53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
YAY, MORE MONEY.
BOOO FOR IT TAKING AFFECT IN 2016
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-usa-california-minimumwage-idUSBRE98O0U920130925
The law raises minimum pay in the most populous U.S. state from its current rate of $8 per hour to $9 by July 2014, and $10 by January 2016, well above the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
The measure won support from Democrats, who wanted to help low-wage workers in a state where the cost of living is among the highest in the nation, passing the California state Senate by a vote of 26-11 and the Assembly by a 51-25 vote. But it was opposed by many Republicans, who said it would hurt small businesses and ultimately cost some low-wage workers their jobs.
Democrats in California control large majorities in both houses of the state legislature. But the party has charted a more centrist path than many expected, fearing backlash from voters in moderate and conservative districts, and the minimum wage hike did not initially seem poised to pass.
Brown, protective of the state's tenuous economic recovery, initially opposed the bill but then agreed to support it after leaders of both houses of the legislature agreed to put off the effective date of the increase until 2016.
Raising wages for the poorest workers is a "wonderful thing," Brown said at a bill-signing ceremony in Los Angeles.
"It's my goal and it's my moral responsibility to do what I can to make our society more harmonious, to make our social fabric tighter and closer and to work toward a solidarity that every day appears to become more distant," he said.
INCOME GAP
State Assemblyman Luis Alejo, the bill's author, said it would help working people pay for necessities in a state where rising costs have long outpaced wage increases for the poor and working class.
"We have created a system where we pay workers less but need them to spend more," said Alejo in a statement. "That causes middle-class families to fall down the economic ladder. It's the reason our middle class is shrinking and the reason we are facing the largest gap between upper- and lower-income Californians in at least 30 years."
No state currently pays $10 per hour to minimum-wage workers, and California had been among a number of states looking to increase minimum wages to at least that level, according to the National Employment Law Project. The minimum hourly wage in the state had stagnated after rising to $8 in 2008.
Republican Brian Jones, who represents the San Diego County community of Santee, said the increase will make California even more unfriendly to business than he believes it already is.
"I'm afraid the intentions of the author will backfire, and this will hurt the middle class and working poor the most," Jones said in a statement on Wednesday.
The U.S. enacted its first minimum wage in 1938, during the last years of the Great Depression. Today, debate continues on whether government should mandate increasing pay for low-wage workers.
"To cover the costs of this increase, employers will have to cut hours and hire fewer workers," said Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway. "Our state unemployment is still higher than the national average. The legislature should be taking steps to create more high-paying jobs, not penalizing the people who need the help the most."
The state that currently has the highest minimum wage is Washington, where employers must pay at least $9.19 per hour. That could rise to above $10 an hour by 2016, because it is set to increase with certain indicators of inflation.
34390
Post by: whembly
Now that's sensible... gives the industry time to adapt.
23
Post by: djones520
So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
But I want my extra 2$ an hour. :(
23
Post by: djones520
That's cool, but all those arguments about how it's not gonna hurt things... well, just to put it this way, when I worked at Taco Bell I got myself up to the "Crew Lead" position, which was basically above minimum wage worker, but below shift manager. Min wage at the time was $5.15, I was getting paid $6.55. So, if this happened, would my pay be scaled to $12.00, or in an effort to save costs, would the company had kept my pay at $10 with the rest of the guys?
76228
Post by: c0j1r0
Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
1206
Post by: Easy E
 djones520 wrote:So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".
Depends on if the employees demand it.
I hope the legislation covers it, because I know the businesses won't offer to scale it.
23
Post by: djones520
 Easy E wrote: djones520 wrote:So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".
Depends on if the employees demand it.
I hope the legislation covers it, because I know the businesses won't offer to scale it.
Probably not. And at that point, what incentive would there have been for folks in said position to continue doing extra work that made them different from the minimum wages guys in the first place? "Hey, we trust you enough to give you extra responsibility, but not enough to pay you more then others."
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.
Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.
Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.
So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
That's all dependant on other people actually getting raises though.
23
Post by: djones520
 Aerethan wrote:I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.
Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.
Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.
So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.
Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
djones520 wrote: Aerethan wrote:I can tell you right now that pay won't scale, at least not for my employees. They are required to produce 6x their hourly in order for us to afford them(overhead is a bitch). They would need to increase their productivity 20% across the board if they wanted the pay to scale, and with how tight they are now, I can tell you it's an unreasonable request.
Fast food will take a hit here, so we can expect a 25% increase in prices to offset them.
Yes we have time to prepare for it, but at the same time companies can't be expected to eat these raises. The cost of goods will increase to cover the new raises going out.
So yes, Larry will make 25% more, but that still won't get him anywhere near paying rent on his own, and anything he buys from a company that pays minimum wage will now be more expensive.
Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.
I agree, and it's stupid. People making minimum wage don't have much disposable income, and none of them afford rent on their own with 40 hours. Rent in this state is already out of hand, and this will just make it worse.
Even those of us who make decent money are leaving the state because it's bleeding us dry at every turn.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Calling it now, future headline from Cali:
Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Followed by massive strikes of low wage workers demanding more pay to compensate.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
djones520 wrote:
Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.
Regulate rent increases to 10% max once over a year.
BAM! Problem solved.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Stupid is as stupid does! Way to go Cali. Can we cut them off the US and let 'em float away already?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 Kovnik Obama wrote: djones520 wrote:
Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.
Regulate rent increases to 10% max once over a year.
BAM! Problem solved.
Which is why apartments are so cheap in New York!
19377
Post by: Grundz
djones520 wrote:So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".
A bonus to one group is not a punishment to another
19370
Post by: daedalus
djones520 wrote:So... all of the employees who had earned raises above new minimum wage employees... I wonder if their pay will scale, or if they'll be bumped to $10 and left, there-by nullifying the companies statement of saying "thanks for being not a waste of air".
I made $10/hour about five years ago building and repairing computers. I was the highest paid guy at the shop at that time. Were I to ask him, my employer as of then would likely have told me that I could make more money when I started doing more work.
I see a large influx of people who make $10-12 working jobs shittier than fast food (yes, that exists) all fleeing toward fast food jobs.as fast as they can.
For the record, I loved working fast food. Every thought I had was my own. Job never followed me home. I went home, and then actually had the nergy to work on projects
I turned out to be not a total feth up and they were wanting to make me a manager by the time I found the job that paid $10/hour.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
California recently changed its minimum wage a few years back.
Im interested to see if rent Skyrocketed back then
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 hotsauceman1 wrote: California recently changed its minimum wage a few years back. Im interested to see if rent Skyrocketed back then
It's not perfect, but here goes... In 2008 your state raised minimum wage to 8 dollars an hour. In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so. By 2011, these costs had risen to $69,529, yet minimum wage didn't increase during that time period, and as this thread shows won't increase until 2016. Granted the largest cost of increase was various taxes enacted by state, federal, and local governments. There's a lot of information out there that I don't really understand. Interesting links on the cost of living: http://cost-of-living.findthedata.org/l/615/National-Average http://cost-of-living.findthedata.org/d/d/California From just looking at that data, most places in California are more expensive to live in than the US national average.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
They're raising it again due to cost of living concerns aren't they?
You've answered your own question.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:They're raising it again due to cost of living concerns aren't they?
You've answered your own question.
Isnt cost of living going up all around the country though?
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Alfndrate wrote: In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.
A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Cost of living goes up every year with inflation (just like everything else) that's why real jobs tend to give you a cost of living increase. The problem is your state is far more expensive than other places on in the country. Automatically Appended Next Post:  daedalus wrote: Alfndrate wrote: In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.
A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.
No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation. The study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really) to calculate what is needed to raise a family of x, y, and z. As has been said, minimum wage jobs generally aren't meant to support a family, but in today's age with the weird job market we have, sometimes you have to support your family on minimum wage.
19377
Post by: Grundz
Alfndrate wrote:
Cost of living goes up every year with inflation (just like everything else) that's why real jobs tend to give you a cost of living increase. The problem is your state is far more expensive than other places on in the country.
Also:
19370
Post by: daedalus
Alfndrate wrote:
A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.
No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation the study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really).
Well, not that I was trying to poke holes in your data. It was better than I could find with a brief glance, I think the question of what quality of life someone "deserves" from working such a job definitely enters into how much they earn.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
daedalus wrote: Alfndrate wrote: In 2011 it was shown that the standard costs of living for 2 adults, 1 pre-schooler aged child and 1 school aged child was $58,251 in 2008 to meet the needs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and other basic costs. Assuming that both of those parents worked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week, they'd becoming up short by about 28 thousand dollars or so.
A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.
One thing I will never forget is this from my friend. He wanted a family at 21(I want a family too, but not that young) he said he is looking for a wife to have a kid wwith. I asked, with his skillset(AKA knowing how to use a lever) how will he afford a family. His answer? My mom and dad will help me out.
Im sitting there thinking " WTF, if that is your plan you do not need to be having fething kids"
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
daedalus wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
A side question to this would be whether or not it should be expected that two people working minimum wage should be able to afford to raise a family of two.
No they probably shouldn't be, but that was my own extrapolation the study that was conducted was simply, here is the amount of money that is used as the self-sustainability standard by organizations like United Way (it's in the article idk what it is really).
Well, not that I was trying to poke holes in your data. It was better than I could find with a brief glance, I think the question of what quality of life someone "deserves" from working such a job definitely enters into how much they earn.
Lol, I'm not an expert I expected holes to be found  .
Okay... as to quality of life... I think that a minimum wage job of 40 hours a week afford someone without the skillset to get a better paying job should be able to support themselves. And by support themselves, I mean a decent (i.e. not hellhole) apartment (1 bed, 1 bath, kitchen/dining area), money for food and transportation (this doesn't mean car loan, this means you have money to support a level of transportation whether it's a bike, bus pass, subway, or gas if you have a car paid off already). Entertainment can be really cheap in today's world, and if you had some extra money for entertainment the fine, but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."
19377
Post by: Grundz
Alfndrate wrote: but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."
not 80, just 76
19370
Post by: daedalus
hotsauceman1 wrote:
One thing I will never forget is this from my friend. He wanted a family at 21(I want a family too, but not that young) he said he is looking for a wife to have a kid wwith. I asked, with his skillset(AKA knowing how to use a lever) how will he afford a family. His answer? My mom and dad will help me out.
Im sitting there thinking " WTF, if that is your plan you do not need to be having fething kids"
I think that part of it is a matter of culture. We, or at least, those of us in the flyover states, have been somewhat indoctrinated with that Norman Rockwell-American Dream sense that it's your divinely bestowed right and responsibility to wind up with a house, two kids, a loving wife, and a white picket fence to contain it all. We just DO things like set out to find someone to have kids with for the sake of having kids, because we think that just doing it is the way to get one step closer to getting to that dream. Hell, I myself sometimes find myself daydreaming about how awesome it would be, and then I go into work and find people who are in that situation gone wrong who stare out the window like they're thinking about jumping off the building.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote:[Okay... as to quality of life... I think that a minimum wage job of 40 hours a week afford someone without the skillset to get a better paying job should be able to support themselves. And by support themselves, I mean a decent (i.e. not hellhole) apartment (1 bed, 1 bath, kitchen/dining area), money for food and transportation (this doesn't mean car loan, this means you have money to support a level of transportation whether it's a bike, bus pass, subway, or gas if you have a car paid off already). Entertainment can be really cheap in today's world, and if you had some extra money for entertainment the fine, but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."
That's fair. I could do that about seven years ago with two minimum wage jobs, and spent two years after that working at the aforementioned computer shop. I saved the excess money from the better job for an engagement ring.
I guess living in a low income part of a flyover state would have a lower cost of living than the middle of San Francisco though.
72490
Post by: gossipmeng
Congrats you've achieved status: Canada.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
daedalus wrote:I guess living in a low income part of a flyover state would have a lower cost of living than the middle of San Francisco though.
Idk, the homeless people I saw in Market Square seemed to have nicer clothes than I did 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Pro-tip. Never trust the homeless in San Fran. They tend to be kids who pretend to be homeless
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote:Pro-tip. Never trust the homeless in San Fran. They tend to be kids who pretend to be homeless
The homeless that I encountered were older than me by decades... I got taken for like 7 bucks one night... and then I walked around like I was deaf...
First guy comes up asks me to buy the homeless newspaper that SF gets for a dollar. I only have a 5er and some change, I hand him the fiver feeling bad and get back what easily amounted to less than a dollar in change. I then get approached by a woman with a burger king cup who smelled like she was rolling around in a mountain of cat gak and drinking from a fountain of cat pee. I gave her some of my change, and then finally a guy tried to sell me his gakky poetry. fething homeless..
19370
Post by: daedalus
I've only given two homeless people money. One was in a deserted McDonald's in the middle of the night eating ketchup packets. I gave a five to him.
The other one stopped me as I was walking home from the pub and told me that he was going to spend anything he got on booze and only needed 88 cents to get himself a drink. I gave him a few bucks and told him to get two. He was honest, I had to give him that.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I want a joke or something in return for my money. Tell me a good joke I'll give you what change I have or a couple bucks. Tell me a couple good jokes? $5 is not out of the realm of possibility. Provide a service. Do SOMETHING.
73552
Post by: surixurient
Californians, hilarious as usual. Somebody get these clowns an economics for dummies book.
7433
Post by: plastictrees
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I want a joke or something in return for my money. Tell me a good joke I'll give you what change I have or a couple bucks. Tell me a couple good jokes? $5 is not out of the realm of possibility. Provide a service. Do SOMETHING.
To be fair, wrestling with the crippling mental problems that led to most homeless people being homeless is pretty time consuming. They might not have had time to work on the card tricks or witty repartee required for your charity.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 surixurient wrote:Californians, hilarious as usual. Somebody get these clowns an economics for dummies book.
Yes, Trying to adress growing disparities in income and living is TOTALLY stupid
59176
Post by: Mathieu Raymond
 Grundz wrote: Alfndrate wrote: but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."
not 80, just 76
I like how this chart assumed one has a second job, and the minimum McDonalds health insurance plan is more expensive than 20$ a month, like, almost three times as much. I know it's a drop in the bucket, but still, be honest on your own charts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and freeze to death, will ya?
23
Post by: djones520
hotsauceman1 wrote:
California recently changed its minimum wage a few years back.
Im interested to see if rent Skyrocketed back then
The increase was $.50 5 years ago. It was hardly a hugely noteworthy increase. Not a 25% increase like this was. BUT in response to your question, from 2007 to 2008 there was an 8% raise in minimum wage, and an 8.5% raise in rent prices of a 1 bedroom apartment, based on San Fran, San Jose, Oakland, averages.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/minimumwagehistory.htm
http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=7362
5470
Post by: sebster
djones520 wrote:That's cool, but all those arguments about how it's not gonna hurt things... well, just to put it this way, when I worked at Taco Bell I got myself up to the "Crew Lead" position, which was basically above minimum wage worker, but below shift manager. Min wage at the time was $5.15, I was getting paid $6.55. So, if this happened, would my pay be scaled to $12.00, or in an effort to save costs, would the company had kept my pay at $10 with the rest of the guys?
If the company still wants to recognise and retain the better workers, then it will continue to pay a premium over and above the minimum wage. And if it doesn't... well maybe you weren't as valuable as the company had hoped I mean, you figure the market is the best determinant of wages... well there it is in action. Either you're worth more than the minimum and the company will reward that, or you aren't and it won't. Automatically Appended Next Post: djones520 wrote:Yeah... I'd expect to see rent prices across the state raise in 2016... Landlords will know their tenants have more money now.
Maybe, it would demand on the relative levels of supply of and demand for housing. Default state, assuming all else remains equal, would be a small increase in rent for the most basic dwellings (as some portion of the surplus cash minimum wage workers now have goes towards chasing slightly better homes).
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 plastictrees wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:I want a joke or something in return for my money. Tell me a good joke I'll give you what change I have or a couple bucks. Tell me a couple good jokes? $5 is not out of the realm of possibility. Provide a service. Do SOMETHING.
To be fair, wrestling with the crippling mental problems that led to most homeless people being homeless is pretty time consuming. They might not have had time to work on the card tricks or witty repartee required for your charity.
If you think it's charity then you're missing the point by a mile. They provided me a service. They made me laugh and improved my day, I paid for that service. Capitalism at work. For charity I'll stick with charitable organizations on this list: http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html
Direct donations to homeless individuals won't actively help them improve their lives. Your $1 and some change and need to feel superior to others and my $5 in trade for a decent joke (and you'd be shocked how many of them know some damn good jokes, have you spoken to any homeless people? I'm just saying man) might get them a meal for a day. Kicking that $5 to a charitable organization can do a lot more for a lot more people.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
surixurient wrote:Californians, hilarious as usual. Somebody get these clowns an economics for dummies book.
Your post is the equivalent of farting in an elevator right before getting out.
Why don't you specify what you mean, and include evidence to back up any claims or assertions that you make?
As a side note, the idea that small business owners will scale back the number of employees is a ridiculous idea, because it is predicated on the concept that employers high workers because they want to, rather than absolutely-need-to. No employer pays out more wage hours than is minimally necessary; thus the employer will pay that number of wage hours no matter what it costs them per hour. If that cost-per-hour increase causes the business to fail, then the business was likely going to fail anyway considering how thin the profit margins have to be in order to be seriously affected by this.
76206
Post by: Rotary
Bad idea. Guess the dollar menu at mcdonalds will have to become the 2 dollar menu around that time. So now our employers have to pay health care AND more in wages.It will be interesting to see all the businesses that shut their doors when this takes effect. Seriously, these are supposed to be starter jobs, you don't get payed anything because you are supposed to move on to better things. People shouldn't expect a minimum wage career that can support a family.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 azazel the cat wrote:surixurient wrote:Californians, hilarious as usual. Somebody get these clowns an economics for dummies book.
Your post is the equivalent of farting in an elevator right before getting out.
Why don't you specify what you mean, and include evidence to back up any claims or assertions that you make?
As a side note, the idea that small business owners will scale back the number of employees is a ridiculous idea, because it is predicated on the concept that employers high workers because they want to, rather than absolutely-need-to. No employer pays out more wage hours than is minimally necessary; thus the employer will pay that number of wage hours no matter what it costs them per hour. If that cost-per-hour increase causes the business to fail, then the business was likely going to fail anyway considering how thin the profit margins have to be in order to be seriously affected by this.
