Pennsylvania lawmaker Jesse Topper stated that not every wage is meant to be livable, using examples such as teenagers and retirees who work for extra income. This viewpoint sparked significant public response. Many individuals argued that the current minimum wage falls short of meeting basic living expenses, stating it leads to reliance on government assistance. Critics conveyed that essential workers deserve a wage that allows them to support themselves without falling into poverty and that inadequate wages only perpetuate a cycle of dependence on state support.
That's why it's called the MINIMUM wage. If jobs are difficult or require experience, then they get paid more than that. They make it sound like these employees will suddenly be living in the lap of luxury at $31,200 a year. If your rent is $1,000 (the national average is $1,700), that leaves you with only $19,000 to live on for the whole year before taxes. That doesn't count food, cars, clothes, insurance, phones, etc....
They don't want to pay a livable wage, but then they get mad when people need assistance to survive, like Medicaid and food stamps. How do they not realize the cycle they have created? Do you want the guy who can work fast food and do a great job to make a living wage and support himself, or do you want him to not make that and have to apply for government assistance? Or is the truth of it just that you want poor people to die because they aren't convenient for you to think about? Because guess what - those people are the ones who are doing essential jobs that make your life easier. Look at anywhere with unions. Ever experienced a sanitation strike? The people that you're hurting with these laws are the ones that you absolutely need for your communities to thrive. It's like they all share a single brain cell. No one can see the big picture.
Collection
[
|
...
]