It's not about the minimum wage it's about life.

[Mr Person]

All this hoopla over "$15.00/hr LIVING WAGE!!!" and "Business will quit hiring!!" and "Just get more skills get paid more!!" it all misses the point. It's not about the wage. Not really.
It's about the choices made with the money you have. You can't live off 8.50 an hour? Why? 12.50 an hour? Why? What are your life choices and priorities that made such an amount "unlivable?"

Stop, before you say anything about it's not fair poor people can't... SHUT IT. That line holds no weight with me. LIFE, isn't fair, deal with it.

Now, back to my point, you can in fact survive off 8.50 an hour, 10, 12, 14 an hour. You can make this work for you. But you have to make smart choices, yes you will end up making some sacrifices but that, that is life. All this "Living wage" crap says to me really is "We shouldn't have to make smart choices, we should get what we want!" To which all those talking about the costs to businesses are making the wrong points:

"Great, you claim you need $15/hr because you just can't live off current min-wage. Is there some magical property about a few more dollars that's going to make you suddenly moneywise, sacrifice to achieve your wants and live a better life? Or will you just increase the amount of bad choices and now that you've gotten more you'll instead of making right choices just demand more and more...?"

Cause really, that's what this is about, responsibility. 15hr is a nice income, I won't lie. But is it the income that's the problem or the choices and priorities that are the true problem?

This is a perfect example of the fundamental mistake conservatives make when discussing the minimum wage. It's not about morality. It's not about whether someone deserves the wage. It's about the economy.




I am not going to address $15 specifically. (I also choose to ignore the malicious slanders by fiscal conservatives regarding people on welfare with "flat screen TVs and xBoxes" - same old dirty "welfare queen" lie).



A sub-living minimum wage such as presently exists makes it impossible to survive on one full-time job. People with two full-time jobs at minimum wage still struggle to put food on the table. This means that they draw on the safety net. (Your opinion of the safety net is irrelevant here). This is why companies like McDonald's actively urge their employees to take advantage of all possible safety net programs. This means that you are paying the portion of their wages the business has avoided paying, thanks to the sub-living minimum wage.

This means you are subsidizing businesses with your tax dollars.

A living minimum wage forces businesses to pay the full cost of producing the products they sell. The products will cost a little more (but as we see with Europe, minimum wage employers like McDonald’s barely charge more), but only the customers of that business will pay for the labor. Taxpayers will no longer pay for products they don’t consume.

Further, persons making minimum wage spend all of their income. If they have more income, they will spend it. (They may even be able to save some, reducing later safety net reliance). This will stimulate the economy in a way that Obama’s stimulus did not.




The politicians have you fooled. They talk about the immorality of being poor and virtues of individual responsibility, while actually forcing you to provide welfare to corporations.

 

[Mr Person]

You cant live off $8.50/hr but youre not supposed to. Minimum wage jobs are for students, 2nd income earners and retirees they are not a career

Another falsehood commonly spread by the right.

Roughly 50% of minimum wage earners are over 25.They tend to be poor white southerners, and are in fact contributing to providing for a family. The numbers expand when you look at wages slightly above the minimum, and you find that over half are providing for the family.

It's just not true that these are simply jobs for students entering the work force.

Starter links....

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center

Demographics of Low-Wage Workers | Raise The Minimum Wage

What are the characteristics of minimum wage workers? - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research

Minimum Wage Mythbusters | United States Department of Labor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ally-makes-the-minimum-wage-in-america-today/

 

[countryboy]

Another falsehood commonly spread by the right.

Roughly 50% of minimum wage earners are over 25.They tend to be poor white southerners, and are in fact contributing to providing for a family. The numbers expand when you look at wages slightly above the minimum, and you find that over half are providing for the family.

It's just not true that these are simply jobs for students entering the work force.

Starter links....

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center

Demographics of Low-Wage Workers | Raise The Minimum Wage

What are the characteristics of minimum wage workers? - UC Davis Center for Poverty Research

Minimum Wage Mythbusters | United States Department of Labor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ally-makes-the-minimum-wage-in-america-today/

Lol, your Pew link actually verifies what you are attempting to refute.

 

[Mr Person]

Lol, your Pew link actually verifies what you are attempting to refute.

What I said: Roughly 50% of minimum wage earners are over 25.

