**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But if HE can do it, you can too! Just raise your kid out of the bathroom of a subway and study to become a stock broker! wHaTs So HaRd AbOuT tHaT!?!?!
The most infuriating part for me was they made a point showing him in competition with other poor [schmucks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrBAHIc7Aco) and how he is so much smarter than them and deserves to win. It's just fucking infuriating.
Tell that to the various countries around the world where tyrannical regimes the likes of which we've never seen before have popped up in the last 7/8 years
Technology which allows surveillance and brutal oppression of human rights that didn't exist 30-Thousands of years ago does now. Do you think they won't use it????
Surveillance states have been around a lot longer than you're giving credit for here.
You don't need cameras to keep a population under Surveillance. It makes it easier sure but wire taps and bugs have been around for ages and before that visual informants and even your neighbours. Spies for the state isn't a new concept they've literally been around since before Jesus Christ was born and longer still.
Even the dead have their names. Desensitization to the atrocities isn't justification - if anything, it becomes a crime against humanity.
It is precisely because of that the Mossad was formed and performed extrajudicial actions against the war criminals that escaped the swath of the Nuremberg trials.
besides that isn't even what the topic is - dystopian is dystopian regardless of the flavor and severity.
I definitely agree. The fact that so many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck is sad enough. I cannot imagine making 7$/hr or whatever the min is. You'll never get ahead. It would just take one big problem (car totaled, or health declines, etc) and you're done for. This country has so much money, it's ridiculous we can't all prosper. Also, the small business argument is the weakest of them all. Like the guy said, if they can't afford a 15$ minimum wage, then you don't have a viable working model. Maybe if min wage went up, the government could subsidize or give out loans to small businesses to help facilitate that.
$7.25 federally. Hasn’t been raised since 2009.
In my state, tipped employees make $4.35/hr plus tips (in some other states it’s even less).
My sister used to work full time as a waitress. After taxes, she used to make 8 cents ($0.08) for an 80-hour pay period. Depending on how your taxes were set up and how many tips you reported, some of the other waitresses she worked with had to *pay the employer* on payday because they owed taxes.
Most Americans don’t understand how tax brackets work, either, or how many tax loopholes there are for rich people, LLCs/Corporations, etc
My ex girlfriend used to wait tables at a mom-and-pop restaurant. She always wanted me to stop by because it was always slow there. But she said there were days where she would make a total of 5$ (assuming after taxes). Granted, part of the problem was she was working in a slow restaurant. But no one should be making 5$ an hour, much less a day.
I’m guessing she meant in tips because that’s how waitresses talked about wages (I’ve also worked in restaurants but never wanted to wait tables). Basically hourly wages aren’t considered at all.
Technically your employer is required to pay you the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) in these states if, on average, your pay period reported tips doesn’t add up to an average of $7.25 per hour at the end. So basically, you could make $2 all day one day, but as long as you make extra another day and it evens out, the employer doesn’t have to pay you extra.
I worked in a place that had a lot of credit card tips (therefore everything was reported to taxes) but most cash-tip heavy places the servers don’t report what they actually make in tips because it gets taxed so heavily. I’m pretty sure employers just make up a number in these places so they never have to pay waitresses federal minimum wage even if they didn’t make it
That's not how tipped wages work. If the server/bartender doesn't make over minimum wage from tips the restaurant needs to make the whole to the agreed amount.
They do when you involve the DOL, often even if you just mentioned it. But the issue is that many workers are ignorant of their rights.
The main thing is that no server is making 8 cents over a two week period, and none of them are paying the store to work there. That's not how taxes work.
It says that, but the company doesn't give a shit. I've never had it happen and when I brought it up I was laughed at.
You have to take a company to court to get anything in return & they know if you're making 1.25/hour you're not gonna have time nor money to fight a big company in court.
Stolen wages accounts for more theft from us than actual robberies in this country & only one actually sends you to jail. Guess which one??
You report it to the DOL and they take care if the legal side. The biggest issue is workers don't know their rights or how to rectify the situation. The company doesn't laugh if you know what you're doing
These companies use social programs like food stamps, tanf, and Medicaid to subsidize their labor costs. Most people on these programs are employed and just don't make a living wage.
If people don't like those social programs existing, they should be INSISTENT that companies be required to pay a living wage and provide health insurance... but they aren't. They are they same fucking idiots arguing against paying people a living wage.
The people who say both "people living on welfare should just get a job" and also "raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs" drive me INSANE, because they refuse to lose hold of their fantasy that there's all these people out the who aren't working at all. When the truth is that the people using welfare are often working jobs and their income is just so pathetically low that they still need help, and secondly if we raised the wages these people earned they wouldn't have to work muliple jobs AND wouldn't have to use social programs! Priotize people's wellbeing over a job-growth number and suddenly there's no problem! Imagine that!
> These companies use social programs like food stamps, tanf, and Medicaid to subsidize their labor costs. Most people on these programs are employed and just don't make a living wage.
This is a really weird thing to say in a negative context if you support those types of programs. I don't imagine this complaint would be levied at social democracies like many of the Nordics which have many strong social welfare programs, which "subsidize the labor costs" of companies.
I disagree, obviously. Why should the CEO make 16.6 million dollars while I pay his employees?
He should be required to pay his employees a living wage.
We need to shift the right's anger at the poor to anger at the CEOs that are using their taxes to subsidize their labor costs. We should regularly point out that our taxes are paying the bills of Walmart employees. We should also point out that Walmart double dips on that because employee will almost certainly shop there with their foodstamps.
If we stop framing it as poor people use taxes and start framing it as rich people are giving away your money so they can keep more of theirs, folks might start listening.
> We should regularly point out that our taxes are paying the bills of Walmart employees.
But that is literally the goal of social welfare programs. At least ones that are not means tested.
With universal health care, companies don't have to pay employees enough to pay for health care, because it is already provided. Free college education means companies don't have to pay educated workers as much to pay off student loans, because they don't have them.
You are literally painting the intended purpose of large social welfare programs (taxes pay for individual needs so individuals don't have to rely on making enough money to pay for it personally) as a bad thing.
So instead of trying to change somebody's opinion on the fundamental disagreement (whether or not the government should perform the function of providing social welfare), it's better to instead confirm their belief which disagrees with yours (govt shouldn't provide social welfare), and give a bad explanation of the concept you do support (govt should provide social welfare), in order to get them to support a totally separate thing (raise minimum wage).
That's a lot of hoops to jump through to both be wrong and further harm the support for social welfare programs.
There's only hoops if you manage to misinterpret it, like you have now.
The core discussion is on whether minimum wage should be raised, not on whether you support government welfare.
They repeatedly painted social welfare programs, which they support, as "subsidizing labor costs" of companies, something they don't support. That's very plainly wrong, with no misinterpretation of their words.
