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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I work three primary jobs. One full time, another a consultancy, and a third part time at a firearms store. The first two pay very well, the part time gig pays $8.75 (which reflects a 50 cent raise after 6 months). Not alot is expected of me there which is fine, I get a great discount and access to people looking for training, so this job works for all involved.
Minimum wage in the area is $7.25, so I am making over that. But again, it is an entry level post, it was never meant to be a job to provide a "living" wage. Raising minimum wage to what $10/hr and calling that a living wage is a joke, meant to garner some votes. It will lead to less jobs being offered at that level, and an increase in pricing to offset the increase in labor costs.

So this bill got defeated? Great! Let me set my own per hour rate with a potential employer, and stop screwing the little guy with laws that dont do anything but make the working man suffer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Any apology isn't really relevant when you're showing massive contempt for minimum wage workers. Obviously they aren't people though. Only those that went to University or have money are people...

It was actually directed to d-usa, to whom Ive already publicly apologized to. As to my bonifidas, check my last post, youll see I am in fact part of that minimum wage group for whom laws like this dont actually help.

Minimum wage wouldn't help you since you state in your own post you already have 2 well paying jobs and from what I'm reading into you hold onto the third job for the fringe benefits(ie discount and access to firearms trainers): not the actual paycheck. It is your opinion that people aren't helped by raising the minimum wage but many people will disagree with you on that point.

As for your comment being directed at D-Usa it was still full of contempt towards people who flip burgers for a living,

Works 3 jobs.

Defends rights of rich to freeze pay for the poorest.

Blames poor wanting a fair wage for price increases rather than the rich being driven by maximum profit.

I'm confused. Unless you sign up to the belief that everyone can make their way to the top, which is such a tragically hopeful concept.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
It will lead to less jobs being offered at that level, and an increase in pricing to offset the increase in labor costs.

So this bill got defeated? Great! Let me set my own per hour rate with a potential employer, and stop screwing the little guy with laws that dont do anything but make the working man suffer.

Yeah, that's the best way to help dig out of the pit that is minimum wage labor in this country, pay them less and then make them negotiate themselves to try and make a better wage.

Because that worked so well for everyone before.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Stop taking away money from the rich you parasites!

Knock it off Ayn Rand.

 d-usa wrote:
Sometimes I really hate my state

I can't blame you. I briefly stayed in Oklahoma - about 6 or 8 months; easily long enough to develop a lifelong aversion to ever returning there.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Works 3 jobs.

Defends rights of rich to freeze pay for the poorest.

Blames poor wanting a fair wage for price increases rather than the rich being driven by maximum profit.

I'm confused. Unless you sign up to the belief that everyone can make their way to the top, which is such a tragically hopeful concept.

NOPE.
Defends the rights of the individual to have the opportunity to find employment and afford the necessaries of life, and maybe be able to work their way to the top.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Works 3 jobs.

Defends rights of rich to freeze pay for the poorest.

Blames poor wanting a fair wage for price increases rather than the rich being driven by maximum profit.

I'm confused. Unless you sign up to the belief that everyone can make their way to the top, which is such a tragically hopeful concept.

NOPE.
Defends the rights of the individual to have the opportunity to find employment and afford the necessaries of life, and maybe be able to work their way to the top.

I think you have an imperfect understanding of economic mobility in the U.S.

The Pew Foundation:
Some good and some bad here but mostly bad when compared to other developed countries (kind of like our take on healthcare)...

http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/pursuing-the-american-dream-85899403228
•Eighty-four percent of Americans have higher family incomes than their parents did.

•Those born at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to stay there as adults. More than 40 percent of Americans raised in the bottom quintile of the family income ladder remain stuck there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle.

• African Americans are more likely to be stuck at the bottom and fall from the middle of the economic ladder across a generation.

• A four-year college degree promotes upward mobility from the bottom and prevents downward mobility from the middle and the top.

When compared to other countries, we're nearly the same as Pakistan when it comes to economic mobility:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/index.html

The truth is that most people born in the bottom, stay at the bottom. There are exceptions of whom I am one myself whereby I clawed my way to the middle class but it took leaving the country to put me in a position where I could do so.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Sometimes I really hate my state

I can't blame you. I briefly stayed in Oklahoma - about 6 or 8 months; easily long enough to develop a lifelong aversion to ever returning there.

Oklahoma is pretty terrible...


D, you're more than welcome to head down to the land of Milk and Honey, A la, Texas!

Meanwhile, in Minnesota....

http://time.com/#62617/minnesota-joins-states-raising-minimum-wage/

For large Minnesota employers, mandatory hourly pay will climb to $8 in August, $9 a year later and $9.50 in 2016. Smaller employers that have gross sales below $500,000 will also have to pay more, though their rate reaches only $7.75 per hour by 2016. There are also carve-outs for teen workers or those getting trained into new jobs.

All told, some 325,000 workers could be in line for a raise at some point during the phase-in period.

Right idea. In fact we should be instituting maximum-wages, with certain management and executive positions excluded of course. People only need enough to buy a bootstrap. I think a lot of those crazy liberals out there think we should give them enough to buy both bootstraps. I think that any real american who wants to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, will first pull them themselves up by the bootstrap enough to afford the other one.

 Chongara wrote:
Right idea. In fact we should be instituting maximum-wages, with certain management and executive positions excluded of course. People only need enough to buy a bootstrap. I think a lot of those crazy liberals out there think we should give them enough to buy both bootstraps. I think that any real american who wants to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, will first pull them themselves up by the bootstrap enough to afford the other one.

*meh*

Just make it so that once you've reached an income of "x", then anything after that cannot be tax exempt... no matter what.

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Right idea. In fact we should be instituting maximum-wages, with certain management and executive positions excluded of course. People only need enough to buy a bootstrap. I think a lot of those crazy liberals out there think we should give them enough to buy both bootstraps. I think that any real american who wants to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, will first pull them themselves up by the bootstrap enough to afford the other one.

*meh*

Just make it so that once you've reached an income of "x", then anything after that cannot be tax exempt... no matter what.

You've got it backwards. You need money to make money. So if you've got money you've proven you've used your money to get that money. Since growth is good for the economy, taxing people with money will just mean they can't use their money to make money. We need to tax the people without money and not tax the people without money, that way the people with money can make money with their money and the people without money will still be without money, which isn't really any loss at all. It's win-win.