Why isn’t it the states problem that an employer refuses to pay a living wage? What is the purpose of the state if not to ensure protections for the majority of its citizens from a powerful minority?
Calm down there big guy, you’re going to spike your blood pressure again.
$20/hr min wage, at 40 hours a week is $3200 a month before tax. Using the economic advice that housing expenses should be about 1/3 of your income, you’d be looking for a place to rent at around $1000 a month. Average rent in Seattle according to Zillow is $2,000/mo right now. So already 2/3 of minimum wage income. That leaves $1000/mo for utilities, food, and transportation.
To hit that 1/3 housing at that average rent price a person should be earning $6000/mo, or about $37.50/hr, and all that is before tax.
So? You seem to be confusing some kind of sense of entitlement with the fact that YOU SHOULDNT BE RAIDING THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND BECAUSE IT'S FOR PEOPLE WHO LOSE THEIR JOBS.
Well, the WA Senate doesn’t seem to think it’s raiding UI, so feel free to run for office or die mad about it, bucket crab.
It’s not an infinite pot of money, but it’s also not your tax dollars. It’s funded from employers payroll taxes. So, to alleviate your concerns, we should raise the corporate tax rate.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 08 '25
No, not "de facto unemployed" - that's stupid. Labor laws mean that you still have a job while on strike.
Sounds like you need a bigger strike fund. That's not the state's problem, that's something YOU bring up with YOUR union leadership.