What it says: Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24


Are you getting so nitpicky with me that I'm to be faulted for saying "roughly 50%" instead of "exactly 49.6%"? What's supposed to be "refuted"?



(at least you weren't falsely accusing me of hypocrisy, as you did in yet another attack post of yours that I have recently responded to)

 

[KevinKohler]

You cant live off $8.50/hr but youre not supposed to. Minimum wage jobs are for students, 2nd income earners and retirees they are not a career

Then why is it called "minimum wage"?

 

[sookster]

Yeah but when people are in the scarcity trap, literally their brain changes compared to people who don't. The behavior seems irrational, but when you HAVE to live paycheck to paycheck, and don't have a family to provide them the right stepping stones, the scarcity trap sets in. The only way out really is to save money, but that isn't possible.

The bottom line is we are unwilling to help a sector of society that is poor. We are unwilling to fix poverty when we have SO MUCH money, and we can't even pay people more money because of risk of inflation. Seattle raised their minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, wages averaged a 10 percent increase, and inflation was less than 3 percent. It was on these very boards. Not to mention there are some products that just can't be raised in price. I'm not buying a 13 dollar big mac when I can walk up the street and go to Miami Grill and get a steak dinner for 10 bucks. Prices have everything to do with demand, and some companies are not going to be able to raise prices, so they will eat the cost. Back in the fifties, my father grew up in a town where EVERYONE had a retirement. The barber, the janitor, the teacher, the doctor, what have you. Everyone could retire. Everyone was paid a value of money where people could retire. Corporations had a worker to ceo salary I believe 1:40. Now it is over 600. Why can't we just pay people what they would of been paid back in the fifties? We did it, it was prosperous!

Not to mention the increase in consumption.

But the bottom line is people are unwilling to pay a slight increase in prices to help people less fortunate than them. Typical American individualism.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yeah but when people are in the scarcity trap, literally their brain changes compared to people who don't. The behavior seems irrational, but when you HAVE to live paycheck to paycheck, and don't have a family to provide them the right stepping stones, the scarcity trap sets in. The only way out really is to save money, but that isn't possible.

The bottom line is we are unwilling to help a sector of society that is poor. We are unwilling to fix poverty when we have SO MUCH money, and we can't even pay people more money because of risk of inflation. Seattle raised their minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, wages averaged a 10 percent increase, and inflation was less than 3 percent. It was on these very boards. Not to mention there are some products that just can't be raised in price. I'm not buying a 13 dollar big mac when I can walk up the street and go to Miami Grill and get a steak dinner for 10 bucks. Prices have everything to do with demand, and some companies are not going to be able to raise prices, so they will eat the cost. Back in the fifties, my father grew up in a town where EVERYONE had a retirement. The barber, the janitor, the teacher, the doctor, what have you. Everyone could retire. Everyone was paid a value of money where people could retire. Corporations had a worker to ceo salary I believe 1:40. Now it is over 600. Why can't we just pay people what they would of been paid back in the fifties? We did it, it was prosperous!

Not to mention the increase in consumption.

But the bottom line is people are unwilling to pay a slight increase in prices to help people less fortunate than them. Typical American individualism.

Landlords love pay hikes, so do other businesses. In the end, it will all turn out the same.

 

[KevinKohler]

Precisely 25% of my annual salary is based on the financial success of the stores in my region. Another 10% of my annual salary is based on the financial success of the entire chain. IN other words, fully 35% of my annual salary is totally dependent on how much money people spend at BJ's.

I could give a rats ass about whether or not poor people can afford to feed their kids off a minimum wage job. I could care less if they can keep a roof over their heads, or if they have any chance at all of removing themselves from poverty. Well, I DO care...I'm not inhuman...but those concerns are not at all relevant, for me, to ANY discussion about minimum wage. Why? Because it occurs to me that, when MOST people get more money, they SPEND more money. Average people, anyway. A rising tide lifts ALL boats. Kids and 25 year olds making more money = kids and 25 year olds SPENDING more money. Period.

 

[Paleocon]

Are you aware some people don't have families?

Your desired system ignores swathes of people to the exclusive benefit of married men. I bet you miss the 50s, huh? You know, when women knew better than to talk back?

Pointing out exceptional cases doesn't invalidate the general rule.

