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

[mjr]

except it's more like 18,500, or $1535 month-with average rent in us cities being $900.(affordable rent for that wage is $460/month)
Amazing how the tax rate of around 25% for single people vanished in your example.

I did mention that my example was based on the 40 hour workweek. And I also mentioned previously that many jobs in the "low wage" category are part-time.

several countries do this.

And would you be OK with the U.S. going that route? Because then it wouldn't be the businesses fault if people were underpaid. It might also stifle innovation.

poor people aren't allowed to have nice things for any reason. They're required to live in misery as incentive.

Sure. If you want to put words in my mouth that I never said.

and giving their executives bonuses reduces walmart's tax bill they gave 300 MILLION in bonuses to executives.

Did they break any law in doing so? But even so...take away the executive bonuses and spread that amongst the 2 million Wal-Mart employees...how much is that per each employee? $150.

check facts not talking points

That's not quite right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_...tates_Congress

[mjr]

Do you know how condescending that would sound to someone working two jobs and still having to turn to foodstamps?

As condescending as some of the things Democrats tell people?

But hey, maybe the person on food stamps has a good attitude and outlook. Maybe they're saying to themselves, "I can improve this situation", and they're working their tail off to do so.

I can't control who wants to be Eeyore and who doesn't.

Yes, many employers accept "I learned it off the Internet" as a certification of skills on a resume. -.-

Not what I mean -- at all -- and you know it. And you accuse me of creating strawmen.

I don't write Java code for a living, but I can guarantee you if I wrote a Java app for a mobile device, on my own time, and put it on my resume, it would garner interest from employers.

Aside from that, reading and learning (regardless of what it is) makes things easier overall. Actual studies have shown that. The more you read, the more you know, etc. makes it easier for you to make decisions and think more critically.

Too many people (in general) are more interested in who can sing/dance the best, who's gonna marry whom, and so forth rather than improving their minds. Do I watch TV? Absolutely. Too much of it? Probably. But I also work to improve my current skillset.

Your economy would be a smoldering crater if not for Democrats

Got any real, actual proof of this, or is it just a supposition?

The US economy always does better when a Democrat is in the White House.

The economy always has a lag, too...so it's possible that it's partially due to Republicans.

Aside from that, it's not just who's in the Presidency and Congress. You have to actually look at what's going on at the time.

As for control of the White House / House / Senate the Democrats only controlled all 3 for a tiny window. You can turn that silly argument right around and ask why Republicans didn't do anything when they had all 3.

Again, not quite accurate...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_...tates_Congress

[mjr]

THE ISSUE IS THAT SOMEONE EARNING MINIMUM WAGE CANNOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES- AS IN BE ABLE TO BUY THE BASICS- WITHOUT SPENDING PRACTICALLY EVERY WAKING MINUTE AT WORK

See, this argument has changed several times throughout this thread. First, it's "Minimum wage" workers. Then it's "low wage". Which are we actually discussing?

Is it either? Or? Both? I'm really trying to keep this civil, and I thought you were, too.

In short, the issue for MW workers is that they literally don't have TIME to learn new skills. That, and the poverty itself can act to make it harder to learn new skills.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, I think. But again, as I noted with a link from the BLS, around 3% of people 24 and under are actually making MW or less, if I recall what the link said.

And here's the thing, too: I know there have been a number of Democrats who have advocated for "job training" as well. So if low wage workers currently don't have time for learning new skills, what's gonna change? I mean, I've been criticized a number of times in this thread alone for advocating acquiring new skills.

Also from an economic standpoint, what's the return on $15/hour? Let's say it does help the MW worker. Ok, let's go with that. But again, if they're only working part time (say, 25-30 hours per week), that's still between 1,300 and 1,560 hours per year (since a lot of MW jobs are part time). That gives money in the range of $19,500 (before taxes) and $23,400 (before taxes).

What's the return to the business? Are employees going to have better attitudes? Are they gonna work harder? Are they going to become more knowledgeable of product? We really don't know.

Look at it from both sides. What would your expectations be if you had a business?

