Minimum wage isn’t an ‘affluent lifestyle’
Have you ever said, “You couldn’t pay me enough to do that job?” Yet there are people often doing “that job” for a whole lot less because that’s all employers are willing to pay low-skilled or entry-level workers [“Minimum wage hike will push inflation,” Letters, May 3].
For those who believe that the minimum wage is just for teenagers and not people who have to support themselves and families, this is from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute:
“The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.”
It also has been published that the movement for minimum wages was first motivated to stop the exploitation of workers in sweatshops by employers who were thought to have unfair bargaining power over them. Over time, minimum wages came to be seen as a way to help lower-income families.
I don’t think getting $21.25 an hour gives anyone an “affluent lifestyle.”
— Tracey Simon, Oceanside
Yes, higher wages will cause slightly higher prices. But if someone thinks that anyone making $17 hour is living an affluent lifestyle, then visit a grocery store.
With milk over $4 a gallon, bread over $4, and gasoline well over $3 a gallon, how far do you think $17 an hour will go? And National Grid wants another 16% hike.
On a fixed income, I understand...
Read Full Story:
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiWGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5ld3NkYXkuY29tL29w...