And yes, the 50's were much better than today.

This is not true. The employer is responsible to pay him what the job is worth and nothing more.

The employer is not going to pay one man one rate because he has one child and another man a different rate because he has three children.

Again, if things were they way you want them, the children would be starving because their fathers could never get work.

According to the people who passed "civil rights" legislation, pay discrimination against single people was common enough that they needed to pass a law against it.

And the job is worth what the worker needs for himself and his family. Obtaining sustenance for oneself and one's family is why jobs exist.

Why not scale family size (via responsible family planning) to one's earnings instead of asking for one's earnings to be scaled to family size?

Because family is the basic building block of society. It is a more important consideration than economic matters, indeed the economy exists only for the sake of the family.

 

[mike2810]

Precisely 25% of my annual salary is based on the financial success of the stores in my region. Another 10% of my annual salary is based on the financial success of the entire chain. IN other words, fully 35% of my annual salary is totally dependent on how much money people spend at BJ's.

I could give a rats ass about whether or not poor people can afford to feed their kids off a minimum wage job. I could care less if they can keep a roof over their heads, or if they have any chance at all of removing themselves from poverty. Well, I DO care...I'm not inhuman...but those concerns are not at all relevant, for me, to ANY discussion about minimum wage. Why? Because it occurs to me that, when MOST people get more money, they SPEND more money. Average people, anyway. A rising tide lifts ALL boats. Kids and 25 year olds making more money = kids and 25 year olds SPENDING more money. Period.

bold by me.

Then you would support the govt. hand out money so all Americans have at least 10 million dollars. That would stimulate the economy, right?

What many seem to ignore is a "living wage" in NYC or SF is different than Ely, Nevada. Cost of living varies a great deal within the US. Where I live I am very comfortable on my retirement income. If I moved to San Fran, I would be dirt poor.

One reason the "minimum wage" is called that rather than a "living wage".

 

[joG]

All this hoopla over "$15.00/hr LIVING WAGE!!!" and "Business will quit hiring!!" and "Just get more skills get paid more!!" it all misses the point. It's not about the wage. Not really.
It's about the choices made with the money you have. You can't live off 8.50 an hour? Why? 12.50 an hour? Why? What are your life choices and priorities that made such an amount "unlivable?"

Stop, before you say anything about it's not fair poor people can't... SHUT IT. That line holds no weight with me. LIFE, isn't fair, deal with it.

Now, back to my point, you can in fact survive off 8.50 an hour, 10, 12, 14 an hour. You can make this work for you. But you have to make smart choices, yes you will end up making some sacrifices but that, that is life. All this "Living wage" crap says to me really is "We shouldn't have to make smart choices, we should get what we want!" To which all those talking about the costs to businesses are making the wrong points:

"Great, you claim you need $15/hr because you just can't live off current min-wage. Is there some magical property about a few more dollars that's going to make you suddenly moneywise, sacrifice to achieve your wants and live a better life? Or will you just increase the amount of bad choices and now that you've gotten more you'll instead of making right choices just demand more and more...?"

Cause really, that's what this is about, responsibility. 15hr is a nice income, I won't lie. But is it the income that's the problem or the choices and priorities that are the true problem?

Economies are about doing things somebody wants at a price they will pay.

 

[joG]

Oh, and you want the government to provide that wage I suspect

Naw....
.....let the consumer pay.....

 

[joG]

If the min wage kept up with the CPI it would be almost $11 and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But why have a minimum wage that is so high that we have to import over $ 500 billions more than we can export. Sure, I know the problems we have are a little larger than just the minimum wage level. But every foolery helps dig a grave.

 

[KevinKohler]

bold by me.

Then you would support the govt. hand out money so all Americans have at least 10 million dollars. That would stimulate the economy, right?

What many seem to ignore is a "living wage" in NYC or SF is different than Ely, Nevada. Cost of living varies a great deal within the US. Where I live I am very comfortable on my retirement income. If I moved to San Fran, I would be dirt poor.

One reason the "minimum wage" is called that rather than a "living wage".

Printing and handing out 10 million dollars to everyone wouldn't work because there would not be an equal amount of production to match...IE, severe inflation would ensue.

It's called a minimum wage because, when it was introduced, the point was, that a person auto be able to live off what they earn, if the have a job.