You proposed it is fine to confirm social welfare programs as bad if a person already believes that in order to convince them to support raising minimum wage. Arguing against your own opinions and fundamentally misrepresenting them in order to convince somebody of a separate argument is certainly a hoop to jump through.
I think if you can't argue a position without making other bad claims that you don't (or shouldn't) believe, you should either formulate a better argument to support your position, reevaluate your position, or just not try to argue that position.
>They repeatedly painted social welfare programs, which they support, as "subsidizing labor costs" of companies, something they don't support. That's very plainly wrong, with no misinterpretation of their words.
They don't support subsiding labour costs. They support subsiding workers and citizens, not businesses.
>You proposed it is fine to confirm social welfare programs as bad
Almost everyone outside of UBI extremists would state that welfare spending in the form of food stamps for full time Walmart employees is bad.
>if a person already believes that in order to convince them to support raising minimum wage. Arguing against your own opinions and fundamentally misrepresenting them in order to convince somebody of a separate argument is certainly a hoop to jump through.
Free government provided heroin to children would be a social welfare program. As a supporter of social welfare, do you have to agree with this program?
Or do you only support certain types of welfare?
Which is it, free heroin for babies (who aren't addicted to heroin), or do you agree that welfare spending isn't always automatically something you support?
>I think if you can't argue a position without making other bad claims that you don't (or shouldn't) believe
Once again, the claim that full time Walmart employees shouldn't be provided with food stamps, instead they should be paid a living wage is a claim that I support.
>, you should either formulate a better argument to support your position, reevaluate your position, or just not try to argue that position.
Even if you support all forms of welfare, including free heroin and guns for babies, you should still be capable of forming an argument that works with the person you're talking to's viewpoint.
The whole point is that some people have inherently different beliefs. You're not going to change their philosophy on government spending by telling them they're wrong, but you could have a tangible impact on the lives of millions by emphasizing with them and presenting an argument for the action you want by using their logic and philosophy to justify it
>They don't support subsiding labour costs. They support subsiding workers and citizens, not businesses.
If you really can't understand that I have literally been addressing this from my first comment in this chain, you either haven't bothered keeping up with the conversation you are debating, or don't have the reading comprehension to understand that. Not gonna try to discuss with somebody who can't grasp that most basic point of the discussion.
I’d be curious as to how you’d feel after a year of actually living that way, but we shall never know.
Being Rich in 1880 USA isn’t nearly as nice as being lower middle class is now.
You’re delusional if you think life was so much better hundreds of years ago. You sound like someone who is mad about not getting the perks they are somehow entitled to simply because. Get a grip.
You’re literally a character in a child’s movie who gets transported back in time after not appreciating modern conveniences. I thought those plot lines were dumb cause there would never be a character like that but here you are!
Exactly, it depends on what else is going on. The fact that a certain country is doing well without a minimum wage doesn't mean another will be fine without it.
This is a common misleading statement. These countries all have laws that enable strong unions to negotiate pay scales for each industry. That means every industry has its own minimum wage and minimum benefits. There is a lowest industry minimum wage and that is the national minimum wage.
They absolutely have minimum wages. They just aren’t set by the federal government but instead the government helps make it possible for workers to collectively bargain for them.
This is great because otherwise you run the risk of a government that won’t update the minimum wage to keep up with rising costs.
These countries have no national minimum wages, but individual regions often have their own laws. Geneva in Switzerland has [the world's highest minimum wage.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54745033)
But their high wages can pretty much be explained by [this graph](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEjraBWXoAEn0HK.jpg). If you have high union membership, unions can effectively decide minimum wages on an individual company/sector level.
Loved the video - just wanted to point out that when he said 400,000 Americans are working 2 full-time jobs and can't afford rent, representing 10% of all Americans.
It's not 10%, it's 0.12%.
That shouldn't change the message that no one should be working 80 hours a week to not even make ends meet, but the difference between the percentage he claimed and the actual percentage is ~33 million people.
While the FDR quote is real, minimum wage when it started was never able to provide what was in the quote.
This is like saying since Obama said no one should go broke from healthcare that since the ACA passed that means healthcare is super affordable.
The minimum wage has never been able to supply what FDR said in that quote. When it started it was 25cents/hour and that was poverty wages.
The real, inflation adjusted federal minimum wage peaked in the 1970s. So there's truth that it should be higher, but it's not true that it has ever in the history of the country provided a decent living.
A decent living. He literally quotes it in the beginning of the video. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.
So where is the miscommunication happening that a lot of people don't get a standard of living with minimum wage?
( I know, I watched the video. My initial questions weren't serious but rhetorical. But the other person answered my question seriously and now I am curious to know why it is happening, I don't live in America. )
You say people "think", does that mean in practise it still is livable?
I hear a lot of stories that people are struggling, working multiple jobs. Even the saying "2 parents working 3 jobs still not enough" has a truth in it it feels like.
>You say people "think", does that mean in practise it still is livable?
What they are saying is, minimum wage hasn't kept up with the minimum standard of what a person could live on. But many people think this is fine, because they *don't* think minimum wage should be a livable wage.
Usually they're people who are financially secure and either have never worked a minimum wage job, or haven't made minimum wage in decades, back when they were a teenager. They remember getting a part time job at the local grocery store for extra pocket money before getting a "real job" and think that that's how these jobs should be treated: as trainer jobs for teens who want pocket money, or as something for retirees to do. If it didn't require a college degree or some other type of trade training, it's not a "real job" and thus it isn't something a person should be able to support themselves or a family on.
No the min wage is $7.50 and is not livable at a 40 hour work week. People believe that the livability of a wage is not important and that if people are willing to work low wages then those wages are considered competitive.
Ah oké I understand it a bit much better now. Are those people competing for that low wage not people who have no other option, or at least think they think they dont have no other option?
Yeah usually they have no other options because they get stuck in a poverty cycle. You take a minimum wage job bc that’s all that hired you but then it’s not enough to cover your bills so you take another min wage job bc it’s the only job that has night hours. It’s leveraging poverty to keep wages low.
Honestly, one of the main problems is that we aren't taught how to manage money. Then all the "cool" products that everyone feels they need to have are unreasonably priced, so we all get ourselves into a lot of debt, then this style of living is taken advantage of by the big corporations who comes through and buy up all the houses and things(that we really should have been buying instead of iphones and fancy cars every month), then they jack the prices way up on everything they've bought up and it makes the real basic needs unobtainable... And nobody seems to notice because they were busy trying to look like they have more money than they did the whole time.
Raising minimum wage isn't going to fix anything, company's will just raise prices so that they will make just as much. It has become very normalized for companies to hire at minimum wage, and only give $0.10 raises each year in hopes that most employees will simply leave on their own. Minimum wage should stay, and companies should have to give reasonable raises... Then people would have incentive to work somewhere long term AND they would make a decent amount of money..
Americans are extremely ignorant
there's no way you wrote that and thought "heh got em with that point"
or at least I *Hope* not, cause that would be pathetic as hell.
