|
Minimum Wage; ..for your consumption
|
|
Topic Started: Jul 16 2013, 01:14 PM (1,722 Views)
|
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 19 2013, 03:49 PM
Post #91
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
I don't disagree that people need to better themselves. But that's not the point. We are talking about the fact that it is not financially feasible to meet necessities on minimum wage. And from it sounds like you are talking about starting at $8/hour at age 20 and say that it took you 20 years to get to the point you are.......minimum wage twenty years ago was $4.25. $8/hour in 1993 was almost twice the minimum wage of $4.25.
|
|
| |
|
Jazen
|
Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
Post #92
|
INDIANA
- Posts:
- 9,786
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- February 4, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 19 2013, 03:09 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:05 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Jul 19 2013, 03:04 PM
I didn't realize that it was my responsibility to make sure that every high school drop out has similar living arrangements and transportation as me....
God forbid anyone having to work more than 40 hours to have a nice life.
Who ever said that?
There are a couple posters implying that you shouldn't have to work 60 hrs/week or have a second job to pay for the things you need/want. I'm just curious as to when this way of thinking started. I worked my ass off to get where I am. We took 4 or 5 days off around the July 4th holiday, and paid for it dearly. A handful of our clients couldn't believe the nerve we must have had. After the first or second day, we even got an email from a long standing client that sent just a question mark, lol.
How dare us.
That said though, it wasn't planned and we had no outstanding deadlines in that time period, but as Colt said, if you want anything, you have to go out and get it. Working at home truly isn't what a lot of people might think it is.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
Post #93
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones. Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check?
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 19 2013, 06:19 PM
Post #94
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones.
Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check? I don't have a problem with a work requirement for those able to do so that are receiving welfare....however, that does nothing to change the fact that you can't make a realistic living wage for bare necessities if you are working minimum wage without wotking 70 hours plus per week. No on here has yet to truly address the original link with an effective example. Additionally, the chart even leaves off items such as gas and the fact that the example gives a ridiculous health cost of $20 per month.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 19 2013, 06:44 PM
Post #95
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 06:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones.
Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check?
I don't have a problem with a work requirement for those able to do so that are receiving welfare....however, that does nothing to change the fact that you can't make a realistic living wage for bare necessities if you are working minimum wage without wotking 70 hours plus per week. No on here has yet to truly address the original link with an effective example. Additionally, the chart even leaves off items such as gas and the fact that the example gives a ridiculous health cost of $20 per month. If most of the world's people are living in poverty, how are we morally obligated to see that all Americans live at a standard of living that we think is acceptable by US standards? I think that's the crux of the matter, and global outsourcing means Americans can't live at the same relative standard we could 20-30 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 19 2013, 07:11 PM
Post #96
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:44 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 06:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones.
Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check?
I don't have a problem with a work requirement for those able to do so that are receiving welfare....however, that does nothing to change the fact that you can't make a realistic living wage for bare necessities if you are working minimum wage without wotking 70 hours plus per week. No on here has yet to truly address the original link with an effective example. Additionally, the chart even leaves off items such as gas and the fact that the example gives a ridiculous health cost of $20 per month.
If most of the world's people are living in poverty, how are we morally obligated to see that all Americans live at a standard of living that we think is acceptable by US standards? I think that's the crux of the matter, and global outsourcing means Americans can't live at the same relative standard we could 20-30 years ago. Address the chart then. People already aren't living at the levels they were 20 to 30 years ago. Wealth is increasingly becoming more differentiated.
The norm used to be one working member in a household....the husband. That is not the norm today, yet the percentage of people in poverty has greatly increased. We hae huge corporations paying no corporate tax and they an't afford to pay a living minimum wage?
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 19 2013, 07:20 PM
Post #97
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 07:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:44 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 06:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones.
Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check?
I don't have a problem with a work requirement for those able to do so that are receiving welfare....however, that does nothing to change the fact that you can't make a realistic living wage for bare necessities if you are working minimum wage without wotking 70 hours plus per week. No on here has yet to truly address the original link with an effective example. Additionally, the chart even leaves off items such as gas and the fact that the example gives a ridiculous health cost of $20 per month.