These are quotes from the man responsible for the Fair Labor and Standards Act.

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."

"Something has to be done about the elimination of child labor and long hours and starvation wages."



If the point of minimum wage ISN'T for an employed person to be able to survive off what they make as a result of having a job in this country, then why the hell do we even have it in the first place?

 

[notquiteright]

Then people with paychecks bought them. It wasn't because they were entitled, it was because those businesses CHOSE to do so. No one forced them to do so. While I don't know what TVs or cars you are specifically talking about, I'd wager they were discontinued models that weren't selling that retailers wanted to dump at a loss to make room for incoming stock that won't be priced that low. But again, it's their choice what they want to do. That has nothing to do with minimum wage.

Who said anyone was entitled to paychecks???? fact is during the 4th quarter, some refer to it as the Holy Season of Retail, electronics were at give away prices and many car dealerships only need a pay stub to qualify for a vehicle- so your 'reality' is more like just old guy ranting... :2wave:

FYI far from discontinued they were sweet flat screens and the cars older but still under warranty- you REALLY need to get out more...

Minimum wage's buying power has fluctuated for decades. back in the 68 the value of minimum wage ($1.60) was worth $10.34 an hour in 2012 dollars. The buying power of minimum wage has stagnated in 2013 dollars even since at around 6 to seven dollars an hour...

So the REALITY of the minimum wage is it hasn't kept up with inflation and it should have... all angry old guy wailing aside, time to index the minimum wage... eace

 

[mike2810]

Printing and handing out 10 million dollars to everyone wouldn't work because there would not be an equal amount of production to match...IE, severe inflation would ensue.

It's called a minimum wage because, when it was introduced, the point was, that a person auto be able to live off what they earn, if the have a job.

These are quotes from the man responsible for the Fair Labor and Standards Act.

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."

"Something has to be done about the elimination of child labor and long hours and starvation wages."



If the point of minimum wage ISN'T for an employed person to be able to survive off what they make as a result of having a job in this country, then why the hell do we even have it in the first place?

So should a kid in school (under 18) living at home make a living wage?

I ask the same question, why have a minimum wage? If a business does not offer a fair wage, they won't be in business very long. No one would work for them.

Seems I read that the Labor Department has stated only about 3% of the workforce is at the minimum wage level. Take it what it is worth but someone who wipes down cars at a carwash should not expect to be able to live and support themselves and a family.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Pointing out exceptional cases doesn't invalidate the general rule.

And yes, the 50's were much better than today.

You are starting from the assumption that male bread winners should be the general rule. That is horridly behind the times. And when couched into the language championed by those who would like to see women "returned to their place" like some American version of Sharia where women are physically punished for stepping out of line... you didn't even miss a beat.

Well done.

 

[radcen]

All this hoopla over "$15.00/hr LIVING WAGE!!!" and "Business will quit hiring!!" and "Just get more skills get paid more!!" it all misses the point. It's not about the wage. Not really.
It's about the choices made with the money you have. You can't live off 8.50 an hour? Why? 12.50 an hour? Why? What are your life choices and priorities that made such an amount "unlivable?"

Stop, before you say anything about it's not fair poor people can't... SHUT IT. That line holds no weight with me. LIFE, isn't fair, deal with it.

Now, back to my point, you can in fact survive off 8.50 an hour, 10, 12, 14 an hour. You can make this work for you. But you have to make smart choices, yes you will end up making some sacrifices but that, that is life. All this "Living wage" crap says to me really is "We shouldn't have to make smart choices, we should get what we want!" To which all those talking about the costs to businesses are making the wrong points:

"Great, you claim you need $15/hr because you just can't live off current min-wage. Is there some magical property about a few more dollars that's going to make you suddenly moneywise, sacrifice to achieve your wants and live a better life? Or will you just increase the amount of bad choices and now that you've gotten more you'll instead of making right choices just demand more and more...?"

Cause really, that's what this is about, responsibility. 15hr is a nice income, I won't lie. But is it the income that's the problem or the choices and priorities that are the true problem?

You cant live off $8.50/hr but youre not supposed to. Minimum wage jobs are for students, 2nd income earners and retirees they are not a career

You CAN. But you have to make the right choices to do so

You're right... to an extent. You're right in the sense that a lot of people are indeed victims of their own choices. And a lot of people will increase their spending to match their income rise, so they'll be no better off than they are now. But your point is too simplistic and broad to be wholly correct.