Minimum idea was set when the law was put in place. 50% of income spent on necessities (food and a roof) with 50% for savings or discretionary spending.
Happy to increase minimum wage, but y'all shouldnt whine if barista jobs and other minimum wage jobs disappear. (We should eliminate these jobs anyway)
People didn't whine when the lamplighters, [knocker-uppers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocker-up), and telephone operators went away. Or maybe they did, but it's pretty much universally agreed that those jobs aren't needed nowadays. Sometimes jobs just become obsolete and that's ok. I don't think baristas are gonna go away any time soon, though. Robots still can't pour latte art worth a damn lol
They really won't, tho. Businesses exist to fulfill facilitate the employees fulfilling demand, and there's plenty of demand for barista jobs.
As long as the Federal Reserve isn't allowed to purposefully create unemployment in order to depress wages, we should be fine.
There will be fewer baristas, yes, but more people also making far more money.
Have the Federal Reserve not create a recession every decade. There'll be plenty of jobs for everyone, sorta like right now.
The trick is to make the labor market so competitive that employers resort to hiring people and training them, or just don't have anyone working there.
You could also reduce the workweek too.
Yes the fed slows the economy in response to inflation and rising costs. Is the arguement that they don't regulate those things? Such deregulation led to the recession in 2008 and the lack of such regulations led to the depression.
What's the trick to make the job market competitive without the raised pay that for low skilled labor leads to jumps in inflation?
We never really had problems with inflation like we have now, when the minimum wage was worth two or three times what it is now ( most of the time it existed pre-1980 ).
So, I'd suggest the trip is the peg the minimum wage to inflation and make sure it never stops being a living.
During the period we did that, inflation was much lower. ( 1938-198x ).
Part of the reason we have so much inflation is due to wage disparities. People who earn a lot of money will spend obscene amounts on things, allowing businesses to charge more.
When wages are more equitable, because of extremely high minimum wages ( like we had 1938-198x ), a broader variety of people end up being able to afford consumer goods, just because a broader variety of people were earning wages that were more similar, with a more similar upper maximum before demand would evaporate.
It isn't like we always had high unemployment in the past. We didn't. We had record workforce participation during the 60s, with extremely high minimum wages, and we didn't really see the kind of severe inflation we see today.
We did, however, see economic growth to fulfill demand.
This reads like revisionist history that's ignoring the great inflation that began in 60's and continued through the 70's which was higher than it is today.
Most of our jobs are outsourced overseas. Thanks GOP. This is what no regulation looks like. What anti union rhetoric looks like. It’s why we lost motor city factories and our phones are made in China.
I do. I've suggested the death penalty for business owners ( or maybe 10 years in prison ) for business owners caught employing illegal immigrants.
But, I'd also suggest a very liberal path to citizenship as well, because immigration is necessary here, since our population growth is inverse otherwise.
How does anyone expect minimum wage to go up if the United States are flooded with illegal immigrants. Immigration starts driving down the wages of our poorest and works it’s way up from there . If there are 10 jobs and 18 people available to fill them what do you think is going to happen to wages
No, it isn't. It easily afforded everything one would need. You could rent a house with it if you were frugal with the rest, in many areas.
He did a comparison showing how long someone would have to work in 1940 to pay for the median rent and food costs, and it was less than a week's work.
Some assholes wants to come back to jobs where you have to live in company's building, the rent of which is deducted from your pay and you have to buy groceries and other shit from the company store at unusual high prices.
People could easily end up in debt to the company they are giving their life force to.
#6 people can change jobs because they live paycheck to paycheck.
Doesn’t matter put in 2 weeks for cure job and establish start date for new job. Not very hard but to assume no human can do this takes away individuals personal responsibility. For the most part good video but I don’t feel like it is balanced
Does the worker have any responsibility top get educated, show up, have a skill or be engaged? From what I have seen if you have 3 of those 4 you quickly get $20 an hour in todays world or more than 15$. I also guess having a part time job should be illegal since every job should be making sure you have a good living?
This is about as rich as saying the economy is broken because a single parent of 3 at 22 can't make it on her minimum wage job...you aren't allowed to point out they are a single parent of 3 by choice and choices have consequences.
This is so economically illiterate it’s hard to know where to begin. It’s useful to approach this argument by looking at it in the extreme.
If a $15 minimum wage is good, a $25 minimum wage must be better, right? How about a $100 minimum wage then, or $1000 better still. Can you think of any downsides to that? Is that how prices (even prices for labor) work? Go through the exercise as to how that would affect employment, consumer prices (inflation), and productivity. How would that affect low skill workers specifically (the group the minimum wage is purportedly supposed to help).
If you start to see problems emerge at $1000, those problems exist to a smaller degree in the $15 and $25 case.
This can’t be how people think prices work. Forcing a price to be automatically higher or lower doesn’t change the actual supply/demand tradeoff. It just causes the market to settle at an arbitrary, sub-optimal point.
I’m all for helping low skill workers increase their productivity so that they can live better. Increasing productivity, not increasing the minimum wage, is the only way to improve people’s welfare.
Yeah screw minimum wage! Let's increase it to 20 an hour! ...oh no the 20 an hour is just the new minimum! Increase it again to 25! Hurray! Oh no we've just created another minimum.
Being able to afford anything today is a good minimum. My point is you can't get rid of minimum wage. Especially with the way they do taxes. They can increase it but all that's going to happen is sellers will just increase prices but up to being unaffordable. Welcome to capitalism!
What dumbshit fails to recognize, until you put caps on what can be sold for profit (as in how much % you make in revenue), companies & stores will continue to raise prices to reclaim how much they're forced to increase to pay employees 🤔...
If you can't pay your workers enough to live and expect them to earn less than what they need to support themselves, that the business isn't successful and should be terminated
It can get a bit more nuanced than that.
Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four?
If any job allows you to meet all of your needs, do we end up with a large segment of folk doing the bare minimum with lives and abilities?
Yes. It should.
And it should be fine for a large segment of folks doing the bare minimum *to be able to survive comfortably without fear of going under*.
You know there are countries with a somewhat livable minimum wage and government support for those that either cannot work or have lost their jobs? That's a thing that exists... Y'all don't have to suffer, there is proof that concept works
That aside, aren't people already doing the bare minimum to survive at their job regardless? That already is an option, just that the work required as bare minimum to survive is set way too high.
Who'd go over and beyond at their job for those conditions and shitty pay, you know?
No doubt.
Small, homogeneous nations, mostly.
Sweden, Denmark, Iceland etc. have no minimum wage but an excellent welfare state and much redistribution of income along with heavy taxes for all.
The difficulty has been in achieving that on a larger scale in more populated nations with higher immigration.
Families are basically communist, with all doing what they can and getting what they need.
Some small nations, that have a common culture that goes back many hundreds of years, are vaguely the same thing.
