- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
Except, one giant hole in that idea is that many of the families whose main income comes from minimum wage job are not two-parent families or do you still think it is 1952. That assumption only works if there are two parents, which very often is not the case. There is also assumption that they would always get 40 hours week which is also not an appropriate assumption.
Except, one giant hole in that idea is that many of the families whose main income comes from minimum wage job are not two-parent families or do you still think it is 1952. That assumption only works if there are two parents, which very often is not the case. There is also assumption that they would always get 40 hours week which is also not an appropriate assumption.
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
Except, one giant hole in that idea is that many of the families whose main income comes from minimum wage job are not two-parent families or do you still think it is 1952. That assumption only works if there are two parents, which very often is not the case. There is also assumption that they would always get 40 hours week which is also not an appropriate assumption.
This is an absurd argument.
Liberals demanding $15 per hour as a "living wage" don't account for hours worked in a week, so why should I? Liberals claim that $15 per hour IS a living wage without any stipulation whatsoever on how many hours per week that is. They don't clamor for a higher wage than $15 from McDonalds, just because McDonalds only gives their workers 15-25 hours per week.
Many, many middle class families have TWO working parents in order to make ends meet so why should the poorer be any different? Maybe if the poorer had to have two working parents in order to make ends meet, more families would have two parents.
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
Of course it is - for a "socialist".
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
Oh wow! That means that if it's a quintuple marriage - you know, like all us lib'ruls want - then all they need is $3.00 an hour! What an incredible factoid!!!!
Except, one giant hole in that idea is that many of the families whose main income comes from minimum wage job are not two-parent families or do you still think it is 1952. That assumption only works if there are two parents, which very often is not the case. There is also assumption that they would always get 40 hours week which is also not an appropriate assumption.
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
Quite a indictment of moral decline in this country. Wonder where that came from?
Wait. It's not 1952? I was two then, and life was great. I had two parents, as well. What happened to the missing parent in the interim between then and now? Where'd he or she go? What was so important that the human life you had a hand in creating has taken you away? War? That, I could understand. What else, then?
"According to liberals..."
Will you ever make an argument that doesn't include dishonest and hackish straw men about liberals?
Which liberals want a quintuple marriage?
This is an absurd argument.
OK. So, if a family of four has one working parent earning a "living wage" of $15.00 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr) , then if both parents are working then for the family to earn the same living wage, both parents only need to earn $7.50 per hour, 40 hours per week ($600wk or $31,200yr). This $31,200 is actually $6900 more than the poverty level for that family of $24,300 - enough extra to pay for daycare expenses.
Federal Poverty Guidelines - 2016 | Mass Legal Services
It's a funny point, that exists really only to point out the major flaw in the notion of a 'living' wage - there is no such thing. People's circumstances are different, costs are different, requirements and desirements are different. A single guy living with his two buddies in a jointly rented apartment has a much smaller cost of living than a family of five - applying a one-size-fits-not-really-anyone "Living Wage" "because otherwise they can't live" to both the dude and the family doesn't reflect reality.
If they would be honest, it's From Each According To Their Means, To Each According To Their Needs.
It's a funny point, that exists really only to point out the major flaw in the notion of a 'living' wage - there is no such thing. People's circumstances are different, costs are different, requirements and desirements are different. A single guy living with his two buddies in a jointly rented apartment has a much smaller cost of living than a family of five - applying a one-size-fits-not-really-anyone "Living Wage" "because otherwise they can't live" to both the dude and the family doesn't reflect reality.
If they would be honest, it's From Each According To Their Means, To Each According To Their Needs.
Another funny thing is almost all of the minimum wage workers have learned to live off what they are making so they already earn a "living wage" which includes take home wages, help from social prgrams and the EITC and now, even though those people have been already "living" like this, liberals claim that it is not enough, even though it actually has been.
Hyperbolic strawman. Providing basic living expenses for the poor is not equivalent to your religious(?) or Marxist(?) strawman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?