If it's just one's choices, then why not $6/hr? Or $4/hr? Or $2/hr?

Could YOU, even with your superior financial decision making abilities, live on $2/hr?

 

[Renae]

You're right... to an extent. You're right in the sense that a lot of people are indeed victims of their own choices. And a lot of people will increase their spending to match their income rise, so they'll be no better off than they are now. But your point is too simplistic and broad to be wholly correct.

If it's just one's choices, then why not $6/hr? Or $4/hr? Or $2/hr?

Could YOU, even with your superior financial decision making abilities, live on $2/hr?

If i had to find a way I would.

 

[Mason66]

Pointing out exceptional cases doesn't invalidate the general rule.

And yes, the 50's were much better than today.



According to the people who passed "civil rights" legislation, pay discrimination against single people was common enough that they needed to pass a law against it.

And the job is worth what the worker needs for himself and his family. Obtaining sustenance for oneself and one's family is why jobs exist.



Because family is the basic building block of society. It is a more important consideration than economic matters, indeed the economy exists only for the sake of the family.

You are way off, but you won't accept the truth, so I won't waste my time explaining this anymore.

Have a nice night.

 

[Paleocon]

You are way off, but you won't accept the truth, so I won't waste my time explaining this anymore.

Have a nice night.

"You're wrong" is not a good argument.

 

[Mason66]

"You're wrong" is not a good argument.

You can't change reality even if you want to.

A job does not exist to pay a man what he needs to support his family.

One has nothing to do with the other. If the man is not making enough to cover his expenses, then he gets another job.

Where did you get the idea that the employer is responsible to pay for the responsibilities he has created for himself?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

You can't change reality even if you want to.

A job does not exist to pay a man what he needs to support his family.

One has nothing to do with the other. If the man is not making enough to cover his expenses, then he gets another job.

Where did you get the idea that the employer is responsible to pay for the responsibilities he has created for himself?

And not only that, but one very specific demographic is apparently entitled to such, well, entitlement.

 

[Mithrae]

All this hoopla over "$15.00/hr LIVING WAGE!!!" and "Business will quit hiring!!" and "Just get more skills get paid more!!" it all misses the point. It's not about the wage. Not really.
It's about the choices made with the money you have. You can't live off 8.50 an hour? Why? 12.50 an hour? Why? What are your life choices and priorities that made such an amount "unlivable?"

Stop, before you say anything about it's not fair poor people can't... SHUT IT. That line holds no weight with me. LIFE, isn't fair, deal with it.

Now, back to my point, you can in fact survive off 8.50 an hour, 10, 12, 14 an hour. You can make this work for you. But you have to make smart choices, yes you will end up making some sacrifices but that, that is life.

You're right - it is possible for an individual to live off less, and MW discussions shouldn't be about a 'living wage' for a family of four. It's absurd, quite frankly.

But you can only survive on less by purchasing less from the businesses which require consumers to exist and thrive. The discussion should be about "a rising tide that lifts all boats" and trickle-up economics :lol:

There's probably no objectively 'correct' place for a wage floor to be; but the fact that one is necessary is indisputable amongst informed intelligent adults; as is the fact that the US minimum is lower than was successful in the past, in terms of purchasing power; as is the fact that it's markedly lower than many other successful economies. Germany, France and Australia's are equivalent to $10.34, $11.08 and $11.14 respectively, for example, and in most successful economies with a lower PPP hourly rate the MW is higher as a percentage of average GDP per capita (in Israel, Japan and South Korea for example, 39.1%, 34.7% and 39.8%, compared with just 27.6% in the US). Some countries (eg. Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries) have mandatory collective bargaining agreements with strong unions in place of one-size-fits-all minimum wages; otherwise Hong Kong seems to be the only developed 'country' which stands out as being lower than the US both in hourly PPP minimum wages and lower as a percent of the average.

At the very least, it seems obvious that modest gradual MW increases are unlikely to hurt the US economy - and far more likely, would boost consumption and growth.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The lack of humanity in some of the people posting here is appalling.

In any case, IT IS as much about the minimum wage...as it is about life choices...as the OP wrongly suggests.