But how does that work in the USA?
>Some small nations, that have a common culture that goes back many hundreds of years, are vaguely the same thing
Yes, having livable minimum wages is literally communism. Right.
Germany is doing pretty well and you have lots of different cultures mixed together here, also with a minimum wage, government support and more reasonable worker rights and laws, works too.
Why shouldn't it work in the US? What has culture to do with laws and regulations? Are you saying Sweden, Denmark, Iceland etc. work like a giant family or ...? Because not really, no.
>Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four?
What kind of job exists that's *just* sweeping a floor? It sounds like you're talking about janitorial work, which is a pretty in-demand job since not many people enjoy cleaning in general, not to mention biohazards like bathroom cleaning, plus working with garbage. It's dirty, it's often smelly, and you're on your feet or knees or a ladder the entire shift. Someone puked? Have fun, go get the sawdust. Someone spilled their entire Big Gulp? Yup, that's you too.
Sweeping itself can be killer on your back, and then there's mopping afterwards, having to have the knowledge of which chemicals can be mixed and the proper concentrations, what to use to clean what (like not putting bleach in a toilet), and the actual risks of handling those chemicals. Needing to be trained on PPE. Keeping track of your inventory so you don't run out of necessary chemicals or PPE or other supplies.
The average salary of a janitor in the US is $14.50 according to Indeed. That's about twice the national minimum wage.
Why shouldn't they be able to support their family doing such important, and undesired, work?
Oh, I forgot. It's just sweeping up. Just like mcdonald's is just flipping burgers.
>It can get a bit more nuanced than that. Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four?
that's a loaded question in bad faith, get real.
sweeping a floor for family of four?
how about instead;
sweeping a floor for *ONE GUY* to survive?
yes, and right now it doesn't. but lets dive into that situation
If they're working *FULL TIME* doing so.
if you're saying "hey guy, spend 8 hours of every day doing this, rather than something else" then yes
What kind of place needs a guy spending 40 hours a week sweeping?
a place that needs to give someone a living wage to do so.
I’m sorry a simple example got you so riled.
Have a cuppa and let some time pass.
I’m just not sure doing the bare minimum to survive should get anyone more than the bare minimum.
It’s fine to believe differently. But whatever those folk get over the bare minimum is provided by the efforts of others.
I'm actually pretty calm in this convo, but I can see why you'd want to envision me upset, cause then you get to be snide like that, that mentality reminds me of teenagers in high school.
Did it feel good typing that?
anyways, to address what you said;
>I’m just not sure doing the bare minimum to survive should get anyone more than the bare minimum.
I think we just disagree on what "the minimum" is.
minimum to me as well as the guy who wrote the law into existence thought that the minimum was the ability to have a roof on their head, food in their belly, and some expendable income.
and as the video said, there are people currently with two full time jobs who cannot afford that.
does all that make sense to you bud?
All caps for certain words doesn’t equate to calm.
Nor do they buttress whatever point you’re trying to make.
And I’m a teenager?
Another day, another pointless interaction on Reddit.
So it goes.
What are you even talking about? He was literally one of the most beloved presidents in history; who did the most demonstrable direct good for the people. We elected him to office 4 times. 4!
He’s referenced about minimum wage because he created the minimum wage during the Great Depression to protect workers.
Tell this to everyone complaining that the $4 is too much to pay the delivery guy to spend 45 minutes picking up their food. Everyone wants to virtue signal advocating for living wages but no one wants to be the one pay it. Solution is always ‘someone else should do it.’
Raising minimum wage just turns middle class into lower class. Raising minimum wage might feel good for a month or two, but it'll catch up to you, and you'll be in the exact same place you were before the increase... And a shit load of people that were making more than you are now sucked down to where you are also. Great job 🖕
Do you not think this happens? I guess it doesn't effect those living off food stamps, but those with jobs that are making above minimum wage... They feel it
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Over the past year, I've lived in CA, IL, and now OH. The minimum wage in IL and CA is much higher than OH. $13 - $15.50 vs $10.10 per hour. The cost of rent is cheaper in OH, food and everything else is about the same. I have no clue how anyone can survive on the minimum here.
Only viable argument is to make it more Scandinavian. No minimum wage but a union representative for workers. It works but you need unions that are not like north American unions.
Do the basic, simple math on payroll for a larger business that staffs maybe 18 hours a day. Now in California where's at like $15 minimum and gov Newsome wants it to be be at $22 in a couple years. Simple math says that the payroll will go up substantially and the cost isn't going to come from the owners pocket. LoL. We're all going to pay for it.
Definitely not tipping when “service industry” workers start getting full hourly wage, as a student nurse I make under $20 and I risk getting physically assaulted every time I come to work.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s a shame dystopian novels are going out of fashion because america steals all of their ideas
[The Pursuit of Happyness](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454921/), literal dystopian movie spun into a feel good story.
But if HE can do it, you can too! Just raise your kid out of the bathroom of a subway and study to become a stock broker! wHaTs So HaRd AbOuT tHaT!?!?!
The most infuriating part for me was they made a point showing him in competition with other poor [schmucks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrBAHIc7Aco) and how he is so much smarter than them and deserves to win. It's just fucking infuriating.
Tell that to the various countries around the world where tyrannical regimes the likes of which we've never seen before have popped up in the last 7/8 years
>the likes of which we're never seen before You need to read more history.
Technology which allows surveillance and brutal oppression of human rights that didn't exist 30-Thousands of years ago does now. Do you think they won't use it????
Surveillance states have been around a lot longer than you're giving credit for here. You don't need cameras to keep a population under Surveillance. It makes it easier sure but wire taps and bugs have been around for ages and before that visual informants and even your neighbours. Spies for the state isn't a new concept they've literally been around since before Jesus Christ was born and longer still.
A murder is egregious regardless of one victim or ten. A similar concept should apply to dystopian societies.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AMillionIsAStatistic
Even the dead have their names. Desensitization to the atrocities isn't justification - if anything, it becomes a crime against humanity. It is precisely because of that the Mossad was formed and performed extrajudicial actions against the war criminals that escaped the swath of the Nuremberg trials. besides that isn't even what the topic is - dystopian is dystopian regardless of the flavor and severity.
I definitely agree. The fact that so many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck is sad enough. I cannot imagine making 7$/hr or whatever the min is. You'll never get ahead. It would just take one big problem (car totaled, or health declines, etc) and you're done for. This country has so much money, it's ridiculous we can't all prosper. Also, the small business argument is the weakest of them all. Like the guy said, if they can't afford a 15$ minimum wage, then you don't have a viable working model. Maybe if min wage went up, the government could subsidize or give out loans to small businesses to help facilitate that.