Actually a lot of employers pay more then they have to. For example I'm a salaried employee where many in my position are hourly or even worse, commissioned. Many large chains like Cost Co are famous for doing right by their employees.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I seriously think Cali needs to go over the state tax codes. Revamp it or something before they start the "Detroit Plunge"
11
Post by: ph34r
c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I agree. People who work at McDonalds should not be able to support themselves or a family. In fact, any job that I consider unskilled should not make a living wage.
What was your profession, again?
23
Post by: djones520
 ph34r wrote: c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I agree. People who work at McDonalds should not be able to support themselves or a family. In fact, any job that I consider unskilled should not make a living wage.
What was your profession, again?
What's yours?
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
If a person puts in a full days work with full time hours, they deserve a living wage. Anything else is just vacant "f-u Jack, I got mine" spitefulness.
11
Post by: ph34r
djones520 wrote: ph34r wrote: c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I agree. People who work at McDonalds should not be able to support themselves or a family. In fact, any job that I consider unskilled should not make a living wage.
What was your profession, again?
What's yours?
Engineer. Now you show me yours.
23
Post by: djones520
Meteorologist.
11
Post by: ph34r
So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
23
Post by: djones520
ph34r wrote:So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
Nice try, but your straw man doesn't have enough support. Keep working at it, you'll get there.
What type of engineer btw? Software? Those guys who charge exhorbitant rates who produce crappy products that never meet specs? Civil? Guys who spend an hour of day working, while charging for 8?
5470
Post by: sebster
 Rotary wrote:Bad idea. Guess the dollar menu at mcdonalds will have to become the 2 dollar menu around that time. So now our employers have to pay health care AND more in wages.It will be interesting to see all the businesses that shut their doors when this takes effect.
You're arguing that a 25% increase in low level wages will produce a 200% increase in prices?
Okay, we'll just accept you've never opened an economic textbook, but who in the feth taught you maths?
Seriously, these are supposed to be starter jobs, you don't get payed anything because you are supposed to move on to better things.
You don't set policy according to what the economy is supposed to be, you set it according to what the economy actually is. And for a lot of people there simply isn't anything better.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Jihadin wrote:I seriously think Cali needs to go over the state tax codes. Revamp it or something before they start the "Detroit Plunge"
*Deep Breath* Yeah we do. We stuck our property taxes at a certain rate in the 80s I think. that cost us alot.
We also have low taxes for high earners
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Stop job bashing each other. Neither you have one retirement under their belt like I do 
Its the state politicians that did this. Not by the people working in min wage jobs. When is state election in CA going to kick off?
edit
For spelling
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I think 2 years or 1
23
Post by: djones520
Jihadin wrote:Stop job bashing each other. Neither you have one retirement under their belt like I do
I can't help it that you are old, and I'm not.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Mind your Elder DJ
Young whipper snappers these days. Sheesh I remember when min wage was a little over $4
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Yeah but that $4 was worth more then $10 now 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
ph34r wrote:So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
Please stop talking, your idiocy is showing and there are kids about. Teachers don't make jack gak in comparison to the hours they put in.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I heard a "business owner" of a movie theatre on NPR talking about raising the minimum wage and he said, "If I paid my employees waht they are worht, they would be lucky to make $5 an hour."
If I worked for a donkeycave guy like that, I would make sure to work really, really, hard too.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Alfndrate wrote: ph34r wrote:So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
Please stop talking, your idiocy is showing and there are kids about. Teachers don't make jack gak in comparison to the hours they put in.
I think that was the point. He's being sarcastic.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alfndrate wrote: ph34r wrote:So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
Please stop talking, your idiocy is showing and there are kids about. Teachers don't make jack gak in comparison to the hours they put in.
I think that was the point. He's being sarcastic.
I'll eat my words and blame the early morning if this is the case. I just don't like hearing any talk about people saying teachers get paid to work half a year.
11
Post by: ph34r
Alfndrate wrote:I'll eat my words and blame the early morning if this is the case. I just don't like hearing any talk about people saying teachers get paid to work half a year.
I was being a wee bit sarcastic
I of course disagree entirely with the "lets pay our teachers next to nothing, it's not like the next generation of educated Americans depends entirely on them" line of thinking.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
ph34r wrote: Alfndrate wrote:I'll eat my words and blame the early morning if this is the case. I just don't like hearing any talk about people saying teachers get paid to work half a year.
I was being a wee bit sarcastic
I of course disagree entirely with the "lets pay our teachers next to nothing, it's not like the next generation of educated Americans depends entirely on them" line of thinking.
Man, these words are tasty, a little dry but some bbq sauce is fixing that
23
Post by: djones520
Alfndrate wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Alfndrate wrote: ph34r wrote:So you do your job correctly 50% of the time? You sound like one of those fat cat elementary school teachers that don't even work half the year! You probably don't deserve a living wage.
Please stop talking, your idiocy is showing and there are kids about. Teachers don't make jack gak in comparison to the hours they put in.
I think that was the point. He's being sarcastic.
I'll eat my words and blame the early morning if this is the case. I just don't like hearing any talk about people saying teachers get paid to work half a year.
Your right, they only get paid to work 3/4 of the year.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
*shakes fist* YOU DURNED KIDS!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
There was a graph the showed the average a teacher makes and how many hours they put in. It turned ut they made 1.75$ an hour
I wish I could find it
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
hotsauceman1 wrote:There was a graph the showed the average a teacher makes and how many hours they put in. It turned ut they made 1.75$ an hour
I wish I could find it
Yeah, I want to see that graph and how they arrived at that figure
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:There was a graph the showed the average a teacher makes and how many hours they put in. It turned ut they made 1.75$ an hour
I wish I could find it
Yeah, I want to see that graph and how they arrived at that figure
Closest thing I could find:
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/02/23/if-teachers-are-mere-babysitters-pay-them-accordingly/
The average teacher’s salary (nationwide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student– a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!)
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
So pretty much distorted stats then. I work in customer service at roughly $10 an hour and I could easily deal with 10+ people an hour, so should I sue my employer for not paying me minimum wage?
23
Post by: djones520
Teachers, when you break it down to hourly pay, get around $25 + an hour. They're doing pretty alright. Especially with their vacation time mixed in there.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
djones520 wrote:Teachers, when you break it down to hourly pay, get around $25 + an hour. They're doing pretty alright. Especially with their vacation time mixed in there.
And their retirement too
23
Post by: djones520
It's very equivalent pay to what we in the military get, without the inherent risk of life and limb, separation from family, shift work, and other general gakiness of our line of work.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ahh, that was it. I forgot it was a facebook rant, Disregard it
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
djones520 wrote:It's very equivalent pay to what we in the military get, without the inherent risk of life and limb, separation from family, shift work, and other general gakiness of our line of work.
You've obviously never worked in the public schools
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Depending on the class you get it can be a warzone
....I will go to my corner
1206
Post by: Easy E
The only reason we can pay teachers so little and get away with it is because it has traditionally been a "pink" collar job; i.e. held by women.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
The problem is that teachers don't get paid by the hour, they get paid by the day. The $25 an hour figure is the idea that teachers work from 8am or so till 3pm. That's 6 hours of work time. So at $25 an hour it's 150 dollars a day, which isn't bad. I'd technically have to work 10 hours in a day to reach that dollars per day.
Teachers aren't expected to just work the time they're in school, they're expected to go home that night, and plan for the next day, grade papers, etc... Which as someone that did that for several semesters, it's a good day if get done by 8pm.
Yes they get summers off, but during that time period you are expected to do CEC, prep for the upcoming school year, etc... most teachers don't actually have "summers off"
19377
Post by: Grundz
djones520 wrote:It's very equivalent pay to what we in the military get, without the inherent risk of life and limb, separation from family, shift work, and other general gakiness of our line of work.
Next I'm going to hear that the secret service have to protect you from terrorist tornados
19370
Post by: daedalus
Easy E wrote:The only reason we can pay teachers so little and get away with it is because it has traditionally been a "pink" collar job; i.e. held by women.
Interestingly, the majority of my high school teachers were men.
Men: Band, shop, chemistry, biology, math, philosophy/civics
Women: English/Literature, Spanish, geometry, history.
Okay, so when I break them down that way, they were split almost 50/50, but with it in mind that the classes I had with male teachers I took almost every semester, and history I only had two years of and a single year of geometry, it kind of leans back toward a male-dominated education.
That's just my anecdote though. As it was a small school in the middle of nowhere, it's hardly representative of America, or the world for that matter. It was reputed to be one of the better public schools in Illinois, with well above average standardized test scores, assuming that is a metric that actually means anything.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
daedalus wrote: Easy E wrote:The only reason we can pay teachers so little and get away with it is because it has traditionally been a "pink" collar job; i.e. held by women.
Interestingly, the majority of my high school teachers were men.
Men: Band, shop, chemistry, biology, math, philosophy/civics
Women: English/Literature, Spanish, geometry, history.
All mathemethic teachers where female. But yeah this tends to be the diversification
1206
Post by: Easy E
Well, a recent trend is that mor emen are turning to the traditionally "pink collar' jobs now, so that doesn't surprise me that you are seeing an evening out.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154845329/why-more-men-are-choosing-pink-collar-jobs
Here's the key part:
We found this story in the New York Times, whose reporters crunched the numbers and found that from the year 2000 to 2010, fields dominated by women - that means where the workforce is more than 70 percent female - accounted for a third of job growth for men. That includes teaching, nursing, social work, a number of other fields, and this trend is true for men of all different ages and races.
However, since traditionally they were 70% women, that means the professions in question were often paid less than men. Only recently, has the disparity between men and women wages seen significant decreases.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Easy E wrote:Well, a recent trend is that mor emen are turning to the traditionally "pink collar' jobs now, so that doesn't surprise me that you are seeing an evening out.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154845329/why-more-men-are-choosing-pink-collar-jobs
Here's the key part:
We found this story in the New York Times, whose reporters crunched the numbers and found that from the year 2000 to 2010, fields dominated by women - that means where the workforce is more than 70 percent female - accounted for a third of job growth for men. That includes teaching, nursing, social work, a number of other fields, and this trend is true for men of all different ages and races.
However, since traditionally they were 70% women, that means the professions in question were often paid less than men. Only recently, has the disparity between men and women wages seen significant decreases.
That really come as surprising at all in our increasingly affirmative action oriented work environment. For proper diversification, dont most employers want, ideally, around a 50/50 split? Hence the reason men would be able to get into those 'pink collar' jobs more easily?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dreadclaw69 wrote: djones520 wrote:Teachers, when you break it down to hourly pay, get around $25 + an hour. They're doing pretty alright. Especially with their vacation time mixed in there.
And their retirement too
Don't forget job security. Its almost impossible to fire a senior teacher.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Grey Templar wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: djones520 wrote:Teachers, when you break it down to hourly pay, get around $25 + an hour. They're doing pretty alright. Especially with their vacation time mixed in there.
And their retirement too
Don't forget job security. Its almost impossible to fire a senior teacher.
Yup! I'd forgotten that, thank you
64081
Post by: hdbbstephen
34390
Post by: whembly
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: djones520 wrote:Teachers, when you break it down to hourly pay, get around $25 + an hour. They're doing pretty alright. Especially with their vacation time mixed in there.
And their retirement too
Don't forget job security. Its almost impossible to fire a senior teacher.
Yup! I'd forgotten that, thank you
While teachers do have good stuff... that hourly rate is very misleading.
My Ex is a teacher... she brought home gak everynight.
You'd think they have 3 month off in the summer... but in the reality, they'd get about a month off... they're attending conferences/classes/meetings galore throughout the summer.
While they're paid really well with good benefits, it isn't an easy job.
Teachers really want more respectibility in the industry AND from parents, rather than more pay.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Dont forget that very few continuing contracts are given to any teachers anymore, pretty much guranteeing that statement will no longer be true.
And if you're not a senior teacher, you're incredibly easy to get rid of, considering you sign a new contract every year.
And with the amount of funding being cut to schools across the United States, massive layoffs have continued to happen.
But you're right, the security is TOTALLY there.
1206
Post by: Easy E
 cincydooley wrote: Easy E wrote:Well, a recent trend is that mor emen are turning to the traditionally "pink collar' jobs now, so that doesn't surprise me that you are seeing an evening out.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154845329/why-more-men-are-choosing-pink-collar-jobs
Here's the key part:
We found this story in the New York Times, whose reporters crunched the numbers and found that from the year 2000 to 2010, fields dominated by women - that means where the workforce is more than 70 percent female - accounted for a third of job growth for men. That includes teaching, nursing, social work, a number of other fields, and this trend is true for men of all different ages and races.
However, since traditionally they were 70% women, that means the professions in question were often paid less than men. Only recently, has the disparity between men and women wages seen significant decreases.
That really come as surprising at all in our increasingly affirmative action oriented work environment. For proper diversification, dont most employers want, ideally, around a 50/50 split? Hence the reason men would be able to get into those 'pink collar' jobs more easily?
Right, but my point was, we could historically pay teachers less beacuse they were "Pink Collar" and that is why we can still get away with paying them so little. Even with the gains, the teaching profession is still 70% or more Women, hence why it is considered okay to pay them low market wages.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
ahhh! Gotcha. I misunderstood!
73552
Post by: surixurient
We failed as a society when we started producing these deadbeats who feel they are 'owed' something. Ignorant products of a failed public education system. They were told too many times of how unique and special they were, when in fact they were just scraping by. Now they are resigned to shuffle through life on the path of least resistance, waiting for theirs to be delivered into their hand. Somehow these losers have become convinced that all they have to do is 'show up' and they will be provided for. How pathetically European we have become.
Well that's my rant for the day 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
We failed as a soceity when we look down on those who ar in trouble and turn our nose up at them. When we lost our compassion for others. When we lost our ability to reach a hand up and help others..
We may give a little change to a homeless person, thinking we did our good deed for the week, to placate those nagging feelings of uncompassion.
We have faile to provide for others, americans worldview ends at the porch.
Also, europe, especially Scandinavian countries, have a higher standard of living with those who make over under 40k a year do not pay taxes, but if you make higher then 2 mil 50% goes to taxes. They have a higher standard of living then americans.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
hotsauceman1 wrote:We failed as a soceity when we look down on those who ar in trouble and turn our nose up at them. When we lost our compassion for others. When we lost our ability to reach a hand up and help others..
We may give a little change to a homeless person, thinking we did our good deed for the week, to placate those nagging feelings of uncompassion.
We have faile to provide for others, americans worldview ends at the porch.
Hey that's not true!
We helped the banks!
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote:We failed as a society when we started producing these deadbeats who feel they are 'owed' something. Ignorant products of a failed public education system. They were told too many times of how unique and special they were, when in fact they were just scraping by. Now they are resigned to shuffle through life on the path of least resistance, waiting for theirs to be delivered into their hand. Somehow these losers have become convinced that all they have to do is 'show up' and they will be provided for. How pathetically European we have become.
Well that's my rant for the day
Fellow members of club "We've Got Ours",
I'd like to introduce you to our host.
"He's got his", and "I've got mine", meet surixurient.
1206
Post by: Easy E
surixurient wrote:We failed as a society when we started producing these deadbeats who feel they are 'owed' something. Ignorant products of a failed public education system. They were told too many times of how unique and special they were, when in fact they were just scraping by. Now they are resigned to shuffle through life on the path of least resistance, waiting for theirs to be delivered into their hand. Somehow these losers have become convinced that all they have to do is 'show up' and they will be provided for. How pathetically European we have become.
Well that's my rant for the day
I hope you feel better now Don Quixote, but I think you left a windmill standing.
11
Post by: ph34r
surixurient wrote:We failed as a society when we started producing these deadbeats who feel they are 'owed' something. Ignorant products of a failed public education system. They were told too many times of how unique and special they were, when in fact they were just scraping by. Now they are resigned to shuffle through life on the path of least resistance, waiting for theirs to be delivered into their hand. Somehow these losers have become convinced that all they have to do is 'show up' and they will be provided for. How pathetically European we have become.
Yeah, feth those kids for having drastically underfunded education systems. Feth those kids for not having funded artistic programs that are statistically shown to keep kids in school and help with overall cognitive development that aids them in career making disciplines. Feth those kids for being packed into classrooms of 30+ because the ones making the decisions consistently decide that education can take the cuts first.
Feth those kids for being bombarded by the commercial media, being constantly told to buy their way to some arbitrary ideal. Feth those kids for shuffling along the path of least resistance as they drop out and eventually end up receiving government benefits because the USA's education an embarrassment to first world countries.
Feth the kids for making our banks fail and redistributing billions of dollars from the taxpayers pockets to those of banking industry CEOs getting big bonuses, and to their companies that have just posted record high profits in Q2 2013.
And feth Europe for not making all these dim-wited policy decisions and succeeding anyway!
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
The EU's in worse shape then we are, with the Euro on a long downward slide.
11
Post by: ph34r
True overall, however many European countries are not suffering the fate of Spain and Greece and are doing great. Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc. When comparing against someone doing things in a way that is to be desired it makes sense to me to look at the candidates that have implemented those policies to success, rather than countries like Greece with a tiny and unsuccessful industrial base.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Just saying Europe's not the best place to look for solutions on the whole. The entire EU is shaky as hell right now.
There's also some difficulty of applying say Swedish policies on a nation of 330 million when those policies are based in a nation with the population of a U.S. state. It's a matter of scale and cost, do we need to improve US education? Yes absolutely. Raise the minimum wage like we're discussing in this thread? Probably not the answer we actually want.
The commercial media thing isn't exactly unique to the United States either.
You're right the bail out was lame BUT all those companies even the banks have been making good on the bail out. All told out of 608 and billion sent out all but 53.8 billion has come back. Considering that our investments have returned 153.8 billion in dividends and interest in the last few years we might actually be making money off the bail out in the near future. So good, I want to see them continue to make record making profits. The collapse of a significant segment of the American banking system would have SUCKED and made a gak economy worse, while I am a fan of proper Capitalism that call hasn't ended terribly AND now that we're invested in the banks, their profits are our profits too. Stock dividends baby, gotta love'em.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Oh, and as a side note, the majority of that $$ that hasn't come back is from the government sinkholes Freddie and Fannie.