To summarise, I don't actually care how much the CEO earns, as long as the company he controls doesn't make it's money by forcing it's lowest-paid workers to get government assistance to survive- oh, and not to mention that the super-rich always seem to be lobbying for that same assistance to be cut so their taxes can eb lowered.

I've just illustrated that even at $15/hour, that assistance would possibly still be needed.

[Gravekeeper]

It might also stifle innovation.

You're one mention of Job Creators(tm) away from talking point bingo.

As condescending as some of the things Democrats tell people?

Such as?

But hey, maybe the person on food stamps has a good attitude and outlook. Maybe they're saying to themselves, "I can improve this situation", and they're working their tail off to do so.

I can't control who wants to be Eeyore and who doesn't.

You have a terrifyingly ignorant grasp on the realities of poverty. To put it politely.

Also an insultingly ignorant grasp on the realities of mental health.

Did they break any law in doing so? But even so...take away the executive bonuses and spread that amongst the 2 million Wal-Mart employees...how much is that per each employee? $150.

Neither of these arguments are even relevant to this discussion.

That's not quite right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_...tates_Congress

[/QUOTE]

Lemme just quote straight from that:

This Congress has been considered one of the most productive Congresses in history

Now let me quote straight from the 112th Congress when Republicans took the House:

It was also the first Congress since 1947 in which no member of the Kennedy family served, as well as the most politically polarized Congress since Reconstruction, and the least productive since the Second World War, with record low approval ratings.

-.-

Not what I mean -- at all -- and you know it. And you accuse me of creating strawmen.

How is that not what you meant? You are straight up saying that all poor need to do is obtain more skills and they won't be poor anymore. When countered on that you've slide all the way down to "watch 5-10 minute videos".

I don't write Java code for a living, but I can guarantee you if I wrote a Java app for a mobile device, on my own time, and put it on my resume, it would garner interest from employers.

No, it wouldn't. Mobile apps are a time a dozen as are the people that make them. Being a java developer, even a junior entry level one, is an entirely different beast than being able to make a mobile app. And that's even assuming you live in an area where those types of jobs are actually available.

Yes, you could try and work remotely as a free lance contractor with your base level Java skills. But again, dime a dozen. Free lance Java work is flooded market and you will have to compete not only with other freelancers but with freelance firms in Asia who offer rock bottom pricing.

Plus you take on the risks of being fucked over by clients. A fairly common scenario over on CS.

So no, you are not going to make enough money to live off with some Java skills you learn off Youtube. Nor would any employer care. The mobile market is extremely over saturated right now.

The more you read, the more you know, etc. makes it easier for you to make decisions and think more critically.

This whole line of argument has nothing to do with the topic at hand aside from further implications that being poor is the fault of the poor themselves.

Got any real, actual proof of this, or is it just a supposition?

Sure.

The economy always has a lag, too...so it's possible that it's partially due to Republicans. Aside from that, it's not just who's in the Presidency and Congress. You have to actually look at what's going on at the time.

So there are economic lag factors, but not when Democrats controlled the House/Senate/Presidency? And yes, you do need to actually look at what's going on at the time.

You should seriously take your own advice on that matter. I seem to recall there was some sort of economic hiccup under Bush. =p

[Kheldarson]

Aside from that, reading and learning (regardless of what it is) makes things easier overall. Actual studies have shown that. The more you read, the more you know, etc. makes it easier for you to make decisions and think more critically.

Hahahahaha.

Can I note that all of that has very little bearing in getting a job anymore? I mean, I have two college degrees. I've been working at my current retail job for three years. I can't seem to move up in my company. And not for lack of trying. Favoritism runs rampant. And now they've eliminated about half of the lead positions.

And getting a new job? Well, I don’t have time or interest to pursue teaching in this area (one of my degrees is in education) because everybody says that you have to get in by subbing around here. Get the connections. But subbing don't pay. Or have benefits. And I've got a family. Plus, not a fan of lower level teaching, but I need a master's, at least, to teach at a higher level. Again, no time or money.

