How many social responsibilities shall businessnes carry?

imagep said:

Enough so that they don't have a need for public assistance.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense because public assistance qualification involves household income and household size. If entry level applicant A requires a living wage of $20/hr and entry level applicant B requires a living wage of $10/hr then who would the employer be most likely to hire?

ttwtt78640 said:

That makes no sense because public assistance qualification involves household income and household size. If entry level applicant A requires a living wage of $20/hr and entry level applicant B requires a living wage of $10/hr then who would the employer be most likely to hire?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that employers should pay employees based upon family size or need. Only that wages should generally be high enough so that families that have at least one full time worker shouldn't have a need for public assistance. Obviously, some families will fall through the cracks.

A plan or system doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be better than what we have now.

imagep said:

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that employers should pay employees based upon family size or need. Only that wages should generally be high enough so that families that have at least one full time worker shouldn't have a need for public assistance. Obviously, some families will fall through the cracks.

A plan or system doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be better than what we have now.

Click to expand...

When has one entry level, minimum wage, full time worker been able to support a family?

idea_steed said:

The initial and ultimate goal for companies is to earn profits. However, it is also acknowledged that they shall shoulder some social responsibilities.
In your opinion, what should they do?

Click to expand...

You can earn a lot of profit by simply being a pirate. Check out Somalia and see.

Having now given this topic some more though, my list has grown longer.

As far as legitimate American businesses go, I believe a business owes the following to their customers, employees, and the general public --

1 - provide a safe environment for workers and customers;

2 - provide a living wage to workers;

3 - provide reasonable breaks to workers;

4 - provide a reasonable workload to workers;

5 - do not pollute the environment;

6 - obey all Federal, State, County/Parish, City/Town laws;

7 - provide healthy safe products to their customers;

8 - provide the benefits of lower cost group medical coverage OR enough living wage to enable the employees to buy their own more expensive individual health care policies (as you can see, group coverage makes more sense).

imagep said:

Enough so that they don't have a need for public assistance.

Click to expand...

Good rule.

ttwtt78640 said:

That makes no sense because public assistance qualification involves household income and household size. If entry level applicant A requires a living wage of $20/hr and entry level applicant B requires a living wage of $10/hr then who would the employer be most likely to hire?

Click to expand...

Adam Smith talks about this very issue in his book "The Wealth Of Nations."

He says that if you only pay your workers enough to support themselves, then they will all go extinct within a generation if they cannot afford to support a family.

That is the fundamental economic support for the notion of any living wage.

You should pick up the book and read about it.

Captain Adverse said:

Well two things come to mind right away:

1. Be environmentally aware/friendly. (Don't poison the planet making your product.)

2. Pay a living wage. (That used to be called an honest wage for an honest days work.)

Click to expand...

There are a lot more issues than just this.

Safety comes to mind as the most prominent.

And there are even more. See my post supra.

Crovax said:

Its used to actually be work too, now "adults" have chosen to make careers in jobs intended for teenagers. Why exactly should a teen still supported by his parents be paid a "living wage" to bag groceries?

Click to expand...

Teen labor like child labor should be illegal.

Teens should be spending their time studying in school and learning.

Teens should not be working, in my view, until they have finished their high school studies at age 17 or 18.

Moot said:

Companies should create long term value for it's customers and not just focus on short term profit.

Click to expand...

There is no social requirement for a business to care about their customers other than not to poison them with their products, Moot.

Riveroaks said:

There is no social requirement for a business to care about their customers other than not to poison them with their products, Moot.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the zoning commissions and public at large whose business many companies depend on.

Moot said:

Tell that to the zoning commissions and public at large whose business many companies depend on.

Click to expand...

Sure there is zoning -- but that's just to keep all the greasy spoons together in one place so they don't stink up the neighborhoods.

Riveroaks said:

Sure there is zoning -- but that's just to keep all the greasy spoons together in one place so they don't stink up the neighborhoods.

Click to expand...

You're just too silly for words.

Riveroaks said:

Adam Smith talks about this very issue in his book "The Wealth Of Nations."

He says that if you only pay your workers enough to support themselves, then they will all go extinct within a generation if they cannot afford to support a family.

That is the fundamental economic support for the notion of any living wage.

You should pick up the book and read about it.

Click to expand...

Only about 3% of US workers now earn the MW. That is not likely to cause extinction. Raising entry level pay to the level necessary to comfortably support a family would seem to discourage acquiring more skills and cause prices for goods and services to increase beyond the means of many now living on fixed incomes.

ttwtt78640 said:

Only about 3% of US workers now earn the MW. That is not likely to cause extinction.

Raising entry level pay to the level necessary to comfortably support a family would seem to discourage acquiring more skills and cause prices for goods and services to increase beyond the means of many now living on fixed incomes.

Click to expand...