If most of the world's people are living in poverty, how are we morally obligated to see that all Americans live at a standard of living that we think is acceptable by US standards? I think that's the crux of the matter, and global outsourcing means Americans can't live at the same relative standard we could 20-30 years ago.
Address the chart then. People already aren't living at the levels they were 20 to 30 years ago. Wealth is increasingly becoming more differentiated. The norm used to be one working member in a household....the husband. That is not the norm today, yet the percentage of people in poverty has greatly increased. We hae huge corporations paying no corporate tax and they an't afford to pay a living minimum wage? I think stats will show you that blaming corporations is a red herring, and they can't come close to paying enough to make up for all of the wealth lost due to globalization.
One key enabler of our high standard of living is cheap energy. Many liberals (my friends included) think the answer is to raise gas taxes by $10 to force everyone to use cleaner energy. It's sadly naive, and I do my best to educate them when possible.
What's more important, increasing the standard of living of the lower class, or reducing the US CO2 production by a few parts per million while China and India are increasing their output?
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 19 2013, 08:39 PM
Post #98
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Cheap energy is the answer to minimum wage? THAT'S a red herring.
Again, I have yet to hear anyone really produce anything that truly addresses the numbers that are posted in post #1 of this thread.
And stop with the many liberals BS. It's a cop out to providing answers by talking about things that are even in serious discussion. "Gas for $10".......please.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 19 2013, 09:34 PM
Post #99
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 07:11 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:44 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 06:19 PM
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 06:13 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:28 PM
- eelbor
- Jul 19 2013, 03:23 PM
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 03:13 PM
eel -- combining your numbers and the one that was cited previously, 12% of minimum wage workers are 16-19, 38% are between 20 and 25, and 50% are over 25.
No one is disputing that minimum wage workers are younger than the working population on average....the point is that the assumption that minimum wage jobs are ones that are manned pretty much by only the young isn't true. You are most certainly looking at 2/3rds of minimum wage workers being over 22.
Agreed. Now, 3.6 million workers were at or below minimum wage in 2012. 2/3rds of these are 22 and over. So we are looking at roughly 2.3 million workers nationwide. Not a huge problem... unless of course you are one of the workers.
And there are millions more not working because there basically isn't an incentive to do so and are eligible for government aid. So it really affects more than those 2.3 million....it affects anyone paying taxes on those who do not see an incentive to work because the only available jobs are minimum wage ones.
Imagine all of the useful projects that could be accomplished if those on welfare were out bettering society. Maybe we should require that people work for their welfare check?
I don't have a problem with a work requirement for those able to do so that are receiving welfare....however, that does nothing to change the fact that you can't make a realistic living wage for bare necessities if you are working minimum wage without wotking 70 hours plus per week. No on here has yet to truly address the original link with an effective example. Additionally, the chart even leaves off items such as gas and the fact that the example gives a ridiculous health cost of $20 per month.
If most of the world's people are living in poverty, how are we morally obligated to see that all Americans live at a standard of living that we think is acceptable by US standards? I think that's the crux of the matter, and global outsourcing means Americans can't live at the same relative standard we could 20-30 years ago.
Address the chart then. People already aren't living at the levels they were 20 to 30 years ago. Wealth is increasingly becoming more differentiated. The norm used to be one working member in a household....the husband. That is not the norm today, yet the percentage of people in poverty has greatly increased. We hae huge corporations paying no corporate tax and they an't afford to pay a living minimum wage? I will address the chart when I have time, however I need to point out that I actually don't care about the chart. I do not believe that prices for products or services should be set by the government. This goes for labor also. If corporations aren't paying their taxes then either prosecute them or fix the law that allowed it to happen. Forcing them to pay a wage higher than the job is worth, or higher than they can get it elsewhere encourages further outsourcing and compounds our problems.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Bobobinc
|
Jul 19 2013, 10:31 PM
Post #100
|
Scrimshanker
- Posts:
- 8,742
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #73
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
There are reasons why the minimum wage was established. Same could be said for why labor unions started.....child labor laws.....on and on. History doesn't lie.