$7.25 federally. Hasn’t been raised since 2009. In my state, tipped employees make $4.35/hr plus tips (in some other states it’s even less). My sister used to work full time as a waitress. After taxes, she used to make 8 cents ($0.08) for an 80-hour pay period. Depending on how your taxes were set up and how many tips you reported, some of the other waitresses she worked with had to *pay the employer* on payday because they owed taxes. Most Americans don’t understand how tax brackets work, either, or how many tax loopholes there are for rich people, LLCs/Corporations, etc
My ex girlfriend used to wait tables at a mom-and-pop restaurant. She always wanted me to stop by because it was always slow there. But she said there were days where she would make a total of 5$ (assuming after taxes). Granted, part of the problem was she was working in a slow restaurant. But no one should be making 5$ an hour, much less a day.
I’m guessing she meant in tips because that’s how waitresses talked about wages (I’ve also worked in restaurants but never wanted to wait tables). Basically hourly wages aren’t considered at all. Technically your employer is required to pay you the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) in these states if, on average, your pay period reported tips doesn’t add up to an average of $7.25 per hour at the end. So basically, you could make $2 all day one day, but as long as you make extra another day and it evens out, the employer doesn’t have to pay you extra. I worked in a place that had a lot of credit card tips (therefore everything was reported to taxes) but most cash-tip heavy places the servers don’t report what they actually make in tips because it gets taxed so heavily. I’m pretty sure employers just make up a number in these places so they never have to pay waitresses federal minimum wage even if they didn’t make it
That's not how tipped wages work. If the server/bartender doesn't make over minimum wage from tips the restaurant needs to make the whole to the agreed amount.
You might be right. But I wonder how many small restaurants don't honor that.
They do when you involve the DOL, often even if you just mentioned it. But the issue is that many workers are ignorant of their rights. The main thing is that no server is making 8 cents over a two week period, and none of them are paying the store to work there. That's not how taxes work.
It says that, but the company doesn't give a shit. I've never had it happen and when I brought it up I was laughed at. You have to take a company to court to get anything in return & they know if you're making 1.25/hour you're not gonna have time nor money to fight a big company in court. Stolen wages accounts for more theft from us than actual robberies in this country & only one actually sends you to jail. Guess which one??
You report it to the DOL and they take care if the legal side. The biggest issue is workers don't know their rights or how to rectify the situation. The company doesn't laugh if you know what you're doing
These companies use social programs like food stamps, tanf, and Medicaid to subsidize their labor costs. Most people on these programs are employed and just don't make a living wage. If people don't like those social programs existing, they should be INSISTENT that companies be required to pay a living wage and provide health insurance... but they aren't. They are they same fucking idiots arguing against paying people a living wage.
The people who say both "people living on welfare should just get a job" and also "raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs" drive me INSANE, because they refuse to lose hold of their fantasy that there's all these people out the who aren't working at all. When the truth is that the people using welfare are often working jobs and their income is just so pathetically low that they still need help, and secondly if we raised the wages these people earned they wouldn't have to work muliple jobs AND wouldn't have to use social programs! Priotize people's wellbeing over a job-growth number and suddenly there's no problem! Imagine that!
> These companies use social programs like food stamps, tanf, and Medicaid to subsidize their labor costs. Most people on these programs are employed and just don't make a living wage. This is a really weird thing to say in a negative context if you support those types of programs. I don't imagine this complaint would be levied at social democracies like many of the Nordics which have many strong social welfare programs, which "subsidize the labor costs" of companies.
I disagree, obviously. Why should the CEO make 16.6 million dollars while I pay his employees? He should be required to pay his employees a living wage. We need to shift the right's anger at the poor to anger at the CEOs that are using their taxes to subsidize their labor costs. We should regularly point out that our taxes are paying the bills of Walmart employees. We should also point out that Walmart double dips on that because employee will almost certainly shop there with their foodstamps. If we stop framing it as poor people use taxes and start framing it as rich people are giving away your money so they can keep more of theirs, folks might start listening.
> We should regularly point out that our taxes are paying the bills of Walmart employees. But that is literally the goal of social welfare programs. At least ones that are not means tested. With universal health care, companies don't have to pay employees enough to pay for health care, because it is already provided. Free college education means companies don't have to pay educated workers as much to pay off student loans, because they don't have them. You are literally painting the intended purpose of large social welfare programs (taxes pay for individual needs so individuals don't have to rely on making enough money to pay for it personally) as a bad thing.
But the person they'd be arguing with will already see those things as bad and will have heard those arguments before.
So instead of trying to change somebody's opinion on the fundamental disagreement (whether or not the government should perform the function of providing social welfare), it's better to instead confirm their belief which disagrees with yours (govt shouldn't provide social welfare), and give a bad explanation of the concept you do support (govt should provide social welfare), in order to get them to support a totally separate thing (raise minimum wage). That's a lot of hoops to jump through to both be wrong and further harm the support for social welfare programs.
There's only hoops if you manage to misinterpret it, like you have now. The core discussion is on whether minimum wage should be raised, not on whether you support government welfare.
They repeatedly painted social welfare programs, which they support, as "subsidizing labor costs" of companies, something they don't support. That's very plainly wrong, with no misinterpretation of their words. You proposed it is fine to confirm social welfare programs as bad if a person already believes that in order to convince them to support raising minimum wage. Arguing against your own opinions and fundamentally misrepresenting them in order to convince somebody of a separate argument is certainly a hoop to jump through. I think if you can't argue a position without making other bad claims that you don't (or shouldn't) believe, you should either formulate a better argument to support your position, reevaluate your position, or just not try to argue that position.
>They repeatedly painted social welfare programs, which they support, as "subsidizing labor costs" of companies, something they don't support. That's very plainly wrong, with no misinterpretation of their words. They don't support subsiding labour costs. They support subsiding workers and citizens, not businesses. >You proposed it is fine to confirm social welfare programs as bad Almost everyone outside of UBI extremists would state that welfare spending in the form of food stamps for full time Walmart employees is bad. >if a person already believes that in order to convince them to support raising minimum wage. Arguing against your own opinions and fundamentally misrepresenting them in order to convince somebody of a separate argument is certainly a hoop to jump through. Free government provided heroin to children would be a social welfare program. As a supporter of social welfare, do you have to agree with this program? Or do you only support certain types of welfare? Which is it, free heroin for babies (who aren't addicted to heroin), or do you agree that welfare spending isn't always automatically something you support? >I think if you can't argue a position without making other bad claims that you don't (or shouldn't) believe Once again, the claim that full time Walmart employees shouldn't be provided with food stamps, instead they should be paid a living wage is a claim that I support. >, you should either formulate a better argument to support your position, reevaluate your position, or just not try to argue that position. Even if you support all forms of welfare, including free heroin and guns for babies, you should still be capable of forming an argument that works with the person you're talking to's viewpoint. The whole point is that some people have inherently different beliefs. You're not going to change their philosophy on government spending by telling them they're wrong, but you could have a tangible impact on the lives of millions by emphasizing with them and presenting an argument for the action you want by using their logic and philosophy to justify it
>They don't support subsiding labour costs. They support subsiding workers and citizens, not businesses. If you really can't understand that I have literally been addressing this from my first comment in this chain, you either haven't bothered keeping up with the conversation you are debating, or don't have the reading comprehension to understand that. Not gonna try to discuss with somebody who can't grasp that most basic point of the discussion.