76206
Post by: Rotary
 sebster wrote: Rotary wrote:Bad idea. Guess the dollar menu at mcdonalds will have to become the 2 dollar menu around that time. So now our employers have to pay health care AND more in wages.It will be interesting to see all the businesses that shut their doors when this takes effect.
You're arguing that a 25% increase in low level wages will produce a 200% increase in prices?
Okay, we'll just accept you've never opened an economic textbook, but who in the feth taught you maths?
Seriously, these are supposed to be starter jobs, you don't get payed anything because you are supposed to move on to better things.
You don't set policy according to what the economy is supposed to be, you set it according to what the economy actually is. And for a lot of people there simply isn't anything better.
Read the text, i rolled in the health costs of obama care AND salary increase. Either way its a estimate. I guess since you want to know who taught me math i can ask who taught you to read.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Rotary wrote: sebster wrote: Rotary wrote:Bad idea. Guess the dollar menu at mcdonalds will have to become the 2 dollar menu around that time. So now our employers have to pay health care AND more in wages.It will be interesting to see all the businesses that shut their doors when this takes effect.
You're arguing that a 25% increase in low level wages will produce a 200% increase in prices?
Okay, we'll just accept you've never opened an economic textbook, but who in the feth taught you maths?
Seriously, these are supposed to be starter jobs, you don't get payed anything because you are supposed to move on to better things.
You don't set policy according to what the economy is supposed to be, you set it according to what the economy actually is. And for a lot of people there simply isn't anything better.
Read the text, i rolled in the health costs of obama care AND salary increase. Either way its a estimate. I guess since you want to know who taught me math i can ask who taught you to read.
Yes, but even if you "rolled in the costs of obamacare AND salary increase" that still won't result in a 100% increase in price. That's crazy talk.
4713
Post by: efarrer
No kidding. Most of our prices are comparable to US prices to boot and we have at least a 10.00 minimum wage I think nation wide
23
Post by: djones520
efarrer wrote:
No kidding. Most of our prices are comparable to US prices to boot and we have at least a 10.00 minimum wage I think nation wide
No, cost of living in Canadia is kinda higher then it is here. Canada cost of living index 91.25
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Canada
US cost of living index, 75.18.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United+States
76206
Post by: Rotary
Yeah it was never a hard number, i think you are missing the point. Out of the entire thread guys focus on a statement that shows the dollar menu going to two dollars.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Im sure it has to do with them being so polite
64081
Post by: hdbbstephen
23
Post by: djones520
I think you got the wrong thread dude.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 whembly wrote:While teachers do have good stuff... that hourly rate is very misleading.
My Ex is a teacher... she brought home gak everynight.
You'd think they have 3 month off in the summer... but in the reality, they'd get about a month off... they're attending conferences/classes/meetings galore throughout the summer.
While they're paid really well with good benefits, it isn't an easy job.
Teachers really want more respectibility in the industry AND from parents, rather than more pay.
I'm not disputing that it isn't an easy job; my mother-in-law and father-in-law were both teachers, my sister and a cousin are both teachers also. I was just disagreeing with hotsauceman when he was trying to pull the teachers are paid $1.70-something an hour per student thanks to some very selective stats.
4713
Post by: efarrer
Fun site.
Try some comparisons between comparable cities. You can get some really weird results.
Also not sure I believe that the Disposable monthly income in New Orleans is greater than in Regina.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Yodhrin wrote: c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
If a person puts in a full days work with full time hours, they deserve a living wage. Anything else is just vacant "f-u Jack, I got mine" spitefulness.
EPIC NONSENSE.
The Soviets proved that doesn't work. You punish the hard working. You punish those who have sacrificed to educate and improve their skills, and put them all to the lowest common denominator. Why on earth would someone go to trade school or university if they are at the same level as the average mouthbreather who knocked up his girlfriend and is getting your order wrong at mcDonalds even though the picture of fries is right there.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Dreadclaw69 wrote: whembly wrote:While teachers do have good stuff... that hourly rate is very misleading.
My Ex is a teacher... she brought home gak everynight.
You'd think they have 3 month off in the summer... but in the reality, they'd get about a month off... they're attending conferences/classes/meetings galore throughout the summer.
While they're paid really well with good benefits, it isn't an easy job.
Teachers really want more respectibility in the industry AND from parents, rather than more pay.
I'm not disputing that it isn't an easy job; my mother-in-law and father-in-law were both teachers, my sister and a cousin are both teachers also. I was just disagreeing with hotsauceman when he was trying to pull the teachers are paid $1.70-something an hour per student thanks to some very selective stats.
OH agree that what that thing said was stupid and I dont think it was true.
Really Im just using the example from the women who said teachers are babysitters as how under recognized they are Automatically Appended Next Post:  Frazzled wrote: Yodhrin wrote: c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
If a person puts in a full days work with full time hours, they deserve a living wage. Anything else is just vacant "f-u Jack, I got mine" spitefulness.
EPIC NONSENSE.
The Soviets proved that doesn't work. You punish the hard working. You punish those who have sacrificed to educate and improve their skills, and put them all to the lowest common denominator. Why on earth would someone go to trade school or university if they are at the same level as the average mouthbreather who knocked up his girlfriend and is getting your order wrong at mcDonalds even though the picture of fries is right there.
At my local Mcdonalds they have their registers in spanish
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote: Yodhrin wrote: c0j1r0 wrote:Cool, now people can live mildly comfortably by working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives. Because that it takes SO much skill to work a cash register.
I made that much when i was about 16 because I worked for a construction company and learned a trade that takes skill to do. Someone who is too lazy to learn a skill shouldn't get the same pay that I made when I went through a lot of hard work to learn how to do something. This will likely raise the price of EVERYTHING to compensate and we'll be right back where we started. People with certain skill-sets will demand more money, which will raise the cost of household items to compensate. Welcome to inflation.
If a person puts in a full days work with full time hours, they deserve a living wage. Anything else is just vacant "f-u Jack, I got mine" spitefulness.
EPIC NONSENSE.
The Soviets proved that doesn't work. You punish the hard working. You punish those who have sacrificed to educate and improve their skills, and put them all to the lowest common denominator. Why on earth would someone go to trade school or university if they are at the same level as the average mouthbreather who knocked up his girlfriend and is getting your order wrong at mcDonalds even though the picture of fries is right there.
No one is saying that people with improved skills and who work harder shouldn;t get paid more.
What we ar esaying is that the social safety net should be built a bit higher; therefore allowing the people with better skills and who work harder to get even MORE!
221
Post by: Frazzled
A living wage is a joyous concept. It includes anything and everything.
No. Entry level jobs are crappy. Do better.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Why are entry level jobs crappy?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Because they're entry level.
Honestly, I just want to hear someone tell me what this mythical "living wage" should include. How many people should it support. Etc.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
cincydooley wrote:Because they're entry level.
Honestly, I just want to hear someone tell me what this mythical "living wage" should include. How many people should it support. Etc.
Varies from state to state, but there is this thing called the "self-sustainability standard", which was hinted at in an article I posted earlier in the thread. For us in God's taint (i.e. Ohio) we have a state specific self-sustainability standard set every year. The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Ohio 2013 measures how much income a family of a certain composition in a given place must earn to meet their basic needs. Employers, advocates, and legislators can use it to evaluate wages, provide career counseling, and create programs that lead to economic self-sufficiency for working families. According to the pdf I linked, the self-sufficiency standard is a measure of income adequacy that is based on the costs of the basic needs for working families: housing, child care, food, health care, transportation, and miscellaneous items, as well as, the cost of taxes and the impact of tax credits. So I'm going to look at the information presented on page 8 since that has both Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties (our respective home counties).
The basic wages need for an adult in Cuyahoga to meet housing, food, health care, transportation, and miscellaneous items (doesn't say what this is), and taxes is $9.60 an hour, and that doubles as soon as you add in a preschool aged child to $18.58 (almost double). Compare that to Hamilton county, home of Cincinnati is $8.89 an hour for a single adult.
So in Cuyahoga you need almost 10 dollars an hour to be able to afford housing, food, health care, and transportation at least, whereas Hamilton needs almost 9 dollars an hour. So if we were to raise Ohio's minimum wage to 9 dollars an hour, a single adult in Hamilton would be sitting kinda pretty in regards that his minimum wage job could support his ability to live and support himself, wheres a single adult in Cuyahoga would have some issue living.
To be fair, I suggested something earlier in this thread when I said,
Alfndrate wrote:And by support themselves, I mean a decent (i.e. not hellhole) apartment (1 bed, 1 bath, kitchen/dining area), money for food and transportation (this doesn't mean car loan, this means you have money to support a level of transportation whether it's a bike, bus pass, subway, or gas if you have a car paid off already). Entertainment can be really cheap in today's world, and if you had some extra money for entertainment the fine, but you shouldn't be like, "oh god I have to work 80 hours just to have a roof over my head and food."
77217
Post by: xruslanx
According to google that's £6.19, which is what minimum wage is in the UK. And that really is feth all.
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote:Because they're entry level.
Honestly, I just want to hear someone tell me what this mythical "living wage" should include. How many people should it support. Etc.
It should include 1 new IPAD a quarter, healthcare, steak, netflix, and tickets to broadway baby!
19377
Post by: Grundz
xruslanx wrote:According to google that's £6.19, which is what minimum wage is in the UK. And that really is feth all.
19377
Post by: Grundz
.. why is your chart different than mine?
maybe googles search AI decided you wanted the loller to apear stronger?
77217
Post by: xruslanx
You fudged your numbers. Check again.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Its a penny people. Clearly there is some rounding going on. You aren't going to get a perfect comparison.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Yeah, so. Is there a defintional quality or fundamental law of the universe that means an anetry level job needs to be terrible?
Look, This isn't about taking away from people with special skills and working hard. I have no idea why that becomes the frame in a minimum wage discussion. People making minimum wage are not inherently lazy and stupid, but that seems to be the assumption when this issue comes up.
The people making minimum wage are working. This isn't welfare or living on the dole for cripe's sake.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Nice response alf, but I think I posed my question incorrectly.
My big question is how many people should a living wage serve to provide for? 1 adult and 1 kid? 2 kids? All of Shawn Kemps 13 kids? Where's the line?
19377
Post by: Grundz
you posted 6.19, thats what I put in
im looking at the info below not the header
I went to google just a second ago and got the same thing >.>
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:
Yeah, so. Is there a defintional quality or fundamental law of the universe that means an anetry level job needs to be terrible?
Look, This isn't about taking away from people with special skills and working hard. I have no idea why that becomes the frame in a minimum wage discussion. People making minimum wage are not inherently lazy and stupid, but that seems to be the assumption when this issue comes up.
The people making minimum wage are working. This isn't welfare or living on the dole for cripe's sake.
Lots of entry level jobs are just fine. McDonalds jobs suck.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote: Easy E wrote:
Yeah, so. Is there a defintional quality or fundamental law of the universe that means an anetry level job needs to be terrible?
Look, This isn't about taking away from people with special skills and working hard. I have no idea why that becomes the frame in a minimum wage discussion. People making minimum wage are not inherently lazy and stupid, but that seems to be the assumption when this issue comes up.
The people making minimum wage are working. This isn't welfare or living on the dole for cripe's sake.
Lots of entry level jobs are just fine. McDonalds jobs suck.
Sometimes, I think I make it too easy for you to troll me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
not trying to troll you. Thats a fair question you asked.
Of my entry jobs I'd say one in three sucked (both pre college and post college). one of three pre college sucked. One of three post undergrad sucked. Now by sucked all of them but one were probably decent compared to many many other jobs out there.
Fun tidbit: first job as a pseudo carnie at a crappy amusement park:
1. Its where I started making up horribly aggressive/black humor ditties to go along with popular Christmas carols playing on a loop over and over and over and over. I still do that and occasionally get a smack in the gut from wife/daughter when I hum one out loud to a new song of theirs.
2. You haven't lived until you you have this sense that something is amiss, and go over and see a toddler has accidently opened and engine compartment and is sitting IN THE GEARS of a machine...
1206
Post by: Easy E
Paul Krugman, also a Noble Prize winning economist...
So what should you know? First, as John Schmitt (pdf) documents at length, there just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment. And this is a really solid result, because there have been a *lot* of studies. We can argue about exactly why the simple Econ 101 story doesn’t seem to work, but it clearly doesn’t — which means that the supposed cost in terms of employment from seeking to raise low-wage workers’ earnings is a myth.
Second — and this is news to me — the usual notion that minimum wages and the Earned Income Tax Credit are competing ways to help low-wage workers is wrong. On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a way to make the EITC work better, ensuring that its benefits go to workers rather than getting shared with employers. This actually is Econ 101, but done right: given a second-best world in which you use imperfect tools to help deserving workers, two tools together can produce a better outcome than either one on its own.
So a minimum wage increase isn’t some kind of counsel-of-despair way to help workers a bit in a dysfunctional political scene (although there’s that too); it’s actually good policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/?_r=0
I guess we have a "Mexican" Economist Stand-off!
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
cincydooley wrote:Nice response alf, but I think I posed my question incorrectly.
My big question is how many people should a living wage serve to provide for? 1 adult and 1 kid? 2 kids? All of Shawn Kemps 13 kids? Where's the line?
The self-sustainability goes into that, it your family structure is x, then you need to make y to support x. The example I gave is based on a 1 person scenario. To support 1 adult and a child in Cuyahoga, y jumps to 18.58 an hour, when you have 2 adults and 2 children you need ~13.58 an hour from both adults to support that family structure. So the question you're asking, "how many people should a living wage serve to provide for" can't be pinned to a single number, thus why this self-sustainability standard exists. If you want to earn a living wage on a McJob then it should be equal to the self-sustainability standard equal to 1 adult. If you want to earn more, then you need to work harder to get that better job.
68355
Post by: easysauce
ph34r wrote:Yeah, feth those kids for having drastically underfunded education systems. Feth those kids for not having funded artistic programs that are statistically shown to keep kids in school and help with overall cognitive development that aids them in career making disciplines. Feth those kids for being packed into classrooms of 30+ because the ones making the decisions consistently decide that education can take the cuts first.
Feth those kids for being bombarded by the commercial media, being constantly told to buy their way to some arbitrary ideal. Feth those kids for shuffling along the path of least resistance as they drop out and eventually end up receiving government benefits because the USA's education an embarrassment to first world countries.
Feth the kids for making our banks fail and redistributing billions of dollars from the taxpayers pockets to those of banking industry CEOs getting big bonuses, and to their companies that have just posted record high profits in Q2 2013.
And feth Europe for not making all these dim-wited policy decisions and succeeding anyway!
I am not saying our education systems, both in canada, the states, and yes, even europe are perfect,
but the same system you describe above has some of the kids graduating and expecting more then minimum wage(or a higher minimum) from the easiest (not most pleasant mind you) jobs there are.
and the same system has some kids bettering their positions and getting ahead, so its not the "systems" fault, although it does need some more $ and reform.
Europe, in a lot of ways, but especially economically, is much worse off the the USA+canada, the whole EU experiment has not succeeded, and is likly going to fail catastrophically within the next decade if not sooner, so I wouldnt tout that as a "sucess"
we have a working system, if you are on the bottom rung, and cannot (for whatever reason) MOVE YOURSELF up the rungs, then you dont move up the rungs, simple as that.
why should those who cannot do for themselves, have it done for them by others?
why should the lowest job, be able to support a family of four?
which is what most "living" wages us as a starting point, they will point out how min wage is below the poverty rate, and compare it to the poverty rate as the SOLE income supporting a family of four generally. which indicates that the problem is not that min wage is so low, but that people are trying to support a family off of min wage.
"giving" someone more $ for minimum wage is not a solution, they need a better job, and they will never get that without better skills. The real debate should be on the availabilty of skills training, and what the publc education is giving to these people.
for instance, did that MC d's worker REALLY need to learn trigonometry, and basic chemistry/bio/ect?
or would they have been better served with a mechanics class, that would have gotten them into a trade and a better job straight out of high school, instead of them being forced into matriculation that is designed only for people who will be going into post secondary?
there needs to be REAL employable skills taught in high school again, as a choice of course, so that people on the bottom rung at least have access to trade school level jobs instead of minimum wage ones when they graduate.
73381
Post by: Spartak
Easy E wrote:
Paul Krugman, also a Noble Prize winning economist...
So what should you know? First, as John Schmitt (pdf) documents at length, there just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment. And this is a really solid result, because there have been a *lot* of studies. We can argue about exactly why the simple Econ 101 story doesn’t seem to work, but it clearly doesn’t — which means that the supposed cost in terms of employment from seeking to raise low-wage workers’ earnings is a myth.
Second — and this is news to me — the usual notion that minimum wages and the Earned Income Tax Credit are competing ways to help low-wage workers is wrong. On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a way to make the EITC work better, ensuring that its benefits go to workers rather than getting shared with employers. This actually is Econ 101, but done right: given a second-best world in which you use imperfect tools to help deserving workers, two tools together can produce a better outcome than either one on its own.
So a minimum wage increase isn’t some kind of counsel-of-despair way to help workers a bit in a dysfunctional political scene (although there’s that too); it’s actually good policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/?_r=0
I guess we have a "Mexican" Economist Stand-off!
Krugman won his prize in 2008, at this point it's an achievement award for being a progressive. Friedman won his in 1976, you know, when it was awarded for actually doing things. To address your quote, its flat out wrong ( IMO typical of liberal economists) Not only is there clear historical evidence of Min wage reducing employment, it’s a extremely common sense logical position to take.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Didn't Obama win his in 2008 too, before he was sworn in...
73381
Post by: Spartak
Yeah, he won his for being such a super guy!
1206
Post by: Easy E
Spartak wrote: Easy E wrote:
Paul Krugman, also a Noble Prize winning economist...
So what should you know? First, as John Schmitt (pdf) documents at length, there just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment. And this is a really solid result, because there have been a *lot* of studies. We can argue about exactly why the simple Econ 101 story doesn’t seem to work, but it clearly doesn’t — which means that the supposed cost in terms of employment from seeking to raise low-wage workers’ earnings is a myth.
Second — and this is news to me — the usual notion that minimum wages and the Earned Income Tax Credit are competing ways to help low-wage workers is wrong. On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a way to make the EITC work better, ensuring that its benefits go to workers rather than getting shared with employers. This actually is Econ 101, but done right: given a second-best world in which you use imperfect tools to help deserving workers, two tools together can produce a better outcome than either one on its own.