A totally, unobstructed free market with zero government intervention will result in some very rich people..........and a ton of very poor people......with many in between. Why don't some of you guys just say you're OK with tens of millions of Americans living in utter poverty? Just say it.
I totally understand where you're coming from with hard work, delayed gratification, self improvement......I get it and agree in theory. But there are SO many variables and factors that it doesn't always work in the real world.
A free market economy working within a republic is the best system known to man. Doesn't mean everybody can thrive in the system........for a myriad of reasons. It is over the top idealism to believe that every American will work hard, improve himself, get promoted or go to night school........on and on. Isn't going to happen. So just say it's alright with you if those people......including children who aren't at fault......try to exist with almost nothing.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 19 2013, 10:44 PM
Post #101
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 19 2013, 08:39 PM
Cheap energy is the answer to minimum wage? THAT'S a red herring. Cheap energy leads to cheap heating, cheaper food, etc. Most people don't realize that it is the foundation upon which our high standard of living is built.
I have a lot of liberal friends, and some of them are much better at arguing and making points than you.
|
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Jul 19 2013, 10:47 PM
Post #102
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,916
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Bobobinc
- Jul 19 2013, 10:31 PM
A free market economy working within a republic is the best system known to man. Doesn't mean everybody can thrive in the system........for a myriad of reasons. It is over the top idealism to believe that every American will work hard, improve himself, get promoted or go to night school........on and on. Isn't going to happen. So just say it's alright with you if those people......including children who aren't at fault......try to exist with almost nothing.
Yep. We were much better off when churches and local community groups provided the safety net. Like I've said before, socialism only works when the members of the social unit care about and are accountable to the other members. Big government socialism can make things appear better in the short term, but leads to a general decline in the long run.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 19 2013, 11:02 PM
Post #103
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Bobobinc
- Jul 19 2013, 10:31 PM
There are reasons why the minimum wage was established. Same could be said for why labor unions started.....child labor laws.....on and on. History doesn't lie.
A totally, unobstructed free market with zero government intervention will result in some very rich people..........and a ton of very poor people......with many in between. Why don't some of you guys just say you're OK with tens of millions of Americans living in utter poverty? Just say it.
I totally understand where you're coming from with hard work, delayed gratification, self improvement......I get it and agree in theory. But there are SO many variables and factors that it doesn't always work in the real world.
A free market economy working within a republic is the best system known to man. Doesn't mean everybody can thrive in the system........for a myriad of reasons. It is over the top idealism to believe that every American will work hard, improve himself, get promoted or go to night school........on and on. Isn't going to happen. So just say it's alright with you if those people......including children who aren't at fault......try to exist with almost nothing.
Wanting someone to live in poverty and wanting someone to be forced by law to provide a living for someone else aren't the same thing Bob.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 19 2013, 11:04 PM
Post #104
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- HoosierLars
- Jul 19 2013, 10:47 PM
- Bobobinc
- Jul 19 2013, 10:31 PM
A free market economy working within a republic is the best system known to man. Doesn't mean everybody can thrive in the system........for a myriad of reasons. It is over the top idealism to believe that every American will work hard, improve himself, get promoted or go to night school........on and on. Isn't going to happen. So just say it's alright with you if those people......including children who aren't at fault......try to exist with almost nothing.
Yep. We were much better off when churches and local community groups provided the safety net. Like I've said before, socialism only works when the members of the social unit care about and are accountable to the other members. Big government socialism can make things appear better in the short term, but lead to a general decline in the long run. In the case of the US, it only works while we are allowed to print money with not global consequences.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 20 2013, 12:07 AM
Post #105
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Jul 19 2013, 09:34 PM
I will address the chart when I have time, however I need to point out that I actually don't care about the chart. Therein lies your problem. You accuse others of having their mind closed to the subject and then flat out say you don't even care about the point that presented to begin with.
BTW, nothing is keeping churches and local community groups from helping people in poverty now, are they? Yet, strangely.....they exist in tens of millions.
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|