimum wage alone is unreasonable. I'm saying that you have a vastly warped perception of the people who actually do those kinds of jobs. A high priced lawyer wouldn't keep doing the same job if his pay dropped to $10 an hour, and the Wal-Mart cashier wouldn't keep doing his job if his pay dropped to 10 cents an hour (assuming living costs to stay the same). That might be worth it if their costs went way freaking down, but the problem here is that the cost of living is going up and minimum wage isn't keeping pace. And that can't continue indefinitely without some jobs just plain going away, because otherwise there's no incentive for people to do it. Just because people are unskilled doesn't mean that they don't operate on a cost/incentive model. Poor people aren't some magical mythical creature that is compelled to do menial work regardless of how little you pay them, the only reason they still do menial work is because it's still worth it to them.

You actually accept this when you claim that people can live on minimum wage. By stating that people can live on minimum wage by making certain sacrifices, you're acknowledging the existence of an incentive for them to keep on working for that little. But once the pay drops low enough for that incentive to disappear, THEN WHY WOULD THEY KEEP ON WORKING?

Of course. Which is why smart people with self control keep the cost of their bills and family within their budget, whatever their budget may be.

Ahhh, yes? People who work and are committed to full time jobs should at the very least be able to sustain themselves and their dependents. How is this even a question? No matter how you look at it people should be allowed to live, especially if their working their ass in any given 40-50 hours job.

I think its very disturbing that this is actually a lively debate between some people and among politicians in virtually all countries. I honestly have no idea how such people come into being, and I'm not trying to be offensive or anything. The only somewhat valid explanation I can come up with is that these people are super rich and have a rather distorted grip on reality and the misfortunes and aspirations of the common man. But then I meet some of these people, and I realize they're not super rich or anything and I once again find myself completely lost trying to explain what seems to be a cruel, amoral and disturbing views on economics and distributive justice.

Regarding the OP, I've heard the argument that the market value of labor is the major, if not the only valid argument of determining the value of labor being reiterated over and over. The thing is, who says so? What's so infallible about this argument that it should be the only factor taken into consideration in determining the value of labor?
Also, the current shape of capitalism contradicts and works against the values and foundations of the actual political economic theory of capitalism. Consequently, what would normally be expected of capitalism would most likely not come into being at all. So if under capitalism we're supposed to be able to rely on markets to determine the value of labor, that is currently invalid and government interventions, unions, standard-settings...etc become necessary not only to protect the rights of the workers but to effectively sustain capitalism altogether because capitalism is not only about affluence and wealth maximization, but its also about sustainability and is supposedly about national affluence and innovation too.

@timothyrolls: Yeah but you would probably require more out of minimum wage people than they do you.

For example I'm an unloader at Wal Mart and we are at a pay grade 2. A cart pusher is at 1 then bam unloader and then there we are right above minimum wage.

We unload the trucks and a number of other required duties for the stockers to put shit on shelves so you can buy it.

Show respect to the people with the little jobs because without them your life would become a lot less pleasant.

We would only need your help if we used your bank and I personally don't trust banks.

I have never been much for the minimum wage increase as it will jack up the price of living

It's absurd to even think they would jack it up that much anyways. Why not just raisw it a little bit? Maybe 8?

Minimum wage to me is motivation and inspiration to find or earn a better job. There is always higher learning and vocational schools as well.