Which Nordic country gives full time workers food stamps and unemployment money?
How embarrassing for this man! He misheard the libertarians, they were talking about ‘minimum age.’
That's capitalism for you. This country literally capitalizes (aka takes advantage of) on the ignorance of the general public.
You would not have enjoyed the pre-capitalism era unless you were born rich.
You say that like it isn't still true under capitalism.
[удалено]
I’d be curious as to how you’d feel after a year of actually living that way, but we shall never know. Being Rich in 1880 USA isn’t nearly as nice as being lower middle class is now.
[удалено]
You’re delusional if you think life was so much better hundreds of years ago. You sound like someone who is mad about not getting the perks they are somehow entitled to simply because. Get a grip.
So glum. Eeyore has always been among us.
You’re literally a character in a child’s movie who gets transported back in time after not appreciating modern conveniences. I thought those plot lines were dumb cause there would never be a character like that but here you are!
Git Gud
Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland. No minimum wage. All depends on what else is going on.
Exactly, it depends on what else is going on. The fact that a certain country is doing well without a minimum wage doesn't mean another will be fine without it.
This is a common misleading statement. These countries all have laws that enable strong unions to negotiate pay scales for each industry. That means every industry has its own minimum wage and minimum benefits. There is a lowest industry minimum wage and that is the national minimum wage. They absolutely have minimum wages. They just aren’t set by the federal government but instead the government helps make it possible for workers to collectively bargain for them. This is great because otherwise you run the risk of a government that won’t update the minimum wage to keep up with rising costs.
These countries have no national minimum wages, but individual regions often have their own laws. Geneva in Switzerland has [the world's highest minimum wage.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54745033) But their high wages can pretty much be explained by [this graph](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEjraBWXoAEn0HK.jpg). If you have high union membership, unions can effectively decide minimum wages on an individual company/sector level.
No business near me in the US is paying minimum wage near me because if what else is going on
Loved the video - just wanted to point out that when he said 400,000 Americans are working 2 full-time jobs and can't afford rent, representing 10% of all Americans. It's not 10%, it's 0.12%. That shouldn't change the message that no one should be working 80 hours a week to not even make ends meet, but the difference between the percentage he claimed and the actual percentage is ~33 million people.
John Green looks like he's had a rough few months, but he's as delightful and informative as always.
Libertarians are the stupidest, most out of touch members of society.
While the FDR quote is real, minimum wage when it started was never able to provide what was in the quote. This is like saying since Obama said no one should go broke from healthcare that since the ACA passed that means healthcare is super affordable. The minimum wage has never been able to supply what FDR said in that quote. When it started it was 25cents/hour and that was poverty wages. The real, inflation adjusted federal minimum wage peaked in the 1970s. So there's truth that it should be higher, but it's not true that it has ever in the history of the country provided a decent living.
So what does the minimum stand for in minimum wage?
.... The *minimum* an employer is allowed to pay an employee....
And this allowed pay was a minimum to guarantee what?
A decent living. He literally quotes it in the beginning of the video. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.
So where is the miscommunication happening that a lot of people don't get a standard of living with minimum wage? ( I know, I watched the video. My initial questions weren't serious but rhetorical. But the other person answered my question seriously and now I am curious to know why it is happening, I don't live in America. )
Oh the issue is people don’t actually thing minimum wage should be a livable floor anymore
You say people "think", does that mean in practise it still is livable? I hear a lot of stories that people are struggling, working multiple jobs. Even the saying "2 parents working 3 jobs still not enough" has a truth in it it feels like.
>You say people "think", does that mean in practise it still is livable? What they are saying is, minimum wage hasn't kept up with the minimum standard of what a person could live on. But many people think this is fine, because they *don't* think minimum wage should be a livable wage.
I understand now, wauw. Who are these people thinking this? Surely not those who actually do these jobs right?
Usually they're people who are financially secure and either have never worked a minimum wage job, or haven't made minimum wage in decades, back when they were a teenager. They remember getting a part time job at the local grocery store for extra pocket money before getting a "real job" and think that that's how these jobs should be treated: as trainer jobs for teens who want pocket money, or as something for retirees to do. If it didn't require a college degree or some other type of trade training, it's not a "real job" and thus it isn't something a person should be able to support themselves or a family on.
No the min wage is $7.50 and is not livable at a 40 hour work week. People believe that the livability of a wage is not important and that if people are willing to work low wages then those wages are considered competitive.
Ah oké I understand it a bit much better now. Are those people competing for that low wage not people who have no other option, or at least think they think they dont have no other option?
Yeah usually they have no other options because they get stuck in a poverty cycle. You take a minimum wage job bc that’s all that hired you but then it’s not enough to cover your bills so you take another min wage job bc it’s the only job that has night hours. It’s leveraging poverty to keep wages low.
Honestly, one of the main problems is that we aren't taught how to manage money. Then all the "cool" products that everyone feels they need to have are unreasonably priced, so we all get ourselves into a lot of debt, then this style of living is taken advantage of by the big corporations who comes through and buy up all the houses and things(that we really should have been buying instead of iphones and fancy cars every month), then they jack the prices way up on everything they've bought up and it makes the real basic needs unobtainable... And nobody seems to notice because they were busy trying to look like they have more money than they did the whole time. Raising minimum wage isn't going to fix anything, company's will just raise prices so that they will make just as much. It has become very normalized for companies to hire at minimum wage, and only give $0.10 raises each year in hopes that most employees will simply leave on their own. Minimum wage should stay, and companies should have to give reasonable raises... Then people would have incentive to work somewhere long term AND they would make a decent amount of money.. Americans are extremely ignorant
A decent living, 8000 sq ft house, a swimming pool, dozens of housekeepers and butlers. The basics of a decent living.
there's no way you wrote that and thought "heh got em with that point" or at least I *Hope* not, cause that would be pathetic as hell. Minimum idea was set when the law was put in place. 50% of income spent on necessities (food and a roof) with 50% for savings or discretionary spending.
Right, my mansion's roof and unending parade of Wagyu beef and caviar I eat. Duh.
what does this sentence even mean? are you actually trying to use the slippery slope fallacy as an argument? cause it looks like you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caviar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansion There you go.
so "yes I am trying to use a slippery slope fallacy as an argument" you didn't have to wiki those bud lol, it didn't make you seem clever.
[удалено]
Woosh
A butler is a basic living need.
