Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

Congrats you've achieved status: Canada.

 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

Pro-tip. Never trust the homeless in San Fran. They tend to be kids who pretend to be homeless

 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..

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.

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.

Californians, hilarious as usual. Somebody get these clowns an economics for dummies book.

 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.

 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

 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?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Calling it now, future headline from Cali:

Californian Cost of Living Sky Rockets

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

 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).

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

I seriously think Cali needs to go over the state tax codes. Revamp it or something before they start the "Detroit Plunge"

 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?

 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?

 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.

 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.

Meteorologist.

 djones520 wrote:
Meteorologist.

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.

 ph34r wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Meteorologist.

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?

 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.

 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

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

I think 2 years or 1

 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.