And new job outside my field? Entry level office work keep looking at me and telling me I'm under qualified because I have no office experience or over qualified for having two degrees.

The whole market is saturated with a "who you know" mentality. What you know don't count for shit.

[Rageaholic]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, I think. But again, as I noted with a link from the BLS, around 3% of people 24 and under are actually making MW or less, if I recall what the link said.

And here's the thing, too: I know there have been a number of Democrats who have advocated for "job training" as well. So if low wage workers currently don't have time for learning new skills, what's gonna change? I mean, I've been criticized a number of times in this thread alone for advocating acquiring new skills.

But hey, maybe the person on food stamps has a good attitude and outlook. Maybe they're saying to themselves, "I can improve this situation", and they're working their tail off to do so.

I can't control who wants to be Eeyore and who doesn't.

I don't think anyone is saying that people shouldn't try to improve their situation. You can still advocate for livable wages while working to make your own life better. But there's only so much a person can do. And if they're working their ass off and still make barely enough to get by, their quality of life sucks.

Also from an economic standpoint, what's the return on $15/hour? Let's say it does help the MW worker. Ok, let's go with that. But again, if they're only working part time (say, 25-30 hours per week), that's still between 1,300 and 1,560 hours per year (since a lot of MW jobs are part time). That gives money in the range of $19,500 (before taxes) and $23,400 (before taxes).

What's the return to the business? Are employees going to have better attitudes? Are they gonna work harder? Are they going to become more knowledgeable of product? We really don't know.

Well their quality of life would certainly improve, so yes, I think they would be better employees.

[s_stabeler]

mjr, if I may be bunt? the issue - as I have spelled out before- is that currently, a worker on the minimum wage cannot support themselves on said wage while working a full-time work week. They have to work at least two full-time work weeks every week.

as for the return to the business, amazingly enough, yes they will be more productive employees (there have been studies done- I'm not going to quote them)

oh, and as for there being 3% of 24-year olds on minimum wage, so? the point is that of people who are currently being paid the minimum wage, 89% are older than 18- and as such, are adults, presumably trying to support themselves on said minimum wage. It is irrelevant what percentage of people that age are being paid MW, since it hardly matters if only 3% of the workforce are forced to work themselves to the bone just to scratch a living.


again, the issue is that, at present, MW workers have to spend every waking moment at work to just be able to afford somewhere to live, and food. I find that unacceptable.

also, if thye are indeed onyl working part time, then thye may be unable to support themselves on that. But amazingly enough, I was saying it should be raised to a level where, if you work full-time hours- either by having more than one part-time job, adding up to 40 hours, or by having a full-time job- you are guaranteed to be able to support yourself.

So, to use the correct meths: 2080 hours per year ( I am assuming 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. That produces wages, before tax, of $31,200, (after tax it is about $25,000)- now, this may well be tricky to live on, but you CAN do it.

[dendawg]

MY opinion, and purely my opinion, is this...

Minimum wage workers are in a no-win situation, as every time the minimum wage goes up, prices of goods and services rise right along with it. Further, when the min wage reaches $15, the prices for everything will rise yet again, whether by natural economic forces or corporate greed. Don't delude yourselves into thinking otherwise.

Again, just my opinion, not an attack on others beliefs.

[Gravekeeper]

Minimum wage workers are in a no-win situation, as every time the minimum wage goes up, prices of goods and services rise right along with it. Further, when the min wage reaches $15, the prices for everything will rise yet again, whether by natural economic forces or corporate greed. Don't delude yourselves into thinking otherwise.

This is an incredibly narrow and incorrect view of the economy. Not to mention just bad math.

If that were actually true the minimum wage would never go up and minimum wage in the rest of the modern world would suck as much as it does in the US ( Hint: It doesn't ). Prices do not increase to match the increase in wages even if the entire cost of a wage increase is passed on directly to the consumer. We already went over this in the last minimum wage thread.

