$15 minimum wage...I know I'm poking the bear, but...

[Gravekeeper]

I can't remember how much he owuld have left but it was tens of billions of dollars.]

Er, no, not even remotely close. If you totally liquidated him he could give everyone in the US $248.66. There is not enough money on the entire planet to give everyone in the US a million dollars.

As for the topic, there is literally no valid argument against raising the minimum wage in the US. Because the economic burden of workers not being paid a living wage exists regardless of what the minimum wage is. Its just a matter of who is paying for the burden. Right now, its US taxpayers. When it should be the employers. End of story.

[Aragarthiel]

What is with the attitude that people hate the poor so much that any possible advantage must be met with an equally striking disadvantage to "even things out" and keep them poor unless they "work hard, and get a college education to escape poverty" they somehow "deserve" to be poor, because they "obviously made bad life decisions"?

I was reading something about this last week. Many of the upper class don't know what it's like to be poor, they just see it on TV. However, on TV, if you're poor and open a business, and the business is a flop (ever seen Bob's Burgers?), you'll be left in the same place you started, no worse. This gives the upper class the impression that the poor simply don't know how to invest their money properly. They don't see that not only can the poor not afford the risk of an investment, they can't afford to invest at all. I can't even afford to invest in a job, since I live in a rural area where minimum wage would get me gas money to work and back and pay for daycare for my daughter. I would be no better off. I'm eligible for scholarships to go to college and I'm working on enrolling (if the college would quit losing my papers), but there's no guarantee even then that I'd be hired or make more than minimum wage. It's not about investing your money properly, it's about having the money to invest, and that investment paying off.

[TheHuckster]

Some group did a study that basically amounted to giving a random selection of homeless people a bunch of money, no strings attached, and then seeing what they did with it.

Of the group, one remained homeless because that was his chosen lifestyle. All of the others got themselves cleaned up, got places to sleep, got work, and got off the streets.

There are a surprising number of things surrounding poverty that can literally be changed merely by throwing money at the problem. Specifically, throwing money at the people who need it and not bothering with the bureaucracy. We spend more on the administration than we do on actually helping people.

That study might work for a small sample of people, because its effects are negligible on the nationwide and/or global economy. If you scale that up to giving every poor person in the nation a huge sum of money, then you do have to account for what that will do to inflation and other macroeconomic aspects which could have some serious side-effects. What a lot of this amounts to is printing play money and artificially injecting it into the economy, which history has shown can lead to major inflation problems in the future.

Some study by a couple of Nobel winners found that up until about $75k/year, earning more makes people happier. Above $70k/year, more money stops translating into more happiness.

Happiness is not the only result of money. My employer was founded by an individual who made a modestly high sum from his own efforts as an inventor and entrepreneur. Had he not been given that opportunity, I wouldn't have the job I have right now. I know the whole "job creator" buzzword has a bad rap, and for sure people have abused that argument to defend people who horde money without contributing anything to the economy, but the fact of the matter is there are business people, many of them small-business owners or innovative entrepreneurs, who should still be encouraged by opportunity.

And, for the record, the aforementioned founder is not a 1-percenter. Far from it. He continuously reinvests his hard-earned dollars to expand the company. Many businesses started in this same fashion.

I agree we need a lot of changes to tighten the income gap that's expanding further and further. We also need to stop the cycle of having people's low wages subsidized by welfare and government programs. And if that means having a negative income tax, then so be it, but all I'm saying is we should be careful not to confuse the insanely wealthy miser who is a detriment to the economy with the modestly upper class business minded professionals who wish to start a business with their surplus of money.

[Gravekeeper]

What a lot of this amounts to is printing play money and artificially injecting it into the economy, which history has shown can lead to major inflation problems in the future.

Well, first of all; This money is already there and is already being spent. No new money is being printed or artificially injected into the economy. This is existing money. Hence the cheaper to literally give a homeless person an apartment over leaving them homeless and having to deal with the results.