So a minimum wage increase isn’t some kind of counsel-of-despair way to help workers a bit in a dysfunctional political scene (although there’s that too); it’s actually good policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/?_r=0
I guess we have a "Mexican" Economist Stand-off!
Krugman won his prize in 2008, at this point it's an achievement award for being a progressive. Friedman won his in 1976, you know, when it was awarded for actually doing things. To address your quote, its flat out wrong ( IMO typical of liberal economists) Not only is there clear historical evidence of Min wage reducing employment, it’s a extremely common sense logical position to take.
That is weak. Next time, if you got nothing don't bother joining in.
Check the paper that Krugman cites here by John Schmidtt: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Here's the conclusion for you:
Conclusion
Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.
The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin. Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job.
But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers.
Let me just repeat this part: The most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers. (Emphasis Added)
I guess your common sense approach does not equal reality.
19377
Post by: Grundz
Easy E wrote:
Let me just repeat this part: The most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers. (Emphasis Added)
I guess your common sense approach does not equal reality.
Paying an army of HR people to constantly hire and fire minimum wage workers is a small price to pay for an army of drones.
73381
Post by: Spartak
Easy E wrote:Spartak wrote: Easy E wrote:
Paul Krugman, also a Noble Prize winning economist...
So what should you know? First, as John Schmitt (pdf) documents at length, there just isn’t any evidence that raising the minimum wage near current levels would reduce employment. And this is a really solid result, because there have been a *lot* of studies. We can argue about exactly why the simple Econ 101 story doesn’t seem to work, but it clearly doesn’t — which means that the supposed cost in terms of employment from seeking to raise low-wage workers’ earnings is a myth.
Second — and this is news to me — the usual notion that minimum wages and the Earned Income Tax Credit are competing ways to help low-wage workers is wrong. On the contrary, raising the minimum wage is a way to make the EITC work better, ensuring that its benefits go to workers rather than getting shared with employers. This actually is Econ 101, but done right: given a second-best world in which you use imperfect tools to help deserving workers, two tools together can produce a better outcome than either one on its own.
So a minimum wage increase isn’t some kind of counsel-of-despair way to help workers a bit in a dysfunctional political scene (although there’s that too); it’s actually good policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/?_r=0
I guess we have a "Mexican" Economist Stand-off!
Krugman won his prize in 2008, at this point it's an achievement award for being a progressive. Friedman won his in 1976, you know, when it was awarded for actually doing things. To address your quote, its flat out wrong ( IMO typical of liberal economists) Not only is there clear historical evidence of Min wage reducing employment, it’s a extremely common sense logical position to take.
That is weak. Next time, if you got nothing don't bother joining in.
Check the paper that Krugman cites here by John Schmidtt: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
Here's the conclusion for you:
Conclusion
Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers.
The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin. Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job.
But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers.
Let me just repeat this part: The most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers. (Emphasis Added)
I guess your common sense approach does not equal reality.
"Next time, if you got nothing don't bother joining in" Being a jerk isnt going to make you seem any smarter.
"cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers"
Unless the majority of your firms workforce is minimum wage workers, the bulk of an organizations overhead is wages. thats why companies do that thing called a layoff.
"employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin."
Oh, thanks for makeing my point for me: Reduced hours, benefits, training Yay! Increase prices to consumers SWEET! Did you not watch the videos of Mr Friedman explaining these very things? lol
"That is weak. Next time, if you got nothing don't bother joining in. " hmmm Ironic...
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Spartak wrote: Easy E wrote:Did you not watch the videos of Mr Friedman explaining these very things? lol
I did not watch him explain those things because youtube is work blocked and I read much faster than someone can say these things in a video. Text would have helped in this case, but that's just me.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote:not trying to troll you. Thats a fair question you asked.
Of my entry jobs I'd say one in three sucked (both pre college and post college). one of three pre college sucked. One of three post undergrad sucked. Now by sucked all of them but one were probably decent compared to many many other jobs out there.
Fun tidbit: first job as a pseudo carnie at a crappy amusement park:
1. Its where I started making up horribly aggressive/black humor ditties to go along with popular Christmas carols playing on a loop over and over and over and over. I still do that and occasionally get a smack in the gut from wife/daughter when I hum one out loud to a new song of theirs.
2. You haven't lived until you you have this sense that something is amiss, and go over and see a toddler has accidently opened and engine compartment and is sitting IN THE GEARS of a machine...
Of the three I have had two suck. Dairy queen smelled like bleach all day and the dishes should have been nuked from orbit.
This one sucks because for two hours in the morning im hauling carts up a hill when it is just getting hot. I leave work ready for school smelling like a pig. And I make less then the old ladies who sit at the register all day.
73552
Post by: surixurient
What kind of person fights for increases to minimum wage?
Minimum wage jobs are the most unproductive work on the planet, they are temporary, they are not careers. Do these people have no pride? It is like entrenching yourself at the lowest possible position, resigning yourself to be a bottom scraper for the rest of your life. "I find myself in a miserable dead end job that a child could do, looks like a good place to dig in."
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
The kind of person who realizes that companies often also have minimum wage jobs for people who do have skill sets? Like Janitors or cleaners?
Also, The economist guy is basically adovating turning us into china. Beecause that is what companies will do, they will charge the same for a big mac, but pay workers pennies.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
And it all comes back to this "living wage" and how many people it should be intended to support.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
1 person. It should support one person full time.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
So minimum wage jobs shouldn't be expected to support families then? I'm not saying I disagree, but I imagine all the McDonald strikers would.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
cincydooley wrote: So minimum wage jobs shouldn't be expected to support families then? I'm not saying I disagree, but I imagine all the McDonald strikers would.
No, but if you go by that standard I linked earlier, 2 minimum wage jobs could support a family (that is if both adults in the family work 40 hours a week each). But that'd require McJobs to hire workers for 40 hours a week.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
I love statements like yours because it represents such a disingenuous attempt to justify what can only be your own spiteful and impotent malice towards others. I mean, the arrogance you must have to think that you're fooling even a single person into thinking you have a reason behind your statement other than "because everyone should suffer for a while" is off the charts. I could at least respect your honesty if you would just say "I think every entry level position should involve a once-weekly violent beating, just to punish someone for holding an entry level position. Then, when they prove themselves, they can get promoted and no longer require the beating". Because that's basically the pure form of your argument once all the obfuscations of outright lies and bs is wiped away.
cincydooley wrote:And it all comes back to this "living wage" and how many people it should be intended to support.
hotsauceman1 wrote:1 person. It should support one person full time.
There's your answer. You shouldn't get rich off of entry level, but you shouldn't starve, either.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Again, define support.
19377
Post by: Grundz
azazel the cat wrote:
I love statements like yours because it represents such a disingenuous attempt to justify what can only be your own spiteful and impotent malice towards others. I mean, the arrogance you must have to think that you're fooling even a single person into thinking you have a reason behind your statement other than "because everyone should suffer for a while" is off the charts. I could at least respect your honesty if you would just say "I think every entry level position should involve a once-weekly violent beating, just to punish someone for holding an entry level position. Then, when they prove themselves, they can get promoted and no longer require the beating". Because that's basically the pure form of your argument once all the obfuscations of outright lies and bs is wiped away.
What?!?
There's no way that the beating would ever stop, if anyone is ever happy with their life or career our system of capitalism will immediately fall apart without every last person greedily hording every scrap they can beg borrow and steal from eachother.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I wasn't trying to put any BS I there or be disingenuous at all: entry level jobs are typically those where you're the bitch. You do the gak work. You get the coffee. Beatings have nothing to do with it, and quite frankly I don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm actually convinced there isn't one.
But by all means, show me some entry level positions that aren't entirely thankless and I'm more than happy to listen.
The problem with the "livng wage" supporting 1 person, or as Alf stated two supporting a family of 3, is that none of the people striking at mcdonalds want to only support a family of three. In all the articles and interviews, the sob stories are about people that have made poor decisions and have famikies larger than 3.
I'm not opposed to a living wage being made for a single adult. At all. But I also think there are things people want to include as part of a living wage that aren't at all required for living. Cable, cell phones, etc.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
I did earlier in the thread Frazz. Housing, food, health care (i.e. being able to pay for that emergency room trip because you're an eligible bachelor with no health insurance ), and transportation (bike, car, bus, subway).
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
If Americans truly care for meritocracy they should be in favour of having liveable wage for low skill work as what is required to advance yourself up the social ladder is time and education if you have to work 2 full-time minimum wage jobs just to survive where are you going to to get the time
to better educate and improve yourself?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
It's much easier for the working poor or the children of the working poor to go to college than the middle class, should they choose to want to.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Huh? How does that work?
34390
Post by: whembly
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
This was my issue getting college assistance as well
9594
Post by: RiTides
DC narrowly failed to raise minimum wage to $12.50 per hour just a few weeks ago. It got vetoed because tons of stores were going to cancel plans to build there, most notably Walmart. I'm no Walmart fan, but $12.50 for even your most inexperienced employee would make them unable to operate in the city.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
cincydooley wrote:It's much easier for the working poor or the children of the working poor to go to college than the middle class, should they choose to want to.
How does a child with an unhealthy diet, little to no parental supervision, less access to extracurricular activities, lives in an unsafe neighbourhood, lives in a culture that doesn't value education, etc have a much easier time at going to college?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
And I'll third that. I believe the government told my parents their expected contributions, based on their total combined salaries (and completely ignoring expenses and 2 other siblings) was like, $22k a year. Needless to say that didn't happen.
But yeah, if you're a middle class white male you are literally in the demographic that is hardest to get a grant or scholarship for.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
cincydooley wrote:But yeah, if you're a middle class white male you are literally in the demographic that is hardest to get a grant or scholarship for.
As always I'm reminded of this article.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Cheesecat wrote: cincydooley wrote:It's much easier for the working poor or the children of the working poor to go to college than the middle class, should they choose to want to.
How does a child with an unhealthy diet, little to no parental supervision, less access to extracurricular activities, lives in an unsafe neighbourhood, lives in a culture that doesn't value education, etc have a much easier time at going to college?
Okay... the drive to want College isn't there... I'll give you that.
That's an issue.
But, again, all things being equal.... a poor kid would have an EASIER time getting more free grants / better loans than your "average" middleclass white kid.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
cincydooley wrote: whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
And I'll third that. I believe the government told my parents their expected contributions, based on their total combined salaries (and completely ignoring expenses and 2 other siblings) was like, $22k a year. Needless to say that didn't happen.
But yeah, if you're a middle class white male you are literally in the demographic that is hardest to get a grant or scholarship for.
At least the Grants and Scholarships which don't require any personal achievement. And those still tend to favor the poor or the minority if all other things are equal.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
Yeah, Like when I told my group project buddies I only ha to pay 10$ a year for classes they where pissed.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote: whembly wrote: Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class. I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
Yeah, Like when I told my group project buddies I only ha to pay 10$ a year for classes they where pissed.
I hate you with a fiery passion of a thousand suns.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Grey Templar wrote: cincydooley wrote: whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
And I'll third that. I believe the government told my parents their expected contributions, based on their total combined salaries (and completely ignoring expenses and 2 other siblings) was like, $22k a year. Needless to say that didn't happen.
But yeah, if you're a middle class white male you are literally in the demographic that is hardest to get a grant or scholarship for.
At least the Grants and Scholarships which don't require any personal achievement. And those still tend to favor the poor or the minority if all other things are equal.
They do come with rules though, I loose my financial Aid if i drop 65% of my classes Automatically Appended Next Post: Alfndrate wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: whembly wrote:
Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
Yeah, Like when I told my group project buddies I only ha to pay 10$ a year for classes they where pissed.
I hate you with a fiery passion of a thousand suns.
Want too year something worse? Im still getting tuition money from grants to pay for that, nearly 2500-3000 a year.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cheesecat wrote: cincydooley wrote:It's much easier for the working poor or the children of the working poor to go to college than the middle class, should they choose to want to.
How does a child with an unhealthy diet, little to no parental supervision, less access to extracurricular activities, lives in an unsafe neighbourhood, lives in a culture that doesn't value education, etc have a much easier time at going to college?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you completely fail to read the previous 5 or 6 comments?
Not only that, but you're making sweeping generalizations that could just as easily be attributed to a middle class working family in the United States. Unhealthy diet? Check. Little to no parental supervision? Check.
Access to extracurricular activities is absolutely the same. In most inner city schools in the states there are tons of additional programs specifically designed for this type of student (Head Start, etc) that are non-profit or federally subsidized while in most suburban schools students have to pay to play (football, for instance, is $500 in our district).
You've got me on the culture that doesn't value education though. That certainly exists. But that doesn't make it any harder for the student to decide to care to get out of that situation, not any more so than a middle class kid that wants to stick it to his parents by not going to college. Granted, all the learned helplessness our social services foster in some of these areas doesn't exactly help either.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote:They do come with rules though, I loose my financial Aid if i drop 65% of my classes
Most scholarships and grants require students to be at least a part time student. Often times that's between 9 and 12 credit hours a semester.
5470
Post by: sebster
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Just saying Europe's not the best place to look for solutions on the whole. The entire EU is shaky as hell right now.
The problems of the EU are due to a range of issues (monetary union being extended to countries with mediocre financial controls, fixed rates making currency adaption to economic conditions impossible, and a whole load of very stupid austerity) none of which have anything to do with the traditional differences between the US and Europe.
There's also some difficulty of applying say Swedish policies on a nation of 330 million when those policies are based in a nation with the population of a U.S. state. It's a matter of scale and cost, do we need to improve US education? Yes absolutely.
I'd say they're more issues of culture than scale. Simply put, if people in the US were on board with a stronger set of social policies and alright with paying for them, then they'd work just fine. But that just isn't where America is at, culturally, and so any effort to expand those polices is pretty much doomed.
Raise the minimum wage like we're discussing in this thread? Probably not the answer we actually want.
Whether its the answer really depends on what the question is
If the question is 'how do we ensure that anyone working full time has a decent living standard, and encourage people to move from welfare to employment, and improve social mobility?'... well then raising the minimum wage is the answer.
There's all sorts of other economic questions to which a raise in the minimum wage isn't the answer, but raising the minimum wage isn't a step in the wrong direction for any of those issues anyway. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rotary wrote:Read the text, i rolled in the health costs of obama care AND salary increase. Either way its a estimate. I guess since you want to know who taught me math i can ask who taught you to read.
You're claiming a 25% raise in minimum wage and the new healthcare costs will represent a near to 100% increase in McDonald's costs of production. That's absolute lunacy. Complete, 100% nonsense.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Jebus Savus.....if you really want to come out ahead and I'm dead serious about this. Join the National Guard and elect for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. One weekend a month, two weeks a year, and volunteering for "schools" will get you, from top my head, an all expense paid college ride or close, BAH, additional income, and free boots.
BAH is by zip code. I would say BAQ but its rolled into BAH. Per month. Direct deposit. Now is about the best time to go part time active duty for the military.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
cincydooley wrote: Cheesecat wrote: cincydooley wrote:It's much easier for the working poor or the children of the working poor to go to college than the middle class, should they choose to want to.
How does a child with an unhealthy diet, little to no parental supervision, less access to extracurricular activities, lives in an unsafe neighbourhood, lives in a culture that doesn't value education, etc have a much easier time at going to college?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or did you completely fail to read the previous 5 or 6 comments?
Not only that, but you're making sweeping generalizations that could just as easily be attributed to a middle class working family in the United States. Unhealthy diet? Check. Little to no parental supervision? Check.
Access to extracurricular activities is absolutely the same. In most inner city schools in the states there are tons of additional programs specifically designed for this type of student (Head Start, etc) that are non-profit or federally subsidized while in most suburban schools students have to pay to play (football, for instance, is $500 in our district).
You've got me on the culture that doesn't value education though. That certainly exists. But that doesn't make it any harder for the student to decide to care to get out of that situation, not any more so than a middle class kid that wants to stick it to his parents by not going to college. Granted, all the learned helplessness our social services foster in some of these areas doesn't exactly help either.
The average diet of a middle class child is healthier than lower class child, wealth has quite an effect on people's eating habits and the worst food for your health is often the cheapest, also a middle class family can probably afford a baby sitter and would still more likely have parents
who have more free time with the child than a poor family and one's culture does have a major impact on how people pursue their life. So you can receive some benefits but it doesn't seem like it's enough balance out other negative factors with being poor. Also being poor causes
stress on child like having to go a day without food, feeling unsafe, parts of the house being in disrepair, etc which doesn't make for a good learning environment.
5470
Post by: sebster
Rotary wrote:Yeah it was never a hard number, i think you are missing the point. Out of the entire thread guys focus on a statement that shows the dollar menu going to two dollars.
You can't just throw a wild number out there, and then back away from it as soon as anyone points out how silly a number it was.
If you're not willing to defend your number (which is a sensible choice, given how silly a number it was), then you need to either start using a more sensible number. So I think you need to change your claim to 'Guess the dollar menu at mcdonalds will have to become the 1.02 dollar menu around that time'
And now, put in that context, doesn't your post start feeling a litte bit silly? Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:The Soviets proved that doesn't work. You punish the hard working. You punish those who have sacrificed to educate and improve their skills, and put them all to the lowest common denominator. Why on earth would someone go to trade school or university if they are at the same level as the average mouthbreather who knocked up his girlfriend and is getting your order wrong at mcDonalds even though the picture of fries is right there.
The Soviet Union had different rates of pay for different jobs. I've explained this to you before. Engineers, doctors and all kinds of other skilled professions earned a much nicer income than working schlubs in socialist Russia, and there was never a shortage of doctors or other skilled professionals.
The failure of the Soviet system was to do with capital, specifically how poorly capital works when left in the hands of party appartchiks... hence their inability to ever produce a car that didn't utterly suck, and their failure to produce major world changing innovations like microcomputers.