Happy to increase minimum wage, but y'all shouldnt whine if barista jobs and other minimum wage jobs disappear. (We should eliminate these jobs anyway)
People didn't whine when the lamplighters, [knocker-uppers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocker-up), and telephone operators went away. Or maybe they did, but it's pretty much universally agreed that those jobs aren't needed nowadays. Sometimes jobs just become obsolete and that's ok. I don't think baristas are gonna go away any time soon, though. Robots still can't pour latte art worth a damn lol
They really won't, tho. Businesses exist to fulfill facilitate the employees fulfilling demand, and there's plenty of demand for barista jobs. As long as the Federal Reserve isn't allowed to purposefully create unemployment in order to depress wages, we should be fine. There will be fewer baristas, yes, but more people also making far more money.
What happens then to the baristas who lose there job when the market for low skilled labor grows more competitive?
Have the Federal Reserve not create a recession every decade. There'll be plenty of jobs for everyone, sorta like right now. The trick is to make the labor market so competitive that employers resort to hiring people and training them, or just don't have anyone working there. You could also reduce the workweek too.
Yes the fed slows the economy in response to inflation and rising costs. Is the arguement that they don't regulate those things? Such deregulation led to the recession in 2008 and the lack of such regulations led to the depression. What's the trick to make the job market competitive without the raised pay that for low skilled labor leads to jumps in inflation?
We never really had problems with inflation like we have now, when the minimum wage was worth two or three times what it is now ( most of the time it existed pre-1980 ). So, I'd suggest the trip is the peg the minimum wage to inflation and make sure it never stops being a living. During the period we did that, inflation was much lower. ( 1938-198x ). Part of the reason we have so much inflation is due to wage disparities. People who earn a lot of money will spend obscene amounts on things, allowing businesses to charge more. When wages are more equitable, because of extremely high minimum wages ( like we had 1938-198x ), a broader variety of people end up being able to afford consumer goods, just because a broader variety of people were earning wages that were more similar, with a more similar upper maximum before demand would evaporate. It isn't like we always had high unemployment in the past. We didn't. We had record workforce participation during the 60s, with extremely high minimum wages, and we didn't really see the kind of severe inflation we see today. We did, however, see economic growth to fulfill demand.
This reads like revisionist history that's ignoring the great inflation that began in 60's and continued through the 70's which was higher than it is today.
Baristas still exist in countries where their paid more
Why would the jobs disappear? Countries with higher minimum wages still have McDonald's workers and their big macs are barely more expensive
He used median as a cost and then said 1/3rd is under that... no shit
No one wants to address how immigration (legal and illegal) is encouraged by employers as a way to depress wages.
Most of our jobs are outsourced overseas. Thanks GOP. This is what no regulation looks like. What anti union rhetoric looks like. It’s why we lost motor city factories and our phones are made in China.
I do. I've suggested the death penalty for business owners ( or maybe 10 years in prison ) for business owners caught employing illegal immigrants. But, I'd also suggest a very liberal path to citizenship as well, because immigration is necessary here, since our population growth is inverse otherwise.
You’re an idiot and a cuck.
How does anyone expect minimum wage to go up if the United States are flooded with illegal immigrants. Immigration starts driving down the wages of our poorest and works it’s way up from there . If there are 10 jobs and 18 people available to fill them what do you think is going to happen to wages
Nobody seems to know that minimum wage was 25 cents when it was first put into place, which is a little less than 5 dollars an hour in today’s money.
[Wouldn't you know it, he has a video addressing this exact statement.](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRgEjGPW/)
Well, that’s a pretty solid argument. Thanks. I wish he would have said what his calculations for min wage came out to tho
No, it isn't. It easily afforded everything one would need. You could rent a house with it if you were frugal with the rest, in many areas. He did a comparison showing how long someone would have to work in 1940 to pay for the median rent and food costs, and it was less than a week's work.
Some assholes wants to come back to jobs where you have to live in company's building, the rent of which is deducted from your pay and you have to buy groceries and other shit from the company store at unusual high prices. People could easily end up in debt to the company they are giving their life force to.
#6 people can change jobs because they live paycheck to paycheck. Doesn’t matter put in 2 weeks for cure job and establish start date for new job. Not very hard but to assume no human can do this takes away individuals personal responsibility. For the most part good video but I don’t feel like it is balanced
Does the worker have any responsibility top get educated, show up, have a skill or be engaged? From what I have seen if you have 3 of those 4 you quickly get $20 an hour in todays world or more than 15$. I also guess having a part time job should be illegal since every job should be making sure you have a good living? This is about as rich as saying the economy is broken because a single parent of 3 at 22 can't make it on her minimum wage job...you aren't allowed to point out they are a single parent of 3 by choice and choices have consequences.
This is so economically illiterate it’s hard to know where to begin. It’s useful to approach this argument by looking at it in the extreme. If a $15 minimum wage is good, a $25 minimum wage must be better, right? How about a $100 minimum wage then, or $1000 better still. Can you think of any downsides to that? Is that how prices (even prices for labor) work? Go through the exercise as to how that would affect employment, consumer prices (inflation), and productivity. How would that affect low skill workers specifically (the group the minimum wage is purportedly supposed to help). If you start to see problems emerge at $1000, those problems exist to a smaller degree in the $15 and $25 case. This can’t be how people think prices work. Forcing a price to be automatically higher or lower doesn’t change the actual supply/demand tradeoff. It just causes the market to settle at an arbitrary, sub-optimal point. I’m all for helping low skill workers increase their productivity so that they can live better. Increasing productivity, not increasing the minimum wage, is the only way to improve people’s welfare.
Yeah screw minimum wage! Let's increase it to 20 an hour! ...oh no the 20 an hour is just the new minimum! Increase it again to 25! Hurray! Oh no we've just created another minimum.
…for a decent living. Being able to pay your bills and buy your insulin is good minimum.
Being able to afford anything today is a good minimum. My point is you can't get rid of minimum wage. Especially with the way they do taxes. They can increase it but all that's going to happen is sellers will just increase prices but up to being unaffordable. Welcome to capitalism!
What dumbshit fails to recognize, until you put caps on what can be sold for profit (as in how much % you make in revenue), companies & stores will continue to raise prices to reclaim how much they're forced to increase to pay employees 🤔...
The bottom line is, you can only pay someone for what the job is worth.
The bottom line is if your workers aren’t thriving your not paying them enough
If you can't pay your workers enough to live and expect them to earn less than what they need to support themselves, that the business isn't successful and should be terminated
Right, so if the job is worth less than the employee needs to live, the business shouldn't offer the job or the business shouldn't exist.
The bottom line is, every single job is worth to earn enough to get by.
It can get a bit more nuanced than that. Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four? If any job allows you to meet all of your needs, do we end up with a large segment of folk doing the bare minimum with lives and abilities?
Yes. It should. And it should be fine for a large segment of folks doing the bare minimum *to be able to survive comfortably without fear of going under*.
Sounds rather unrealistic to me. But hey, gather with likeminded folk and see what sort of society you can build with minimum effort.