Ttwtt78640, the federal MINIMUM wage rate is the MINIMUM rate that an employer is permitted to pay employees. It is the legal MINIMUM rate applicable to most jobs within the USA.

A person understanding this elementary fact would not consider the numbers or proportions of employees earning the exact minimum wage rate amount as great significance within discussions of lower earning segments of our population. To do so is deliberate duplicity; (pretending ignorance in order to advance an arguing position is tantamount deliberate lying).

The federal minimum wage rate significantly affects the wages paid to the entire lowest earning quarter of USA’s employees. All USA job rates are to some extent bolstered by the federal minimum wage rate but they are not all equally increased. The benefits to jobs’ rates are inversely related to their proportional differences relative to the minimum rate.

The entire lowest quarter of all USA job’s wage and salary rates significantly benefit due to the federal minimum wage. The minimum rate is not detrimental to any job’s rate.
Increased employment rates and their median purchasing power should both be considered. Increase of employment rates accompanied by a decrease of median wages would generally be of net economic detriment to the nation.

Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

Ttwtt78640, the federal MINIMUM wage rate is the MINIMUM rate that an employer is permitted to pay employees. It is the legal MINIMUM rate applicable to most jobs within the USA.

A person understanding this elementary fact would not consider the numbers or proportions of employees earning the exact minimum wage rate amount as great significance within discussions of lower earning segments of our population. To do so is deliberate duplicity; (pretending ignorance in order to advance an arguing position is tantamount deliberate lying).

The federal minimum wage rate significantly affects the wages paid to the entire lowest earning quarter of USA’s employees. All USA job rates are to some extent bolstered by the federal minimum wage rate but they are not all equally increased. The benefits to jobs’ rates are inversely related to their proportional differences relative to the minimum rate.

The entire lowest quarter of all USA job’s wage and salary rates significantly benefit due to the federal minimum wage. The minimum rate is not detrimental to any job’s rate.
Increased employment rates and their median purchasing power should both be considered. Increase of employment rates accompanied by a decrease of median wages would generally be of net economic detriment to the nation.

Supposn

Click to expand...

Wow, so many words just to point out that 3% should be (up to?) 25%. That is still a minority of US workers and would negatively affect the purchasing power of at least that many folks on fixed pensions.

ttwtt78640 said:

Wow, so many words just to point out that 3% should be (up to?) 25%. That is still a minority of US workers and would negatively affect the purchasing power of at least that many folks on fixed pensions.

Click to expand...

TTWTT78640 the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate affects all USA wage and salary rates but it does not affect them all equally.
The extent of the FMW rate’s effect upon a job’s rate is proportionaly related to the differences between the two rates. Lesser wage scales benefit more and higher wage scales benefit less

No wage scales are harmed due to the FMW rate. To some extent it bolsters all USA wages and salaries but it is of the greatest benefit to the least fifth of our nation’s income earners.

The FMW rate’s affects upon more, but certainly no less than 20% of all USA employees are extremely significant. A minimum of 20% certainly exceeds 3%.

The FMW rate is not among the primary causes of inflation. While the rate is not increased, the dollar continues to lose purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of USA’s currency inflation.

It is usual for congress to permit the FMW rate’s purchasing power to greatly lag behind that of the U.S. dollar. That lag is detrimental to our nation’s economy. That’s why the FMW rate should be annually monitored and pegged to the cost-price index number.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm Supposn said:

TTWTT78640 the federal minimum wage, (FMW) rate affects all USA wage and salary rates but it does not affect them all equally.
The extent of the FMW rate’s effect upon a job’s rate is proportionaly related to the differences between the two rates. Lesser wage scales benefit more and higher wage scales benefit less

No wage scales are harmed due to the FMW rate. To some extent bolsters all USA wages and salaries but it is of the greatest benefit to the least fifth of our nation’s income earners.

The FMW rate’s affects upon more, but certainly no less than 20% of all USA employees are extremely significant. A minimum of 20% certainly exceeds 3%.

The FMW rate is not among the primary causes of inflation. While the rate is not increased, the dollar continues to lose purchasing power. The minimum rate is much less a cause and much more a victim of USA’s currency inflation.

It is usual for congress to permit the FMW rate’s purchasing power to greatly lag behind that of the U.S. dollar. That lag is detrimental to our nation’s economy. That’s why the FMW rate should be annually monitored and pegged to the cost-price index number.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

I have no objection to indexing the federal MW to inflation, just as we do with Social Security, defined benefit pensions and the federal poverty level. Even with such a MW COLA adjustment it would still be very difficult for a single (full-time) MW income to keep a large (more than two person) household out of financial difficulty. That is why many still seek to increase the federal MW to historically unrealistic levels and keep (or even add more) "safety net" programs to ensure that folks need not acquire a paycheck that would actually support their spending.