The classic example is health - where far from your claim above, the Soviet Union actually had more doctors per capita than much of the Western world, and delivered health results that were at least equal. But the Western healthcare system, thanks largely to private sector capital investment, produced a constant series of innovations and new technology, so that by the late 70s/early 80s it was clear that the Soviet healthcare system was now miles behind.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Cheesecat wrote:
The average diet of a middle class child is healthier than lower class child, wealth has quite an effect on people's eating habits and the worst food for your health is often the cheapest, also a middle class family can probably afford a baby sitter and would still more likely have parents
who have more free time with the child than a poor family and one's culture does have a major impact on how people pursue their life. So you can receive some benefits but it doesn't seem like it's enough balance out other negative factors with being poor. Also being poor causes
stress on child like having to go a day without food, feeling unsafe, parts of the house being in disrepair, etc which doesn't make for a good learning environment.
As a former teacher with a wife that teachers, believe me, I'm fully aware of all of these issues. And I'm telling you, the affect the middle class nearly as much. The only major difference is the culture, which I granted you.
Middle class parents, the true middle class and not the upper middle class, consist of families that have two working parents that have just as many issues seeing their kids as the lower class. Federally funded free breakfast and lunch has significantly decreased the number of kids that go hungry, and those meals are often healthier than what kids that aren't on FRL bring to school (oatmeal & fruit > poptarts, PBJ & salad > lunchables).
I'm not discounting that children of the working poor have a tough time growing up, and more so than the true, blue collar middle class, but it doesn't change the fact that once they make the choice to go to college it's much easier for them to pay for it (and often without having to repay it) than your average middle class white male.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Fair enough, I'll agree with you on that.
5470
Post by: sebster
Spartak wrote:Krugman won his prize in 2008, at this point it's an achievement award for being a progressive. Friedman won his in 1976, you know, when it was awarded for actually doing things.
That's just... oh dear.
Don't confuse an economist's political leanings for the economic work that actually earned him a nobel prize. While the public thinks economics is just a means to debate political issues, its actually a field with serious technical work and its that technical work. Friedman's prize was awarded for his work in monetary economics, specifically for his work in establishing that the Phillips Curve was effectively a straight line in the long term. Krugman's prize was due to his contributions to New Trade Theory, which looked to challenge the old ideas of constant (or declining) rates of return on industry sectors, and managed to explain how the success of new industry protectionism succeeded in the face of the older trade models.
To address your quote, its flat out wrong (IMO typical of liberal economists) Not only is there clear historical evidence of Min wage reducing employment, it’s a extremely common sense logical position to take.
You don't know what you're talking about. The cost of raising the minimum wage is entirely dependant on the economy in question.
ie in an economy where low skilled productivity is around $15 an hour and you want to increase the minimum wage from $12 to $13, well then yeah, some jobs are going to disappear. But in an economy where low skilled productivity is around $15 and you want to increase the minimum wage from $8 to $10... the number of job losses is unlikely to be large. Automatically Appended Next Post:
They both have nobel in their names, but they're different prizes, awarded by different panels, for very different reasons.
Martin Chalfie and Roger Y Tsien won the prize for chemistry in 2008. Must have been for all that left wing chemistry they did.
75775
Post by: Rismonite
I never thought I'd be worth 35$/hour.
And get 48/hour weeks every 4 out of 8 weeks in 2 months.. (And 36 hour in the other 4 weeks).
Does it matter that we are all still not rich?
5470
Post by: sebster
Spartak wrote:Did you not watch the videos of Mr Friedman explaining these very things? lol
Are you aware of the areas of economic study in which Friedman is highly regarded, and the areas in which he is not? Because it's just really simple to say 'he is smart has Nobel and knows economics and therefore listen', but it doesn't work like that.
I mean, if you want absolutely state of the art market design theory research you'd want to read and listen to Lloyd Shapley, but if you figured because he won a Nobel he'd automatically be the best person to listen to on matters of macroeconomics, game theory, behavioural economics or other similar issues then you'd just be completely wrong. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:The problem with the "livng wage" supporting 1 person, or as Alf stated two supporting a family of 3, is that none of the people striking at mcdonalds want to only support a family of three. In all the articles and interviews, the sob stories are about people that have made poor decisions and have famikies larger than 3.
Meh. Once you're past two kids then the costs don't really grow that fast. Stuff gets handed down, dinners have the same amount of meat, but just bulked up with more low cost carbs... stuff like that. If you can keep your head above water with 2 kids then you can do it with 3 or 4, provided those kids are to the same partner, and that you're all under the one roof.
So yeah, probably a pretty reasonable standard would be two minimum wage jobs providing for a family of four. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Short hand... there are much more loans/grants offered to the poor than the middle class.
I had to take the hard way to pay for college... my folks made good money, but not enough to help me with school. Ergo... they made too much for me to qualify for the same lower interest loans / grants that the poor can qualify.
Then how do you explain the US having a much lower rate of college attendance for the children of poor compared to other developed countries?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote:
I did earlier in the thread Frazz. Housing, food, health care (i.e. being able to pay for that emergency room trip because you're an eligible bachelor with no health insurance ), and transportation (bike, car, bus, subway).
Define housing.
Define food
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
There's also some difficulty of applying say Swedish policies on a nation of 330 million when those policies are based in a nation with the population of a U.S. state. It's a matter of scale and cost, do we need to improve US education? Yes absolutely. Raise the minimum wage like we're discussing in this thread? Probably not the answer we actually want.
See (first) quote in sig.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote: I did earlier in the thread Frazz. Housing, food, health care (i.e. being able to pay for that emergency room trip because you're an eligible bachelor with no health insurance ), and transportation (bike, car, bus, subway).
Define housing. Define food
I said earlier in this thread that it should be able to cover a decent (not lavish, not crappy) 1 bedroom 1 bath apartment with a kitchen/dining area, and obviously food is, "enough food for 3 meals a day." feth dude, I'm not an expert on this gak, I'm just a guy that wishes the money I made at my non-McJob was enough to support myself on my own, but that was an issue of me accruing too much debt going to college, and I'm paying that down as fast as I can. I'm living in my means because I've seen first hand what happens when your debt becomes too much for your income. While we never lived lavishly, my family had to move several times when I was a kid because my dad lost his job and we were slowly drowning in our crappy mortgage and moved into duplexes for several years while we recovered financially from bankruptcy. The self-sustainability standard doesn't explicitly define what these things are exactly (like a 1 bedroom 1 bath, etc...) but it does define it as the amount a person needs to make to afford these things without public subsidies (i.e. public housing, medicaid, food stamps, WIC, etc...) and without private/informal assistance (like having a relative babysit your child, shared housing, or food provided by food banks). So what do you actually define as food and housing (ya know, besides a cardboard box and some of that kibble that makes its own gravy)
221
Post by: Frazzled
You want a one bedroom apartment WITH a dining area for working at McDonalds? Wow, ok.
Now if you're working full time at a real job, ayah I'm down with that and more. But McDonalds minimum wage? No way. Digging ditches requires more effort.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Frazzled wrote:You want a one bedroom apartment WITH a dining area for working at McDonalds? Wow, ok.
If I work 40 hours a week at McDonalds and I make minimum wage, why shouldn't I be able to live on my own in something larger than a college dorm room? If I wanted cramped gakky living conditions, I would have either stayed in college, or joined the Navy. The problem isn't entirely with the McDonalds paying minimum wage, it's with the fact that working full time at McDonalds is next to impossible because they can just hire 2 of you and make you both work 20 hours max a week.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week. Hell a person working at McDonalds and supporting themselves on that income is less of a drain on our economy than I am. I give jack and gak to the local economy because my white collar office job pay goes to the Federal Government, PNC, Discover, and Fifth Third Bank.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week. Hell a person working at McDonalds and supporting themselves on that income is less of a drain on our economy than I am. I give jack and gak to the local economy because my white collar office job pay goes to the Federal Government, PNC, Discover, and Fifth Third Bank.
If you think that you are worth more then what you are currently being paid, why don't you get a better paying job then?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week.
Why? Again, you're acting like society owes this to you. Why?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
PhantomViper wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week. Hell a person working at McDonalds and supporting themselves on that income is less of a drain on our economy than I am. I give jack and gak to the local economy because my white collar office job pay goes to the Federal Government, PNC, Discover, and Fifth Third Bank.
If you think that you are worth more then what you are currently being paid, why don't you get a better paying job then?
I'm currently in the second round of interviews for a better paying job. Please point out where I've stated that people should be paid more than they're worth?
All that I've been saying is that there is a standard of what a person needs to make literally in order to live with food, shelter, and transportation. Here's the fethed up part... It's generally more than minimum wage. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week.
Why? Again, you're acting like society owes this to you. Why?
Frazz, society doesn't owe me gak, but someone that is willing to put in the time and effort to work a 40 hour week should be able to survive on their own.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Alfndrate wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week. Hell a person working at McDonalds and supporting themselves on that income is less of a drain on our economy than I am. I give jack and gak to the local economy because my white collar office job pay goes to the Federal Government, PNC, Discover, and Fifth Third Bank.
If you think that you are worth more then what you are currently being paid, why don't you get a better paying job then?
I'm currently in the second round of interviews for a better paying job. Please point out where I've stated that people should be paid more than they're worth?
All that I've been saying is that there is a standard of what a person needs to make literally in order to live with food, shelter, and transportation. Here's the fethed up part... It's generally more than minimum wage.
Good for you, its always nice to see young people realise that they can do better and to try achieve those things.
People are paid what they are worth, if society believes that minimum wage workers aren't worth enough to be able to afford housing on their own, then so be it. Arguing for a raise in minimum wage is then the same as arguing for people to be paid more than they are worth in societies eyes.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
PhantomViper wrote:Good for you, its always nice to see young people realise that they can do better and to try achieve those things.
How do I know you're not younger than me?
People are paid what they are worth, if society believes that minimum wage workers aren't worth enough to be able to afford housing on their own, then so be it. Arguing for a raise in minimum wage is then the same as arguing for people to be paid more than they are worth in societies eyes.
And Frazz is a perfect example of that, questioning why "I" should be able to live on a McJob making minimum wage. I've not argued for or against raising minimum wage, all I pointed out is that there is an example of a "living wage" set up through the self-sustainability standard that varies from state to state (and by county to county). The Federal Minimum Wage is a bit of a bollocks as it is, it's too low to actually provide for the people working these things. Also like I said, no one would pay a minimum wage McDonalds worker to work 40 hours a week because they can get away with hiring 2 people to work 20 hours.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Alfndrate wrote:PhantomViper wrote:Good for you, its always nice to see young people realise that they can do better and to try achieve those things.
How do I know you're not younger than me?
I thought I read in a post of yours that you were 21? If I've mistaken you for someone else, then you have my deepest apologies.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
PhantomViper wrote: Alfndrate wrote:PhantomViper wrote:Good for you, its always nice to see young people realise that they can do better and to try achieve those things.
How do I know you're not younger than me?
I thought I read in a post of yours that you were 21? If I've mistaken you for someone else, then you have my deepest apologies.
Lawl, hotsauceman1 is 21 I believe, I'm 25, you are probably still older than me, but I too could have thought that you were maybe a year or so younger than me
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Alfndrate wrote:
Lawl, hotsauceman1 is 21 I believe, I'm 25, you are probably still older than me, but I too could have thought that you were maybe a year or so younger than me
I wish!
I'm actually a very old and run down 36...
19370
Post by: daedalus
I would think it must be difficult to focus on picking yourself up by your bootstraps while living below the poverty line and working an unskilled 40 hours a week.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
daedalus wrote:I would think it must be difficult to focus on picking yourself up by your bootstraps while living below the poverty line and working an unskilled 40 hours a week.
I don't get that. Wouldn't that be a primary motivating factor?
19377
Post by: Grundz
cincydooley wrote: daedalus wrote:I would think it must be difficult to focus on picking yourself up by your bootstraps while living below the poverty line and working an unskilled 40 hours a week.
I don't get that. Wouldn't that be a primary motivating factor?
sure, if only you had time to go to school while working 72 hours a week on the mcdonalds economic model.
19370
Post by: daedalus
cincydooley wrote: daedalus wrote:I would think it must be difficult to focus on picking yourself up by your bootstraps while living below the poverty line and working an unskilled 40 hours a week.
I don't get that. Wouldn't that be a primary motivating factor?
It would, but simple motivation isn't always enough. Consider the infamous McDonald's budget jpg. It made ends meet assuming you're working more than 40 hours/week, and that's assuming lowball figures on some things.
Now you're working more than 40 hours a week, and you have 25 dollars a day to spend on gas/bus and food.
How do you pay for those services required to facilitate picking yourself up by your bootstraps? School is expensive. Not everyone qualifies for loans. I only had qualifying government loans covering about half my expenses and I went to one of the cheapest colleges in Illinois. My dad "made too much", despite not actually making too much, and that haunts you until you're 25 or 26, I forget which.
And to a certain extent, you're assuming rational actors involved. You're not considering the human element. People in disparaging conditions are given to disparage. There's an emotional element that needs to be appealed to, because people who are convinced they will never be more than they are will continue doing just that.
It's not just about minimum wage. It's about convincing people that they have a chance at improving their lives and making sure that they have just enough at the bottom to improve those conditions should they desire.
68355
Post by: easysauce
I worked up to 40$/ hr from MC donalds wages....
because I lived in a small place, read smaller then a dorm, and budgeted for the money I made, not the money i wanted to make.
yes it is fething hard...
it should be...
no one owes you anything, but keep working hard, it sounds like you are trying you best, and be patient, and eventually you can get ahead...
working 40 hrs a week at mc'ds is enough to have a place to live, food to eat, ect... that it is not enough for a bigger place to live, or better food to eat, is not really a valid point, as its not a job that should make that kind of $...
my advice is that its much easier to get into the trades or somthing semi skilled/labour that pays more, and use that to pay for education, then it is to go from a mc'd job straight to a university one, while paying for UNI on a mc'd salary Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus wrote:Now you're working more than 40 hours a week, and you have 25 dollars a day to spend on gas/bus and food.
How do you pay for those services required to facilitate picking yourself up by your bootstraps? School is expensive. .
are you kidding me.... I would have KILLED fore 25 $ a day back then... that is a HUGE amount of money to have for each day... I can get to work, and feed myself, for 10$ a day (I can get by on less actually, but lets be,extra conservative with the #'s) thats 15$ to do whatever I want with, every day, so 30 day months thats 450$ of purly disposable income...
if school is out of budget, its out of budget, its not the only way to get a job better then MC'ds... take up welding/carpentry/electrical/ect ect ect any of the plethora of semi skilled trades/labour jobs that actually pay 15$+ an hour, and THEN you can get into school.
its all about incremental steps,
yes there is a freaking huge "mountain" in front of you to move to "make it" and get a good job + school +more $ whatever...
you cannot move the whole thing at once, its stone by stone by stone over a loooooong time.
its the same mountain everyone else had to move, just be patient and stick with taking one step at a time.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 easysauce wrote:
daedalus wrote:Now you're working more than 40 hours a week, and you have 25 dollars a day to spend on gas/bus and food.
How do you pay for those services required to facilitate picking yourself up by your bootstraps? School is expensive. .
are you kidding me.... I would have KILLED fore 25 $ a day back then... that is a HUGE amount of money to have for each day... I can get to work, and feed myself, for 10$ a day (I can get by on less actually, but lets be,extra conservative with the #'s) thats 15$ to do whatever I want with, every day, so 30 day months thats 450$ of purly disposable income...
Killed for $25 a day back when? That IS a huge amount of money if you turn back the clock far enough. It's still a pretty decent amount of money today. I hasten to remind you that, per the McBudget, you have those $25 to spend because you're working 71 hours a week at minimum wage. Obviously, any one unwilling to do that for basic expenses covered and $25 a day to spend on food and gas must be looking for a handout.
if school is out of budget, its out of budget, its not the only way to get a job better then MC'ds... take up welding/carpentry/electrical/ect ect ect any of the plethora of semi skilled trades/labour jobs that actually pay 15$+ an hour, and THEN you can get into school.
its all about incremental steps,
yes there is a freaking huge "mountain" in front of you to move to "make it" and get a good job + school +more $ whatever...
you cannot move the whole thing at once, its stone by stone by stone over a loooooong time.
its the same mountain everyone else had to move, just be patient and stick with taking one step at a time.
I agree with all of that. That's where that human element of despair comes into play.
68355
Post by: easysauce
it was 10 years ago, so its not like it was back when a nickel could buy you a milkshake, fries, and a burger or anything
my "mc budget is this"
80 hours per check, at 7$/hr = 560 per check, or 1120 per month (actually slightly more as there is the odd month where you will have 3 paychecks, but lest call that "bonus" money for fun stuff and not includ it)
I can get my OWN apartment, bachelor of course about 300 square feet, for 360 per month, utilities ~60 per month including heat water, power, cable, and DSL. phone is another 15/month for enough minutes to cover the important phone calls. so we are at 435/month to keep me alive, entertained, and connected to the world. 5-10 dollars a day for food (food bank is great to bring this down even farther) so 150-300 a month for food depending on if you eat out or lots of meats/fancy/junk foods.
so we are at 735, high end, with 385$ left over to do whatever we want with, each month. lets save about half, so 200$, and now we have 185$ to spend on warhammer or solid gold backscrathers.
there, a balanced mcD budget, at 7$/hr. I dont know if the states is the same, but in canada at that wage you wont pay tax, so thats not in the equation.
eating 87c cans of beans/soups or portions of chicken/rice/beans at ~1$
that same can of beans is 1.15 now, but its still doable to eat what you need to live on 5$ or less a day, sometimes its on sale too...
so sad that to this day I still like franks and beans... or great!more $ for models and solid gold backscratchers right!?!
and in all honesty, I wish you nothing but the best and really do want you to succeed, you will if you keep at it!
1206
Post by: Easy E
Spartak wrote:
Krugman won his prize in 2008, at this point it's an achievement award for being a progressive. Friedman won his in 1976, you know, when it was awarded for actually doing things. To address your quote, its flat out wrong ( IMO typical of liberal economists) Not only is there clear historical evidence of Min wage reducing employment, it’s a extremely common sense logical position to take.
"That is weak. Next time, if you got nothing don't bother joining in. " hmmm Ironic...
Look, when you whole argument boils down to "My expert is right because he is conservative and your expert is wrong because he is liberal; yeah I get a bit pissed off. That's not an argument. That is an ideology. It is the sign of someone not really open to logical argument.
"cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers"
Unless the majority of your firms workforce is minimum wage workers, the bulk of an organizations overhead is wages. thats why companies do that thing called a layoff.
This doesn't even make sense. If most of thw work force isn't minimum wage, why should that impact your business at all? Yes, the bulk of overhead is wages; but by your own argument, the overhead is barely impacted because the bulk of the workforce is not minimum wage. What exactly are you trying to say here, because what you are saying doesn't seem to be what you want to say. I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you were trying to argue somethign different.
"employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin."
Oh, thanks for makeing my point for me: Reduced hours, benefits, training Yay! Increase prices to consumers SWEET! Did you not watch the videos of Mr Friedman explaining these very things? lol
Except it doesn't. Business have a range of options to deal with the change. The conclusion listed some of them, and you repeated it. However, the actual solution business use is to avoid turnover and maintain employees because it is cheaper to retain than to cause turnover in the long run. That is the sentence right below the one you quoted.
Anyway, I'm only two pages late to the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week.
Why? Again, you're acting like society owes this to you. Why?
Spociety doesn't owe us anything, but it should do what is in its best interests.
If the youth/poor doesn't feel like it has a fair shake, guess what happens? Civil Unrest. Look at the Mid-East or the outskirts of Paris for an example.
Granted the ballot box gives most democracies a way for the population to express our anger on a semi-regularly basis, but that only goes so far. Stability demands that people feel like they can have social mobility.
73552
Post by: surixurient
The minimum wage is the basis of the value of our currency. When you buy a widget it costs x hours of minimum wage. This basic realization is all it takes to understand what happens when the minimum wage is raised. The value of work can not be artificially inflated, work has a specific value, if the number of dollars assigned to that work are increased by legislation than the value of the work was not increased, rather the value of those dollars just FELL. Even idiot americans like us with public school educations should be able to digest these simple realities, but apparently not.
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote:The minimum wage is the basis of the value of our currency. When you buy a widget it costs x hours of minimum wage. This basic realization is all it takes to understand what happens when the minimum wage is raised. The value of work can not be artificially inflated, work has a specific value, if the number of dollars assigned to that work are increased by legislation than the value of the work was not increased, rather the value of those dollars just FELL. Even idiot americans like us with public school educations should be able to digest these simple realities, but apparently not.
Last time we had one of these threads, I saw an interesting rebuttal to this. I might try to find it.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
daedalus wrote: cincydooley wrote: daedalus wrote:I would think it must be difficult to focus on picking yourself up by your bootstraps while living below the poverty line and working an unskilled 40 hours a week.
I don't get that. Wouldn't that be a primary motivating factor?
It would, but simple motivation isn't always enough. Consider the infamous McDonald's budget jpg. It made ends meet assuming you're working more than 40 hours/week, and that's assuming lowball figures on some things.
Now you're working more than 40 hours a week, and you have 25 dollars a day to spend on gas/bus and food.
How do you pay for those services required to facilitate picking yourself up by your bootstraps? School is expensive. Not everyone qualifies for loans. I only had qualifying government loans covering about half my expenses and I went to one of the cheapest colleges in Illinois. My dad "made too much", despite not actually making too much, and that haunts you until you're 25 or 26, I forget which.
And to a certain extent, you're assuming rational actors involved. You're not considering the human element. People in disparaging conditions are given to disparage. There's an emotional element that needs to be appealed to, because people who are convinced they will never be more than they are will continue doing just that.
It's not just about minimum wage. It's about convincing people that they have a chance at improving their lives and making sure that they have just enough at the bottom to improve those conditions should they desire.
Yes. There's certainly none of that everyone can succeed feel goody nonsense going on in the United States.
You're young and working a minimum wage job? Get a roommate. Boom. Your living expenses are cut in half.
73552
Post by: surixurient
daedalus wrote: surixurient wrote:The minimum wage is the basis of the value of our currency. When you buy a widget it costs x hours of minimum wage. This basic realization is all it takes to understand what happens when the minimum wage is raised. The value of work can not be artificially inflated, work has a specific value, if the number of dollars assigned to that work are increased by legislation than the value of the work was not increased, rather the value of those dollars just FELL. Even idiot americans like us with public school educations should be able to digest these simple realities, but apparently not.
Last time we had one of these threads, I saw an interesting rebuttal to this. I might try to find it.
I usually hear something along the lines of 'inflation is good, it redistributes wealth to where it will be more productive.'
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
Because I'm not being a lazy feth and I am actually working? Dude McDonalds is a gak job, but if you work 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself like any respectable that is willing to work 40 hours a week.
Why? Again, you're acting like society owes this to you. Why?
Society should be structured around the needs of the people who make it up. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
19370
Post by: daedalus
cincydooley wrote:
Yes. There's certainly none of that everyone can succeed feel goody nonsense going on in the United States.
There's really not. Pessimism and doubt about the future is what I hear most often. The fact that you deride it as such goes forward to prove that. And it's like you say, it's nonsense. You're probably 100% correct. It's like a placebo though. You convince someone they can improve themselves, and they will. But if you can convince them they're trapped cage they can't escape from, they'll lay down like a dog and live in it even when they can't see the bars.
You're young and working a minimum wage job? Get a roommate. Boom. Your living expenses are cut in half.
Heh, I'm not young and I'm that meritocracy success story you base your argument on, and I STILL have a roommate.
In spite of that, I look at my life and see a few pivotal points where I was in the right place at the right time, or getting to know someone who just hit the right place at the right time. It made me realize that, no matter what I know, how good I am at what I do or how hard I try, were it not for those few times there would definitely be many less degrees of success separating me from the haggard dirty bum in line at the church soup kitchen I drive past every day on my way home from work.
73552
Post by: surixurient
xruslanx wrote:. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
 100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.
221
Post by: Frazzled
There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.
There are the way things should be, and the way things are.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.
Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote:There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.
There are the way things should be, and the way things are.
Things are only the way they are because people got too lazy to work on the shoulds.
In that sense, the people who are happy with the status quo must be the lazy and stupid ones, and not always the people on the bottom of society.
73552
Post by: surixurient
xruslanx wrote: surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.
Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.
By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote:There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.
There are the way things should be, and the way things are.
That does kind of read like an apology for the status quo. Automatically Appended Next Post: surixurient wrote:By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.
The basis of your argument appears to be: "because things were worse at other times and places, the things that are seen now by some as needing to change are not worth talking about, let alone changing."
Is that incorrect?
73552
Post by: surixurient
daedalus wrote: Frazzled wrote:There's that "Shoulds" again. I "should" be even more dashing and handsome then I am. I "should" not have to lesser to all those voices in my head telling me to eat all that Tex Mex I just had. I "should" win the Lotto tonight because Daddy need a new pair of everything.
There are the way things should be, and the way things are.
That does kind of read like an apology for the status quo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
surixurient wrote:By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.
The basis of your argument appears to be: "because things were worse at other times and places, the things that are seen now by some as needing to change are not worth talking about, let alone changing."
Is that incorrect?
No, the argument is, no one is owed luxuries.
1206
Post by: Easy E
And no one is offering luxuries.
I'm really not sure where raising the minimum wage for low level workers= luxuries.
What is this the Gilded Age?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
73552
Post by: surixurient
Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.
housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.
1206
Post by: Easy E
surixurient wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.
So now the truth behind all the fancy rhetoric comes out. Everyone who is worse off than you is a deadbeat loser.
That seems to be the heart of these discussions. There is a lot of rhetoric and psuedo-logic; but it always boils down to "I've got mine, so Feth you. I worked for my money and deserve it. You obviously are inferior and don't deserve it."
73552
Post by: surixurient
I would like to say that I want everyone to be able to afford 2 cars and a life of luxury. The way to make that happen is to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those goals. Getting out of their way would be the most important thing. And after that would be fostering a pro business environment, striking the right balance with environmental and labor issues to allow mines and factories to open in this country instead of over seas.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Easy E wrote:
So now the truth behind all the fancy rhetoric comes out. Everyone who is worse off than you is a deadbeat loser.
That seems to be the heart of these discussions. There is a lot of rhetoric and psuedo-logic; but it always boils down to "I've got mine, so Feth you. I worked for my money and deserve it. You obviously are inferior and don't deserve it."
Except that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all that bs he listed is a Luxury item, is 100% non-essential, and shouldn't even be considered in the equation when calculating a "living wage."
No one "deserves" anything. Notice when the founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, they wrote "pursuit of happiness". They didn't write the "guarantee of happiness".
When I got laid off the first thing we cut was our cable. It wasn't a hard choice to make. We also stopped going out to eat. The biggest problem I have with any discussion about a living wage is too many people include luxuries and non essentials into their calculations. But then again, I also think that food stamps and WIC vouchers should only include non-name brands and should include food pyramid basics like bread, milk, eggs, fruits and veggies, as protein.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.
73552
Post by: surixurient
daedalus wrote: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.
Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
daedalus wrote: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.
I can go to Wal mart or pay less and get a new pair for less than $15. They're not Nikes, but again, name brands are luxuries.
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
When someone without a smart phone, cable tv, weekly manicure, 100 dollar sneakers, weekly bag of weed, who doesnt smoke or drink cannot afford housing, food, and transportation, and doesn't have some legitimate reason for not being capable of working, then we can talk.
Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?
housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.
And now, the fact that what makes sense for one area with its own cost of living stops making sense for another one with its own cost of living. I think you are lowballing transportation, but I'm assuming you have a car. I'm not hip on what bus rates are like, but I'd imagine they would fall into that category. In St. Louis, $500/month split between rent and utilities will get you either someplace borderline dangerous to live, or some place far enough in the middle of nowhere that you need a car.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and batroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote:
Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?
So then are we classifying something as a luxury based upon it being cheap, how many people have them, or whether it was a luxury 100 years ago?
Also, Fox News thinks that your fridge is a luxury.
73552
Post by: surixurient
hotsauceman1 wrote:
How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?
How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?
How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?
Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.
At the far end of the spectrum, how is anything more than the food to survive and enough possessions to legally walk in public NOT a luxury? I mean, the rented room could be a luxury because the church offers a perfectly good shelter, right?
23
Post by: djones520
hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and batroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?
For two years I had a bedroom, and shared a bathroom. That was it. There was no kitchen. No living room. Nothing else. One bedroom for myself, and a shared bathroom. I survived pretty well.
And no, that does not count the time I've been deployed. I could mention living in a tent in -30 degree temps..., having to walk a quarter mile outside to get to a bathroom.
73552
Post by: surixurient
daedalus wrote: surixurient wrote:
Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?
So then are we classifying something as a luxury based upon it being cheap, how many people have them, or whether it was a luxury 100 years ago?
Also, Fox News thinks that your fridge is a luxury.
I'm not saying anything about whether its a luxury, i'm just saying its a non-issue.
Fridges are about 200-300 on craigslist. For something that will last you years, another non-issue.
The real costs are the ones that keep costing: housing, transportation, food, taxes, hobbies, entertainment, addictions, etc.
35807
Post by: Blackskullandy
 surixurient wrote:
Shoes (and clothes in general) are practically free, ever been to a goodwill?
Ever been to a job interview in clothes from the goodwill?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
daedalus wrote:
Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?
Do you actually want the truth? I do a lot of volunteering in inner city schools and work weekly with kids that live in section housing. I'd say 50-60% of the parents I see pick their kids up after school have smart phones and smoke. I'd say 75% have obvious brand names on (I see a lot of polo and lacoste-- gak that I choose not to afford) and about 50-60% of the women have their nails and hair done what looks to be professionally. Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the United States, in most major cities, there are "dressed for success" consignment and goodwill type shops that only have professional looking clothing. There's one on the bottom floor of the building I work at.
23
Post by: djones520
My wife enjoys shopping at goodwill. On the days she drags me in there, I have learned that it would be very easy to put together several outfits that were respectable looking, for a very fair price.
73552
Post by: surixurient
daedalus wrote: surixurient wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
How is that a luxury? A bedroom an a kitchen and bathroom for one person is not a luxury. Or should we put the toilet in the kitchen?
How about renting a room in a home? The facilities are shared. Would that be unreasonably poor conditions?
Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.
At the far end of the spectrum, how is anything more than the food to survive and enough possessions to legally walk in public NOT a luxury? I mean, the rented room could be a luxury because the church offers a perfectly good shelter, right?
Yes, luxury is relative. It says a lot about one's character where you would draw the line.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 daedalus wrote:
Depends upon the number of people crammed into said room, I suppose.
?
This argument would hold a lot more water if college students and Hispanic immigrants didn't routinely do this In order to maximize the money they'd like to have extra--college students for beer and pizza, immigrants to send to their families.
73552
Post by: surixurient
Either you have never looked through their clothing selection, or you live in a poorly dressed community, could be either.
35807
Post by: Blackskullandy
djones520 wrote:
My wife enjoys shopping at goodwill. On the days she drags me in there, I have learned that it would be very easy to put together several outfits that were respectable looking, for a very fair price.
Fair enough, you'd definitely struggle to put together a decent outfit at my local charity shops (I'm assuming they're vaguely comparable).
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
to be fair, There are MANY churches, groups, govt institutions that give you suits or dress ware
19370
Post by: daedalus
Actually, I DID manage to find a suit that fit me almost perfectly (it was a little big) that I wore to my first job interview. The guys there made fun of me for both, wearing a suit too large, and wearing a suit at all. I got the job though.
I still have it. It's my party suit now. Automatically Appended Next Post: I find it difficult to discuss this luxury business any further without having a nailed down definition of luxuries.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Frazzled wrote:Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
I'm sick of your fething bullgak Frazz. Having a bedroom, a bathroom, and a dining/kitchen area is not the high end of living. Not all of us grew up with the need to gak behind a tree while watching out for sabertooth cats and mammoth and not all of us grew up with 5 bathrooms, and enough bedrooms to sleep in a different one every night! The housing section of the self-sustainability standard, the thing I've been discussing this entire thread, says that the cost of housing is based on the uses the most recent Fair Market Rents (FMRs), which are calculated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for each state’s metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. FMRs include utilities (except telephone and cable) and reflect the cost of housing that meets basic standards of decency. FMRs are generally set at the 40th percentile, meaning that 40% of the housing in a given area is less expensive than the FMR.
Here is what the HUD describes as "standards of decency"
Sanitary facilities
---The dwelling unit must include sanitary facilities within the unit.
---The sanitary facilities must be in proper operating condition and adequate for personal cleanliness and disposal of human waste.
---The sanitary facilities must be usable in privacy.
Food preparation and refuse disposal
---The dwelling unit must have suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner.
Space and security
---The dwelling unit must provide adequate space and security for the family.
-----At a minimum, the dwelling unit must have a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom.
-----The dwelling unit must have a least one bedroom or living/sleeping room for every two persons. Other than very young children, children of opposite sex, may not be required to occupy the same bedroom or living/sleeping room.
-----Dwelling unit windows that are accessible from the outside must be lockable.
-----Exterior doors to the unit must be lockable.
Thermal environment
---The dwelling unit must be able to provide a thermal environment that is healthy for the human body.
Illumination and electricity
---Each room must have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and to support the health and safety of occupants.
---The dwelling unit must have sufficient electrical sources so occupants can use essential electrical appliances.
--- Electrical fixtures and wiring must not pose a fire hazard.
Structure and materials
---The dwelling unit must be structurally sound.
---The structure must not present any threat to the health and safety of the occupants and must protect the occupants from the environment.
Interior air quality
---The dwelling unit must be free of air pollutant levels that threaten the occupants’ health.
Water supply
---The water supply must be free of contamination.
Lead-based paint
The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 4821 - 4846) and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and implementing regulations 4 CFR Part 35 Subparts A, B, M, and R apply to the housing choice voucher program.
Access
---Use and maintenance of the unit must be possible without unauthorized use of other private properties.
---The building must provide an alternate means of exit in case of fire.
Site and neighborhood
---The site and neighborhood must be reasonably free from disturbing noises and reverberations
or other dangers to the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants.
Sanitary condition
---The dwelling unit and its equipment must be in sanitary condition.
Smoke Detectors.
---On each level of the dwelling unit including basements, but excluding spaces and unfinished attics at least one battery-operated or hard-wired smoke detector in proper operating condition must be present.
---Smoke detectors must be installed in accordance with and meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA) 74 or its successor standards.
---If a hearing-impaired person is occupying the dwelling unit, the smoke detectors must have an alarm system designed for hearing-impaired persons as specified in NFPA 74.
So there you go Frazz, basic standards of decency set up and accepted by the government, including your great state of Texas's government. Since I know you're as old as my father (older than dirt), I've taken and bolded the appropriate areas so that your feeble, failing eyes can see the text that is important to my oh so luxurious standards of housing.
You can't argue that the Standard is arguing for wages that are too high because it bases everything on the actual cost of goods in the current market place (which is why the standard for a single adult in my county is different from a single adult in Cincy's county).
 Automatically Appended Next Post:
The job I have now, and the job I interviewed for recently I had a dress shirt and tie from Goodwill, a hand me down sports coat from my dad, and pants I've had for almost a decade now. The most expensive thing were my shoes.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Alfndrate wrote:
Thermal environment
---The dwelling unit must be able to provide a thermal environment that is healthy for the human body.
Water supply
---The water supply must be free of contamination.
Interesting, those were luxuries we hadn't even considered up until this point.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Yeah, hearing is required, cooling is not. You can much more easily freeze to death than you can overheat, at least in most parts of the US.
Contaminant free water isn't really much or a luxury, is it? Unless you're drawing from your own well, your municipality is already doing that
221
Post by: Frazzled
daedalus wrote: Frazzled wrote: Alfndrate wrote:
So you're cool with people being able to afford housing, food and transportation?
Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
Certain definitions of luxury would include shoes.
Pfft shoes are for the weak!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alfndrate wrote: Frazzled wrote:Your definition of housing for one person is indeed a luxury.
I'm sick of your fething bullgak Frazz. Having a bedroom, a bathroom, and a dining/kitchen area is not the high end of living. Not all of us grew up with the need to gak behind a tree while watching out for sabertooth cats and mammoth and not all of us grew up with 5 bathrooms, and enough bedrooms to sleep in a different one every night! The housing section of the self-sustainability standard, the thing I've been discussing this entire thread, says that the cost of housing is based on the uses the most recent Fair Market Rents (FMRs), which are calculated annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for each state’s metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. FMRs include utilities (except telephone and cable) and reflect the cost of housing that meets basic standards of decency. FMRs are generally set at the 40th percentile, meaning that 40% of the housing in a given area is less expensive than the FMR. Here is what the HUD describes as "standards of decency" Sanitary facilities
---The dwelling unit must include sanitary facilities within the unit.