Its a matter of preventative spending vs reactionary/emergency spending. It is cheaper to address the problem before it becomes critical. The idea that the economy will be damaged by homeless people having enough purchasing power to not starve to death on the street is completely absurd.

But the prevailing American attitude of "Fuck you, I got mine" cuts off its nose to spite its face. It seems people would rather pay twice as much in tax burden then let someone get something for "free".

Second of all; the study Andara is referring too was actually implemented as a state wide policy in Utah. They reduced homelessness by 75% and may literally eliminate it by the end of this year. There are only around 300 homeless people left in Utah now.

It costed them around 20 grand a year per homeless person prior to this program. Now it costs them 8 grand a year. Over 50% cheaper to literally just give a homeless person an apartment and a social worker. Then to bear the burden of their homelessness in shelters and emergency services.

[TheHuckster]

Second of all; the study Andara is referring too was actually implemented as a state wide policy in Utah. They reduced homelessness by 75% and may literally eliminate it by the end of this year. There are only around 300 homeless people left in Utah now.

It costed them around 20 grand a year per homeless person prior to this program. Now it costs them 8 grand a year. Over 50% cheaper to literally just give a homeless person an apartment and a social worker. Then to bear the burden of their homelessness in shelters and emergency services.

That's definitely promising. I would hope this topic might be brought up in the next presidential campaign, especially before the primaries.

[Andara Bledin]

The initiative is called Housing First, and they're still on track to eliminate the homeless in Utah by this year. Finland is attempting to hit the same deadline.

There are a few critics of the program out there, but most of the criticism is on the fact that giving people homes by itself will not solve the problem. But obviously, when coupled with additional actions, such as giving residents of such housing caseworkers to help them become self-sustaining, it works fantastically to get people off the streets and often out of the system entirely.

[AccountingDrone]

Er, no, not even remotely close. If you totally liquidated him he could give everyone in the US $248.66. There is not enough money on the entire planet to give everyone in the US a million dollars.

As for the topic, there is literally no valid argument against raising the minimum wage in the US. Because the economic burden of workers not being paid a living wage exists regardless of what the minimum wage is. Its just a matter of who is paying for the burden. Right now, its US taxpayers. When it should be the employers. End of story.

As I said, it was on a picture I found online - and I had no idea how true it was. Though I bet he could manage to give away 50 000 to everybody in the US.

The initiative is called Housing First, and they're still on track to eliminate the homeless in Utah by this year. Finland is attempting to hit the same deadline.

There are a few critics of the program out there, but most of the criticism is on the fact that giving people homes by itself will not solve the problem. But obviously, when coupled with additional actions, such as giving residents of such housing caseworkers to help them become self-sustaining, it works fantastically to get people off the streets and often out of the system entirely.

See, I like that program. I keep saying that as long as there are empty foreclosed dwellings, then it is reprehensible that there are homeless. And as long as the infrastructure needs work, we should impeach and horsewhip any damned politician who would vote against a CCC/WPA program to employ the unemployed and repair the infrastructure. Assholes. [we can add them to the damned antivaxxers. Charge them with child abuse and vaccinate everybody with no medical reason not to be vaccinated.]

[NecCat]

As I said, it was on a picture I found online - and I had no idea how true it was. Though I bet he could manage to give away 50 000 to everybody in the US.

That would take about 16 trillion dollars. Google is a little fuzzy but if you say at best Bill Gates has 75 million dollars, he would still need more than 200x his current worth to accomplish that.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

That would take about 16 trillion dollars. Google is a little fuzzy but if you say at best Bill Gates has 75 million dollars, he would still need more than 200x his current worth to accomplish that.

Google indicates he has a net worth around 79 Billion. This would be consistent with the around $240 per person in America figure mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

[Gravekeeper]

As I said, it was on a picture I found online - and I had no idea how true it was. Though I bet he could manage to give away 50 000 to everybody in the US.

