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.

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?

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?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, define support.

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

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, define support.

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)

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.

 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.

Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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.

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.

 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.

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

 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...

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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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!

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.'

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why should you? You act like society owes you jack gak.

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.