---The sanitary facilities must be in proper operating condition and adequate for personal cleanliness and disposal of human waste.
---The sanitary facilities must be usable in privacy. Food preparation and refuse disposal
---The dwelling unit must have suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner. Space and security ---The dwelling unit must provide adequate space and security for the family. -----At a minimum, the dwelling unit must have a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. -----The dwelling unit must have a least one bedroom or living/sleeping room for every two persons. Other than very young children, children of opposite sex, may not be required to occupy the same bedroom or living/sleeping room. -----Dwelling unit windows that are accessible from the outside must be lockable. -----Exterior doors to the unit must be lockable. Thermal environment ---The dwelling unit must be able to provide a thermal environment that is healthy for the human body. Illumination and electricity ---Each room must have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and to support the health and safety of occupants. ---The dwelling unit must have sufficient electrical sources so occupants can use essential electrical appliances. --- Electrical fixtures and wiring must not pose a fire hazard. Structure and materials ---The dwelling unit must be structurally sound. ---The structure must not present any threat to the health and safety of the occupants and must protect the occupants from the environment. Interior air quality ---The dwelling unit must be free of air pollutant levels that threaten the occupants’ health. Water supply ---The water supply must be free of contamination. Lead-based paint The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 4821 - 4846) and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and implementing regulations 4 CFR Part 35 Subparts A, B, M, and R apply to the housing choice voucher program. Access ---Use and maintenance of the unit must be possible without unauthorized use of other private properties. ---The building must provide an alternate means of exit in case of fire. Site and neighborhood ---The site and neighborhood must be reasonably free from disturbing noises and reverberations or other dangers to the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants. Sanitary condition ---The dwelling unit and its equipment must be in sanitary condition. Smoke Detectors. ---On each level of the dwelling unit including basements, but excluding spaces and unfinished attics at least one battery-operated or hard-wired smoke detector in proper operating condition must be present. ---Smoke detectors must be installed in accordance with and meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA) 74 or its successor standards. ---If a hearing-impaired person is occupying the dwelling unit, the smoke detectors must have an alarm system designed for hearing-impaired persons as specified in NFPA 74. So there you go Frazz, basic standards of decency set up and accepted by the government, including your great state of Texas's government. Since I know you're as old as my father (older than dirt), I've taken and bolded the appropriate areas so that your feeble, failing eyes can see the text that is important to my oh so luxurious standards of housing. You can't argue that the Standard is arguing for wages that are too high because it bases everything on the actual cost of goods in the current market place (which is why the standard for a single adult in my county is different from a single adult in Cincy's county). Automatically Appended Next Post: The job I have now, and the job I interviewed for recently I had a dress shirt and tie from Goodwill, a hand me down sports coat from my dad, and pants I've had for almost a decade now. The most expensive thing were my shoes.
I like the bold! Evidently you should be able afford better than many many studio apartments in NY and San Francisco making minimum wage at McDonalds. Why does a burger flipper get more then many people in San Francisco? Why do you deserve a separate bedroom? Why do you deserve a dining area? Thats pretty choice for a single guy. Note your standard is better then the high end dorm I'm paying rediculous amounts of money to house the money pit that is Number One Son. He does have the benefit of being on a floor with 70% bouncing baby coeds though... Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:Yeah, hearing is required, cooling is not. You can much more easily freeze to death than you can overheat, at least in most parts of the US. Contaminant free water isn't really much or a luxury, is it? Unless you're drawing from your own well, your municipality is already doing that
in Texas at one time, air conditioning was required under warranties of habitability. Because when its 105 you canmore easily die of heat exhaustion then freezing to death.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote: surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.
Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.
By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.
People 100 years ago had cigarettes and alcohol too. But they were cheaper then because the government didn't actively hate the poor.
And earning mimimum wage in your 20s isn't a sign of failure.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
xruslanx wrote: surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote: surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:. It would be very strange if people in real terms were poorer now than they were 100 years ago, where someone in a low-paid job *could* support a family.
100 years ago supporting a family meant being able to keep them from starving to death.
Sure. That and clothes. And heating. That takes up a huge chunk of lower income earners' money even today. I have friends who struggle to provide for kids on minimum wage, if it weren't for government handouts they simply couldn't afford to.
By struggling i take it you mean that they can barely afford their smart phone payments, cable tv subscription, and weekly alcohol and cigarette consumption. For how many years have they worked at minimum wage without any sort of promotion? Whose fault in that? It may seem to you like I am being cruel, but the reality is that we live in the lap of luxury compared to 100 years ago and have little to complain about. These are first world problems, and anyone is more than capable of living out a fulfilled and happy life with problems such as those found in a first world country.
People 100 years ago had cigarettes and alcohol too. But they were cheaper then because the government didn't actively hate the poor.
And earning mimimum wage in your 20s isn't a sign of failure.
You think that cigarettes and alcohol are as expensive as they are because the "Government hates the poor"?
I used to work on the Canadian border at a gas station. Let me tell you, Cigarettes cost $25 a pack in Canada, and a roll of Copenhagen Chew costs $20. I constantly was told about how much cheaper it was in the US, as a pack of cigarettes is at most $6.40 (Newport) and at $3.85 the cheapest (Sonoma). Heck, our Copenhagen only costs $4.64 with tax.
Do you know why it's so much more expensive up there? Universal Health Care; the government simply does NOT want it's citizens smoking/chewing, because they have to pay for it.
We will see an increase in cig prices, but NOT because the "government hates the poor".
77217
Post by: xruslanx
 Slarg232 wrote:
You think that cigarettes and alcohol are as expensive as they are because the "Government hates the poor"?
I used to work on the Canadian border at a gas station. Let me tell you, Cigarettes cost $25 a pack in Canada, and a roll of Copenhagen Chew costs $20. I constantly was told about how much cheaper it was in the US, as a pack of cigarettes is at most $6.40 (Newport) and at $3.85 the cheapest (Sonoma). Heck, our Copenhagen only costs $4.64 with tax.
Do you know why it's so much more expensive up there? Universal Health Care; the government simply does NOT want it's citizens smoking/chewing, because they have to pay for it.
We will see an increase in cig prices, but NOT because the "government hates the poor".
No, the government hates the poor. In terms of aggregate cost to society, you *want* people to smoke and drink. Dying of lung cancer in your 60s is a lot cheaper than living into your 80s, drawing a pension all that time, probably on medication, hearing aids, free eye tests, hip replacements, cat scans. And the entire time the chance of further degenerative diseases developing goes up and up - things like Parkinson's, dementia, etc.
Alcohol and cigarettes are expensive because the political class of our country despise the poor. There is no reason whatsoever for 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes to go to the government, other than a cultural sneer at the living habits of the poor.
73552
Post by: surixurient
xruslanx wrote:
And earning mimimum wage in your 20s isn't a sign of failure.
in your early 20s, certainly not. late 20s, your starting to run low on excuses at that point. Automatically Appended Next Post: xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:
You think that cigarettes and alcohol are as expensive as they are because the "Government hates the poor"?
I used to work on the Canadian border at a gas station. Let me tell you, Cigarettes cost $25 a pack in Canada, and a roll of Copenhagen Chew costs $20. I constantly was told about how much cheaper it was in the US, as a pack of cigarettes is at most $6.40 (Newport) and at $3.85 the cheapest (Sonoma). Heck, our Copenhagen only costs $4.64 with tax.
Do you know why it's so much more expensive up there? Universal Health Care; the government simply does NOT want it's citizens smoking/chewing, because they have to pay for it.
We will see an increase in cig prices, but NOT because the "government hates the poor".
No, the government hates the poor. In terms of aggregate cost to society, you *want* people to smoke and drink. Dying of lung cancer in your 60s is a lot cheaper than living into your 80s, drawing a pension all that time, probably on medication, hearing aids, free eye tests, hip replacements, cat scans. And the entire time the chance of further degenerative diseases developing goes up and up - things like Parkinson's, dementia, etc.
Alcohol and cigarettes are expensive because the political class of our country despise the poor. There is no reason whatsoever for 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes to go to the government, other than a cultural sneer at the living habits of the poor.
agreed
77217
Post by: xruslanx
surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:
And earning mimimum wage in your 20s isn't a sign of failure.
in your early 20s, certainly not. late 20s, your starting to run low on excuses at that point.
What, like not being born into a wealthy family? Yeah those lazy fethers.
You do realise that America is the one nation on earth that denies the existance of the class system, right? In most countries if you're poor, it's accepted that is a factor of your social class. But no in America, if you're born into a poor family and have to attend a rubbish school, it's *your* fault that you're poor.
23
Post by: djones520
xruslanx wrote: surixurient wrote:xruslanx wrote:
And earning mimimum wage in your 20s isn't a sign of failure.
in your early 20s, certainly not. late 20s, your starting to run low on excuses at that point.
What, like not being born into a wealthy family? Yeah those lazy fethers.
You do realise that America is the one nation on earth that denies the existance of the class system, right? In most countries if you're poor, it's accepted that is a factor of your social class. But no in America, if you're born into a poor family and have to attend a rubbish school, it's *your* fault that you're poor.
No... it's your fault that you didn't pick yourself up and make a better life for yourself.
I was born into a poor family. Went to a poor school. Earning 55k a year right now,and will be making 62k a year next year. We all make choices in life that have consequences. Choosing to waste your childhood gets you to end up being poor your adult life. Sucks to be you.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:
You think that cigarettes and alcohol are as expensive as they are because the "Government hates the poor"?
I used to work on the Canadian border at a gas station. Let me tell you, Cigarettes cost $25 a pack in Canada, and a roll of Copenhagen Chew costs $20. I constantly was told about how much cheaper it was in the US, as a pack of cigarettes is at most $6.40 (Newport) and at $3.85 the cheapest (Sonoma). Heck, our Copenhagen only costs $4.64 with tax.
Do you know why it's so much more expensive up there? Universal Health Care; the government simply does NOT want it's citizens smoking/chewing, because they have to pay for it.
We will see an increase in cig prices, but NOT because the "government hates the poor".
No, the government hates the poor. In terms of aggregate cost to society, you *want* people to smoke and drink. Dying of lung cancer in your 60s is a lot cheaper than living into your 80s, drawing a pension all that time, probably on medication, hearing aids, free eye tests, hip replacements, cat scans. And the entire time the chance of further degenerative diseases developing goes up and up - things like Parkinson's, dementia, etc.
Alcohol and cigarettes are expensive because the political class of our country despise the poor. There is no reason whatsoever for 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes to go to the government, other than a cultural sneer at the living habits of the poor.
You're right; it would be far more appropriate to tax milk, bread, or cloths. You know, basic needs instead of just "Oh hey, let me get an addiction to this substance".
And no, I'm not anti smoking; I smoked a pipe in college.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
djones520 wrote:
No... it's your fault that you didn't pick yourself up and make a better life for yourself.
The logical conclusion to that line of thought is that you think every single poor person is inferior to you. Do you think that?
Actually, would you mind expanding on this a bit? Could you outline exactly how you are superior to 95% of your countrymen? Specifically intellectually and morally.
Slarg232 wrote:
You're right; it would be far more appropriate to tax milk, bread, or cloths. You know, basic needs instead of just "Oh hey, let me get an addiction to this substance".
And no, I'm not anti smoking; I smoked a pipe in college.
Well that still counts as anti-smoking. If you think people should be punished specifically for smoking, for no other reason than that they smoke, then that's anti-smoking.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
xruslanx wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
You're right; it would be far more appropriate to tax milk, bread, or cloths. You know, basic needs instead of just "Oh hey, let me get an addiction to this substance".
And no, I'm not anti smoking; I smoked a pipe in college.
Well that still counts as anti-smoking. If you think people should be punished specifically for smoking, for no other reason than that they smoke, then that's anti-smoking.
If being "Pro-Necessities" and thinking it's better to tax something that isn't in that group than anything in that group makes me anti smoking, then I guess I am.
And thanks for dodging my point, you proved me correct.
27391
Post by: purplefood
So...
The government hates the poor so they charge you more money in the hopes that somehow means you smoke and drink more so you can die in your 60's and same them money?
Either you're arguing for the government to start wiping out smokers and drinkers through neglect (By way of stopping taxes on those products so people die quicker) or you are literally arguing against yourself...
68355
Post by: easysauce
wow... I can believe someone would call basically EVERY SINGLE BACHELOR PAD, or even my first apartment, which was one room (living/bed/dining whatever, it was all the same room with a bed, desk, drawers ect fit in somehow) bathroom, and kitchen, both wide enough to stand in, but not to lay down across, something less then adequate.
thats just fine for a single person, was about 300 square feet...
you do not need a whole separate room for a bed, couch, tv and all this stuff you need more room for, but supposedly dont have because you are so kept down be the man and all.
I just folded by mattress up against the wall, and continued living life just fine, at the minimum wage budget, and getting ahead bit by bit.
one clean room, a kitchen/bathroom, is all one person needs.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Slarg232 wrote:xruslanx wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
You're right; it would be far more appropriate to tax milk, bread, or cloths. You know, basic needs instead of just "Oh hey, let me get an addiction to this substance".
And no, I'm not anti smoking; I smoked a pipe in college.
Well that still counts as anti-smoking. If you think people should be punished specifically for smoking, for no other reason than that they smoke, then that's anti-smoking.
If being "Pro-Necessities" and thinking it's better to tax something that isn't in that group than anything in that group makes me anti smoking, then I guess I am.
And thanks for dodging my point, you proved me correct.
There is a tax on non-nessesities, it's called VAT. VAT is applied to tobacco and alcohol, but in addition to this there are further taxes that the government slapped on them in a specific effort to reduce consumption of said products.
Which is all fine and dandy, until you remember that the main consumers of these products are poor people. Hence they represent nothing less than a sanitised political establishment (let's be honest, how many MPs smoke? Most of them probably don't even *know* anyone who smokes) sneering at the "dirty" habits of the poor.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
xruslanx wrote:]
The logical conclusion to that line of thought is that you think every single poor person is inferior to you. Do you think that?
Actually, would you mind expanding on this a bit? Could you outline exactly how you are superior to 95% of your countrymen? Specifically intellectually and morally.
What in the happy feth are you talking about. Logical conclusion? Hardly. The logical conclusion is that he's harder working then other poor people that haven't made the effort to change their socioeconomic status or that blame their situation for their failure. We have too many examples of poor people that become successful in the United States for your claim to be even a remotely cogent argument.
Well that still counts as anti-smoking. If you think people should be punished specifically for smoking, for no other reason than that they smoke, then that's anti-smoking.
Punishing? feth off. No one forces anyone to smoke or drink. They're luxury vices. IMO, they should be taxed more. I also think prostitution should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. Same with marijuana sales. And both of those should similarly be taxed to high hell. Automatically Appended Next Post: xruslanx wrote:. .
Which is all fine and dandy, until you remember that the main consumers of these products are poor people. Hence they represent nothing less than a sanitised political establishment (let's be honest, how many MPs smoke? Most of them probably don't even *know* anyone who smokes) sneering at the "dirty" habits of the poor.
And this is just more ignorant barely cohesive ramblings. These vice products are the "products of poor people". You're nuts. gak, our president smokes.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
cincydooley wrote:
What in the happy feth are you talking about. Logical conclusion? Hardly. The logical conclusion is that he's harder working then other poor people that haven't made the effort to change their socioeconomic status or that blame their situation for their failure. We have too many examples of poor people that become successful in the United States for your claim to be even a remotely cogent argument.
So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.
12313
Post by: Ouze
ITT, poor people are only poor because they are lazy and/or stupid.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:xruslanx wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
You're right; it would be far more appropriate to tax milk, bread, or cloths. You know, basic needs instead of just "Oh hey, let me get an addiction to this substance".
And no, I'm not anti smoking; I smoked a pipe in college.
Well that still counts as anti-smoking. If you think people should be punished specifically for smoking, for no other reason than that they smoke, then that's anti-smoking.
If being "Pro-Necessities" and thinking it's better to tax something that isn't in that group than anything in that group makes me anti smoking, then I guess I am.
And thanks for dodging my point, you proved me correct.
There is a tax on non-nessesities, it's called VAT. VAT is applied to tobacco and alcohol, but in addition to this there are further taxes that the government slapped on them in a specific effort to reduce consumption of said products.
Which is all fine and dandy, until you remember that the main consumers of these products are poor people. Hence they represent nothing less than a sanitised political establishment (let's be honest, how many MPs smoke? Most of them probably don't even *know* anyone who smokes) sneering at the "dirty" habits of the poor.
If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Ouze wrote:ITT, poor people are only poor because they are lazy and/or stupid.
To be fair, I was a stupid 18 yr old when I enrolled at the college I enrolled at
Slarg232 wrote:If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
Because of status. That pack of Pall Mall menthols aren't the same sort of status symbol that the cuban cigar that guy is smoking.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Slarg232 wrote:
If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
...this is why debating on the internet is pointless.
You honestly are demanding that I prove that poor people smoke more than rich people? Sigh. There's some stats here if you like. I look forward to future posts demanding proof that the pope is catholic and that bears gak in the woods.
27391
Post by: purplefood
xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:
If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
...this is why debating on the internet is pointless.
You honestly are demanding that I prove that poor people smoke more than rich people? Sigh. There's some stats here if you like. I look forward to future posts demanding proof that the pope is catholic and that bears gak in the woods.
Sorry but there are more poor people than rich people so even if they smoke the same amount per person poor people overall will smoke more than rich people. You seem to be saying that either rich people don't smoke or drink or that they are exempt from vat...
5470
Post by: sebster
PhantomViper wrote:People are paid what they are worth, if society believes that minimum wage workers aren't worth enough to be able to afford housing on their own, then so be it. Arguing for a raise in minimum wage is then the same as arguing for people to be paid more than they are worth in societies eyes.