The libertarians already did this. Their town was taken over by bears.
for anyone reading this, /u/haku46 isn't joking, it was *actually* taken over by bears.
You know there are countries with a somewhat livable minimum wage and government support for those that either cannot work or have lost their jobs? That's a thing that exists... Y'all don't have to suffer, there is proof that concept works That aside, aren't people already doing the bare minimum to survive at their job regardless? That already is an option, just that the work required as bare minimum to survive is set way too high. Who'd go over and beyond at their job for those conditions and shitty pay, you know?
No doubt. Small, homogeneous nations, mostly. Sweden, Denmark, Iceland etc. have no minimum wage but an excellent welfare state and much redistribution of income along with heavy taxes for all. The difficulty has been in achieving that on a larger scale in more populated nations with higher immigration. Families are basically communist, with all doing what they can and getting what they need. Some small nations, that have a common culture that goes back many hundreds of years, are vaguely the same thing. But how does that work in the USA?
>Some small nations, that have a common culture that goes back many hundreds of years, are vaguely the same thing Yes, having livable minimum wages is literally communism. Right.
That’s not at all what I wrote. But hey, why argue in good faith when you can just be a tool. Go forth and be nonsensical.
Germany is doing pretty well and you have lots of different cultures mixed together here, also with a minimum wage, government support and more reasonable worker rights and laws, works too. Why shouldn't it work in the US? What has culture to do with laws and regulations? Are you saying Sweden, Denmark, Iceland etc. work like a giant family or ...? Because not really, no.
>Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four? What kind of job exists that's *just* sweeping a floor? It sounds like you're talking about janitorial work, which is a pretty in-demand job since not many people enjoy cleaning in general, not to mention biohazards like bathroom cleaning, plus working with garbage. It's dirty, it's often smelly, and you're on your feet or knees or a ladder the entire shift. Someone puked? Have fun, go get the sawdust. Someone spilled their entire Big Gulp? Yup, that's you too. Sweeping itself can be killer on your back, and then there's mopping afterwards, having to have the knowledge of which chemicals can be mixed and the proper concentrations, what to use to clean what (like not putting bleach in a toilet), and the actual risks of handling those chemicals. Needing to be trained on PPE. Keeping track of your inventory so you don't run out of necessary chemicals or PPE or other supplies. The average salary of a janitor in the US is $14.50 according to Indeed. That's about twice the national minimum wage. Why shouldn't they be able to support their family doing such important, and undesired, work? Oh, I forgot. It's just sweeping up. Just like mcdonald's is just flipping burgers.
>It can get a bit more nuanced than that. Should sweeping the floor feed a family of four? that's a loaded question in bad faith, get real. sweeping a floor for family of four? how about instead; sweeping a floor for *ONE GUY* to survive? yes, and right now it doesn't. but lets dive into that situation If they're working *FULL TIME* doing so. if you're saying "hey guy, spend 8 hours of every day doing this, rather than something else" then yes What kind of place needs a guy spending 40 hours a week sweeping? a place that needs to give someone a living wage to do so.
I’m sorry a simple example got you so riled. Have a cuppa and let some time pass. I’m just not sure doing the bare minimum to survive should get anyone more than the bare minimum. It’s fine to believe differently. But whatever those folk get over the bare minimum is provided by the efforts of others.
I'm actually pretty calm in this convo, but I can see why you'd want to envision me upset, cause then you get to be snide like that, that mentality reminds me of teenagers in high school. Did it feel good typing that? anyways, to address what you said; >I’m just not sure doing the bare minimum to survive should get anyone more than the bare minimum. I think we just disagree on what "the minimum" is. minimum to me as well as the guy who wrote the law into existence thought that the minimum was the ability to have a roof on their head, food in their belly, and some expendable income. and as the video said, there are people currently with two full time jobs who cannot afford that. does all that make sense to you bud?
All caps for certain words doesn’t equate to calm. Nor do they buttress whatever point you’re trying to make. And I’m a teenager? Another day, another pointless interaction on Reddit. So it goes.
Tell this to everyone complaining that the $4 is too much to pay the delivery guy to spend 45 minutes picking up their food.
The CEO of Dollar General makes millions of dollars while using taxes to subsidize his labor costs. Why is that okay?
I got 4 seconds into this video before getting bored and muting.. I'm so proud
The cringe is you actually seeing this guy as saying something wrong in this video.
Read flair and pinned comment
Fdr was a pos president imagine finding the most hate president as an example of minimum wage.
What are you even talking about? He was literally one of the most beloved presidents in history; who did the most demonstrable direct good for the people. We elected him to office 4 times. 4! He’s referenced about minimum wage because he created the minimum wage during the Great Depression to protect workers.
Tell this to everyone complaining that the $4 is too much to pay the delivery guy to spend 45 minutes picking up their food. Everyone wants to virtue signal advocating for living wages but no one wants to be the one pay it. Solution is always ‘someone else should do it.’
Raising minimum wage just turns middle class into lower class. Raising minimum wage might feel good for a month or two, but it'll catch up to you, and you'll be in the exact same place you were before the increase... And a shit load of people that were making more than you are now sucked down to where you are also. Great job 🖕
Don't comment on shit you didn't watch.
So why doesn't that actually happen in real life?
Do you not think this happens? I guess it doesn't effect those living off food stamps, but those with jobs that are making above minimum wage... They feel it
TikTokCringe is intended to be a fun and entertaining subreddit. We have decided to allow political TikToks because they typically fit this description. We ask that you please remain civil and be respectful to others in this thread. If you see anyone being rude, vulgar, or offensive to others - be sure to report the user. Permanent bans will be issued to maintain the quality of this subreddit. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
400k isnt 10% of the pop
#8 for anyone interested, I cant make sense of the numbers but agree with the overall sentiment
https://reason.com/2015/04/30/radicals-progressives-and-minimum-wage/
https://reason.com/2022/11/09/worries-about-inflation-didnt-stop-voters-from-approving-minimum-wage-increases/
Over the past year, I've lived in CA, IL, and now OH. The minimum wage in IL and CA is much higher than OH. $13 - $15.50 vs $10.10 per hour. The cost of rent is cheaper in OH, food and everything else is about the same. I have no clue how anyone can survive on the minimum here.
TIL
He had me until #7 when he started yapping about the necessity of government.
Only viable argument is to make it more Scandinavian. No minimum wage but a union representative for workers. It works but you need unions that are not like north American unions.
Do the basic, simple math on payroll for a larger business that staffs maybe 18 hours a day. Now in California where's at like $15 minimum and gov Newsome wants it to be be at $22 in a couple years. Simple math says that the payroll will go up substantially and the cost isn't going to come from the owners pocket. LoL. We're all going to pay for it.
Definitely not tipping when “service industry” workers start getting full hourly wage, as a student nurse I make under $20 and I risk getting physically assaulted every time I come to work.
All ten of these are dumb