No, he couldn't. I did the math. Hence the precise figure of $248.66. Given everyone in the US 50k would be 15.9 trillion dollars. Gates has a net worth of 79.3 billion. Just stop and think about the numbers for a moment. Because even suggesting 50k per person is completely absurd. You're still suggesting Gates has a net worth just shy of the US GDP. >.>

[NecCat]

Google indicates he has a net worth around 79 Billion. This would be consistent with the around $240 per person in America figure mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

My bad, I meant 75 billion. Still he needs around 200X to accomplish giving everyone in the states 50, 000$

[BlaqueKatt]

and just read a particularly condescending article* against it, writer's reasoning "it took *me* until I was 26 to earn that much, and if you get it starting out it's not fair, all *my* effort will have been wasted" (he also throws in that other jobs have more "value" to society, and since those "valued" jobs make less it's not fair to them-though I see no argument about teachers making less than celebrities of any flavor.) He also thinks it's just awful to have to be in the same tax bracket as the "plebes", and that the only reason people choose hard jobs is for higher wages(effort vs. reward means no one will want to be EMTs if they make the same as a sandwich artist-sounds like projection to me, the EMTs and firefighters** I know DON'T do it for the pay, they do it because they want to help people.)

So pretty much a "Just world fallacy" smashed together with "sunk cost fallacy, and he throws in "appeal to tradition" for added flavor".

I honestly haven't seen an argument against it that doesn't involve some sort of logical fallacy.

Do I care if I'm making the same as someone working at subway? Nope, we both deserve to to live, and MW isn't a living wage, it was intended to be the "minimum living wage" meaning you could afford rent, food, transportation, maybe some "luxuries" if you saved up. It's not, and that's wrong.


*some highlights:

those who believe you should automatically be able to “live comfortably,” as if “comfort” is a human right.
You think the jobs I had when I was 16 should have provided me with the comfortable living I just established in my late 20s? Frankly, I think you’re delusional.
It isn’t paying enough? OK, get another job. Get a second job. Get a third job. Get a different job.

**I know quite a few, we have a minimum of two per shift, working as security guards, to back up the other EMTs on the refinery payroll. That EMT status gives them a dollar more than a "regular" guard, and they all still work part time OR as UNPAID volunteers for the local services.

[Andara Bledin]

A handful of logical fallacies and a dash (sometimes a very large one) of outright jealousy.

The whole "I had to work hard so you should have to work hard, too," even though technology has made it pointless to do the same type of hard work, and in some cases has made working as hard impossible.

I mean, how bitter does a person have to be that they would actively work against ensuring that nobody goes hungry or is homeless because then they wouldn't be as far above those same people any more?

It's all a bunch of whiny "kids these days...I had to walk uphill, both ways" bullshit we've had cycling every single generation, probably since the invention of the wheel gave people the opportunity to not have to walk everywhere.

Our society is in a position that hasn't existed before where we can actually afford to ensure that every member has food and shelter, and yet we won't actually make that happen because too many of us are greedy bitter assholes who aren't willing to let go of the status symbol their money gives them to prevent people from dying in the streets. I mean, how damaged does a person have to be to fight against that?

[s_stabeler]

It should probably help if we define how we expect someone on MW to live. ( to me, they should need to keep a sharp eye on their bank balance, but should not need to decide which bill to pay because they can't afford all of them this month while putting food on the table. There should be some space to save up for luxuries, though.)

[NecCat]

I've been taught a reasonable budget for your net income will be about like:

30% housing and utilities
25% food and hygiene
10% savings/emergency fund
10% transportation
10% entertainment/luxury
10% other tangibles (clothing, furniture, dishes, computer etc)
5% medical

If your housing is 50% of your income you can't make a reasonable budget. If your food is 40% of your income you can't make a reasonable budget. If the cheapest rent in your city is $750/month you have to take home at least $2500/month to be able to make a reasonable budget. If the cheapest rent in your city is $400/month you need to earn at least $1333/month take home to make a reasonable budget.

Most of those things can be moved up or down 5% or so, but I would think that anybody who assist the working poor could come up with a reasonable minimum income, for that particular area. The problem is trying to come up with a reasonable minimum wage for a nation that includes places where the cheapest rent is sometimes 12x what it is in other areas.