Society sets the minimum wage. If they increase it, surely that's what they think it is worth in their eyes? Automatically Appended Next Post:
Motivation is great, but it isn't the beginning and end of the issue. To go out and get a better job you also need time and resources (for training, job interviews etc). And when you need to work 60 hours a week just to break even, then there's little time or money left over to
Exactly how much the greater motivation is offset by the lack of time and money... is something we know. We know it because we can look at countries where the minimum wage and social safety net are high, and see they've got high social mobility (lots of people from lower socio-economic groups moving in to middle and upper socio-economic groups), while at the same time we can see in countries where the minimum wage and social safety is low there is much less social mobility (very few people from lower socio-economic groups moving in to the middle and upper groups).
77217
Post by: xruslanx
 purplefood wrote:xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:
If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
...this is why debating on the internet is pointless.
You honestly are demanding that I prove that poor people smoke more than rich people? Sigh. There's some stats here if you like. I look forward to future posts demanding proof that the pope is catholic and that bears gak in the woods.
Sorry but there are more poor people than rich people so even if they smoke the same amount per person poor people overall will smoke more than rich people. You seem to be saying that either rich people don't smoke or drink or that they are exempt from vat...
Okay I'll spell it out nice and simply.
Cigarettes and alcohol make up a far larger percentage of the income of the poor than they do of the rich. Happy now?
5470
Post by: sebster
We don't write economic policy based on 'what worked for easysauce'. We write policy based on what works for the majority of people.
And when you set a really low minimum wage, a hell of a lot less people drag themselves up in to middle class jobs. It's that simple, really.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Sure. The difference is what constitutes "really low minimum wage" is entirely subjective.
IMO, as long as you have money to spend on things which are not necessities you are making enough to be able to better yourself.
This means any sort of eating out(pack a lunch), ciggs and booze, any food item except basic foodstuffs, any entertainment which isn't free, paying for internet, cable, movie rentals, car(unless it is mandatory to get to work, IE: you absolutely cannot bike, walk, or use any other public transportation)
Anything of that sort is an area you have disposable income in, and could use towards improving yourself instead.
5470
Post by: sebster
surixurient wrote:The minimum wage is the basis of the value of our currency. When you buy a widget it costs x hours of minimum wage. This basic realization is all it takes to understand what happens when the minimum wage is raised.
Your basic realistion is both simplistic and wrong. The minimum wage is one of thousands, possibly millions, of cost inputs in to the economy. The value of work can not be artificially inflated, work has a specific value, if the number of dollars assigned to that work are increased by legislation than the value of the work was not increased, rather the value of those dollars just FELL.
The idea that the market is a perfectly accurate determinant of the worth of a thing is a piece of economic shorthand that just doesn't exist in the real world. Go and read about the perfect market, read about the assumptions necessary for it to actually work. Go read about information assymetry, unequal bargaining power, and zero transaction costs. Think about that and realise the market is a good means of distributing labour resources, but it is far from a perfect determinant of 'worth'. Even idiot americans like us with public school educations should be able to digest these simple realities, but apparently not.
The probably largely is that people are relying on public school educations with very, very little economics teaching, and then just making the wildly ignorant assumption that there mustn't be any more complexity to the issue than that.
27391
Post by: purplefood
xruslanx wrote: purplefood wrote:xruslanx wrote: Slarg232 wrote:
If only the poor smoke, why is the "fat cat big wig corporate leader CEO decision maker guy" always smoking a cigar?
...this is why debating on the internet is pointless.
You honestly are demanding that I prove that poor people smoke more than rich people? Sigh. There's some stats here if you like. I look forward to future posts demanding proof that the pope is catholic and that bears gak in the woods.
Sorry but there are more poor people than rich people so even if they smoke the same amount per person poor people overall will smoke more than rich people. You seem to be saying that either rich people don't smoke or drink or that they are exempt from vat...
Okay I'll spell it out nice and simply.
Cigarettes and alcohol make up a far larger percentage of the income of the poor than they do of the rich. Happy now?
Believe it or not that's because the poor has less money than the rich. The reason they add VAT to things like cigarettes and alcohol is because THEY ARE NOT NECESSITIES. You do not need them to live, they are luxury items. They may end up being worse on the poor since they have less disposable income but it's not aimed at the poor since rich people smoke and drink as well...
What you do need to live is food, heating and clothes. Which are at 0% VAT.
5470
Post by: sebster
surixurient wrote:I would like to say that I want everyone to be able to afford 2 cars and a life of luxury. The way to make that happen is to provide the opportunities for them to achieve those goals. Getting out of their way would be the most important thing. And after that would be fostering a pro business environment, striking the right balance with environmental and labor issues to allow mines and factories to open in this country instead of over seas.
Thanks to years of stagnant wages at the bottom end of society, the sewing shops are coming back to the US from China. So you're getting your wish, I guess.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
xruslanx wrote:
So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.
I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice
You're just spewing nonsense about smoking that ignores the issue we're raising: it's a completely non-essential vice item that no one is forced to use. Not a single person.
5470
Post by: sebster
surixurient wrote:housing 6000 per year, transportation 2000-3000, food 2000-3000. If you can not earn that much in a year in an advanced economy, than there is something wrong with you, not with the economy.
Splitting the middle on transport and food we're at $11,000. Add in a couple of thousand for utilities and other bills, a couple of thousand for savings in case of emergencies (because cars break down, legs get broken...), two thousand for fun stuff (because these people are working 40 hour weeks, I think we can let them have $40 a week for entertainment) and then another two grand for education (because we all certainly believe the rhetoric about how they should be able to move up the employment ladder, don't we?) and then we're at $20,000.
Working a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year that is $9.62 an hour. Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus wrote:Part of the problem is that I don't really interact with a lot of "poor" people, so maybe my perception is skewed, but the majority of the people I know or see who are "poor" don't appear to have any of that. Where are you seeing these people, and how do you know they're poor?
I think the trick is realising that a lot of the stuff that gets picked out like cable TV is actually pretty cheap when you think about the poor live.
I've told this story before on dakka, but I had some mates who were studying at uni and sharing a place together. They earned basic wages working whenever their uni schedule allowed. Renting is not cheap here in Perth. But they had cable and the internet. I said that stuff seemed like an unecessary expense.
They pointed out that the tv and internet was where they spent pretty much all their spare time. They had no money for cooking decent food, let alone eating out, or going to the movies, or going shopping or doing any of the stuff people with spare money spend their time doing. They played WOW, watch cable tv, and the total entertainment bill for the three of them came to about $150 a month. For the three of them.
When one of them got some spare money he bought a new tv, not top of the line but very nice. Because that was where he spent most of his entertainment time every week, so why not splash out?
But the stuff that seems standard to us, but you really feel the cost of... like food, those guys really scrimped and saved there. Pasta was really common. And noodles. And basically anything that can fill you up without having to include meat, because meat is expensive.
So for people that don't really get it, they'd look and see that these guys had cable tv and internet... so they must be doing just fine. What they don't get is how the value of different products changes when you're poor. Stuff like cable seems like a luxury when you're used to going out, the few hours a week you're at home killing time makes cable seem unecessary. But when you are poor, and basically cannot afford to go out and end up spending most of your spare time watching tv, the value of cable changes considerably.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
5470
Post by: sebster
Grey Templar wrote:Sure. The difference is what constitutes "really low minimum wage" is entirely subjective.
IMO, as long as you have money to spend on things which are not necessities you are making enough to be able to better yourself.
This means any sort of eating out(pack a lunch), ciggs and booze, any food item except basic foodstuffs, any entertainment which isn't free, paying for internet, cable, movie rentals, car(unless it is mandatory to get to work, IE: you absolutely cannot bike, walk, or use any other public transportation)
Anything of that sort is an area you have disposable income in, and could use towards improving yourself instead.
Yeah, its subjective. But ultimately we're talking about people here. Increasing their pay a pitifully small amount, so that they have a modest entertainment allowance, and then some money for education on top of that is hardly unthinkable.
I mean, remember we aren't talking about welfare here. We're talking about people who are working 40 hours a week. They're doing what we tell people they ought to do. It's the most minor act of decency to think that they might also get a spare of money above the necessities. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
Yep. Fraz has it in one. Same reason petrol is taxed more.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
cincydooley wrote:xruslanx wrote:
So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.
I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice
And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
23
Post by: djones520
xruslanx wrote: cincydooley wrote:xruslanx wrote:
So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.
I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice
And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
The poor can quit smoking and drinking. Every tax on anything but luxury yachts takes money from them at a disproportionate rate. The tax on warhammer models hits me harder then it does Will Smith. I'm not complaining though. I made the choice to buy the item.
27391
Post by: purplefood
They have a lower disposable income because they are spending it on stuff they don't need...
77217
Post by: xruslanx
djones520 wrote:xruslanx wrote: cincydooley wrote:xruslanx wrote:
So what is the cause of him being harder working? I want to actually see him express his own sense of superiority over his fellow man that his opinion demonstrates, rather than hiding behind rhetoric.
I'll say it. I'm better at my job than other people I work with. As a result I was promoted within 2 years with the company twice
And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
The poor can quit smoking and drinking. Every tax on anything but luxury yachts takes money from them at a disproportionate rate. The tax on warhammer models hits me harder then it does Will Smith. I'm not complaining though. I made the choice to buy the item.
So you agree that taxes on tobacco and alcohol hit the poor?
27391
Post by: purplefood
They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...
221
Post by: Frazzled
xruslanx wrote: Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying its done because its a sin tax and thus gets public support, on an inelastic good and thus they can tax a lot more. If you wanted to stop smoking you would draqg smokers out into the street, put a sign on them and cap them right there. It worked for the Chinese.
China, caring about its opium addicts for 200 years...
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Frazzled wrote:xruslanx wrote: Frazzled wrote:Cigarettes and booze are taxed more because they generate income, due to the inelasticity of demand.
And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying its done because its a sin tax and thus gets public support, on an inelastic good and thus they can tax a lot more. If you wanted to stop smoking you would draqg smokers out into the street, put a sign on them and cap them right there. It worked for the Chinese.
China, caring about its opium addicts for 200 years...
Well opium is a little different to tobacco. Of course "the public" supports such taxes, because a majority of the public doesn't smoke. Regardless, the duty levied on tobacco and alcohol is far lower than that levied on the toys of the rich.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Studies have shown its easier to quit heroin then quit smoking.
1206
Post by: Easy E
purplefood wrote:They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...
It is a regressive formula though since that "same" amount impacts people of low income more than people of higher income. This is a well known fact and ignoring it is simply ideological blinders.
The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.
I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!
Low income workers have a rather stark choice, you can work your tail off and barely survive hoping for a break that might move you into the middle class, or you could not work your tail off and barely survive for the rest of your life but at least you are not working forever? Is that even a choice we want people to even consider? No, we want the insentives to be a productive worker to be so self-evident that it is a no brainer.
Why is this even an argument, it should be self-evident, unless the motivation are "I've got mine, and the rest of you can Feth off" there is no reason to put people in a place where not working becomes a valid decision and logical decision point.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Easy E wrote: purplefood wrote:They hit everyone buying alcohol and tobacco regardless of class or wealth...
It is a regressive formula though since that "same" amount impacts people of low income more than people of higher income. This is a well known fact and ignoring it is simply ideological blinders.
The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.
I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!
Low income workers have a rather stark choice, you can work your tail off and barely survive hoping for a break that might move you into the middle class, or you could not work your tail off and barely survive for the rest of your life but at least you are not working forever? Is that even a choice we want people to even consider? No, we want the insentives to be a productive worker to be so self-evident that it is a no brainer.
Why is this even an argument, it should be self-evident, unless the motivation are "I've got mine, and the rest of you can Feth off" there is no reason to put people in a place where not working becomes a valid decision and logical decision point.
Welfare over here is a whole lot less than even minimum wage and unless you fill certain conditions you can even get cut of from welfare entirely.
And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...
42144
Post by: cincydooley
xruslanx wrote:
And the knowledge to do that higher level of employment just fell from the sky? You think people can become technicians, doctors, lawyers, IT workers and mechanics by working hard? Plenty of hard-working people at my work but they'll be lucky to break £9 an hour, even if they're amazing at their job.
?
Well, initially it came from going to college, which I am paying for on my own, and then it came from a lot of on the job learning. So in short, it all came from hard work. I can guarantee you that someone that came from a poorer background than me would have been able to do the exact same thing. The big difference? They'd have had to take far less in private student loans than I did.
@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.
As far as choosing to work your ass off to try and get ahead and to not work at all and never get ahead, I'd take the first option every time without hesitation. It's called having some conviction and having a work ethic. And quite frankly, how hard people work is often inverse to the class they grew up in. Most people I know that are in the workforce and are from lower income families have a better work ethic, as a whole, than those born with the silver spoon.
1206
Post by: Easy E
cincydooley wrote:
@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.
Agreed, but you have to realize when you are poor things like smoking are your only recreation. You don't drive around town listening to the radio, go on weekend trips, go to the pub much, it is like Sebs story about the TV. That is all you do to kill time (and possibly hunger) and then you are addicted.
cincydooley wrote:
As far as choosing to work your ass off to try and get ahead and to not work at all and never get ahead, I'd take the first option every time without hesitation. It's called having some conviction and having a work ethic. And quite frankly, how hard people work is often inverse to the class they grew up in. Most people I know that are in the workforce and are from lower income families have a better work ethic, as a whole, than those born with the silver spoon.
Sure. Me too. However, why is it not self-evident that our choice is the right answer beacuse it should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:
And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...
Well, I'm glad you aren't trying to fool yourself.
Of course, what does proportionally less mean when you already have a living wage? Is it a new car every 4 years instead of every 5? Is it 2 or 3 less coffees a month? Is it regular 93% lean beef instead of organic 93% lean beef?
And Conservative-Types complain about others being "entitled"?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Easy E wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
And of course the motivation is "I've got mine, and the rest of you can feth off", because unless the raise in minimum wages is accompanied by a proportional raise in every other wage (leading to general inflation = useless raise in the first place), then a raise in minimum wage means that my own work just got devalued and I now make proportionally less...
Well, I'm glad you aren't trying to fool yourself.
Of course, what does proportionally less mean when you already have a living wage? Is it a new car every 4 years instead of every 5? Is it 2 or 3 less coffees a month? Is it regular 93% lean beef instead of organic 93% lean beef?
And Conservative-Types complain about others being "entitled"?
Of course I'm not deluding myself, that is what it all boils down to: personal greed, its the reason that humanity has evolved from living in caves to reaching the stars...
And who cares what proportionally less means? If part of what it takes for me to get a new smart phone at a more affordable cost is that some guy has to live in a one bedroom apartment, then so be it, I couldn't care less and the horrible truth is that you couldn't care less as well.
73552
Post by: surixurient
The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Easy E wrote: cincydooley wrote:
@Easy E - well of course if I make $1000 a week and someone else makes $500 a week that $35 a week smoking habit is going to hit the person making $500 "harder" in terms of a percentage of their income. But tha still doesn't mean they have to smoke. It's a completely voluntary act that is also completely non essential.
Agreed, but you have to realize when you are poor things like smoking are your only recreation. You don't drive around town listening to the radio, go on weekend trips, go to the pub much, it is like Sebs story about the TV. That is all you do to kill time (and possibly hunger) and then you are addicted.
And yet, for the same $35 a week, you could buy more food (Ramen Noodles is 20 packs for $5), getting you through a couple more days without hunger, you could buy a Library Card (If said library isn't just free) and be entertained for DAYS. You can go for jogs/workout on open gym nights. Go to the park and pick up litter/relax. Buy a TV and watch it (Seb's story says it's doable, and guess what? Not "Poor Taxed" like Alcohol/Cigs.
Search for a second job, even if all it is is picking trash up along the road.
There are plenty of things you can do without haing to smoke/drink while poor.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
surixurient wrote:The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.
One thing I learned is to stop listen to collegee Proffs when it comes to politics. My feminism teacher was ranting about hr cuba trip saying about how great a place it was. Saying they had healthcare and food and how they where free.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote: surixurient wrote:The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.
One thing I learned is to stop listen to collegee Proffs when it comes to politics. My feminism teacher was ranting about hr cuba trip saying about how great a place it was. Saying they had healthcare and food and how they where free.
They are as free as Fidel feels like making them that day.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Pretty much. I tried to make her see the hypocrisy from what she was saying earlier about how we all have to write to freedom of speech and yet she was saying how cuba was free.
19370
Post by: daedalus
surixurient wrote:The shadow of many an elbow-patch-wearing college professor is being cast long and deep across this thread.
Well, you know what they say: Some days you're wearing the tweed jacket with leather patches, some days you're wearing the Che t-shirt.
I'm going to combine them with a beret one of these days and see if I turn into a member of Chumbawumba.
5470
Post by: sebster
xruslanx wrote:And the fact that this literally takes money out of the pockets of the poor is not a moral issue? You think it's right that the poor should have a lower disposable income due to these taxes?
You can have a tax impact the poor more, and then account for that with offsetting distributions elsewhere. Raise the excise on cigarettes, and then use that increased revenue to increase welfare payments and low income rebates. Cigarettes are discouraged (hopefully in the long term, though figures are kind of patchy on the subject), and meanwhile the poor who smoke break even, the poor who don't get more money, and the middle class and rich who smoke pay more. Automatically Appended Next Post: Easy E wrote:The question is do we want to make a system that punishes hard work and trying to work, or a system that rewards it? Making it pointless to work a full-time entry level job for two years and still falling behind is not a way to keep people in the workforce and off the state's dime.
I thought you Conservative types hated welfare, but you also want to punish those who are working too. This ideologoy makes no logical sense, I mean think about it!
Yeah, this is the conclusion I'm seeing more and more. When we have welfare threads the usual suspects come in to complain about how welfare means that lazy people aren't made to work, and argue for reduced or even no welfare. Then in a thread on the minimum wage they come in and argue for no increase, or even its abolition.
The only question now is whether what's motivating these people is sociopathic indifference ("feth you, I've got mine") or just simple spite (because in many cases the reforms are better for the poor and better for society as a whole, and opposing them can only really be motivated out of a desire for the poor to remain as poor as possible).
16387
Post by: Manchu
I don't think the idea that menial jobs should entail low wages necessarily implies spite. Just thinking beyond my own views, it could imply the notion that merit -- yes, a complex and totally problematic term -- should be the key factor in determining whether someone earns (another problematic key word) a better or worse wage.
|
|