Having full time workers that cannot meet their basic needs is an economic burden. Period. Right now, that burden is being born by the government and thus you, the taxpayer. You are literally subsidizing McDonald's labour force. When McDonalds, in turn, could raise its entry wage to $15 tomorrow, pass the entire cost on to the consumer and only end up with like a 12 cent increase on a Big Mac. McDonalds set up support line to advise its workers how to apply for government social services. Think about that.

Nevermind that an increase in wages is an increase in spending power and is always followed by an increase in spending on goods and services. People with more money have more money to spend. There's hardly a threat of massive economic collapse to McDonalds and its ilk if it has to pay its workers a living wage and they know it.

They're on the gravy train and don't want to get off until they're absolutely legally forced too. Much like most American corporations.

[Shangri-laschild]

The big problem is most of these jobs aren't full time jobs. If you cut the hours down to 30 per week, you get $18,423.60/year, or approximately $1,535.30 per month. So I think that the issue in a lot of cases is hours (hence, people having to work two jobs), not necessarily pay.

If someone is having to work two part time jobs and each are 30 hours a week then yes, the pay is the problem.

Ok, I can see it from that perspective. The perspective from which I was presenting it is that a lesser-priced phone would (generally) provide more money for them to use on other necessities.

My sister doesn't currently work. She has two kids though (needs a phone in case of emergencies with them) and her monthly phone line bill is paid for by my parents. Her phone was getting very old and having problems so she needed a new one. She researched and planned and found a huge promotion last black friday where she could get the newest phone for $1 if she reupped a contract she was already on and planned to stay on anyway. Sure she could have instead gotten a normally cheaper phone since she doesn't have a job but this was much cheaper and a wiser use of her money. Yet another example of how assuming someone with the newest phone is wasting their money is not only incorrect but also harmful to the argument.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, I think. But again, as I noted with a link from the BLS, around 3% of people 24 and under are actually making MW or less, if I recall what the link said.

Ok lets say for the sake of argument that the vast majority of minimum wage workers. How does that change anything? If they aren't making enough to live and have to work 60 hours a week and have no time to learn any skills to advance then it still is exactly the same as if the majority of them are in their 40s. People aren't making enough to live working a reasonable amount of hours each week without assistance for things like food and don't have time to improve their situation because they are working so many hours.

And as far as your comment about how it's changed between minimum wage and low wage....if minimum wage is $8 and a living wage is $10 then really, someone working at $8.50 is making above minimum wage, they are still making below a living wage. The issue is people making below what minimum wage should be.

[mjr]

Such as?

A good number of them.

You have a terrifyingly ignorant grasp on the realities of poverty. To put it politely.

And you think politicians don't?

Also an insultingly ignorant grasp on the realities of mental health.

Do you think politicians do? Yes, or no?

So no, you are not going to make enough money to live off with some Java skills you learn off Youtube. Nor would any employer care. The mobile market is extremely over saturated right now.

I'm not talking specifically about Java skills. I'm talking about any skill one does not currently have.

Books I'm currently reading (or have read recently):

Zero to One
How to build a Billion-Dollar App
The Millionaire Next Door
You, Inc

Udemy video courses I am currently watching (or have recently watched) include courses on how to be a better leader, code improvement, Scrum, and Kanban.

Why? To challenge myself, and learn new things.

This whole line of argument has nothing to do with the topic at hand aside from further implications that being poor is the fault of the poor themselves.

Sometimes it is. Are you denying that?

[s_stabeler]

No, I don't tink he is, However, what boht he and I are saying is two-fold. 1) even if you can only get a low-skilled job you should be able to survive on a full-time week, without needing government benefits
2) while you can be poor through your own laziness- or, for that matter, financial irresponsibility- the majority of poor people are not, in fact, poor for that reason.

[Jetfire]

Exactly. Someone who is fiscally responsible, working full time at Minimum wage should be able to survive comfortably (but admittedly sparsely) on their earnings without needing further government (or any other) assistance. If that is not the case, then the minimum is simply not high enough.

[Talon]

Do you know how condescending that would sound to someone working two jobs and still having to turn to foodstamps?

As condescending as some of the things Democrats tell people?

Mjr, are these un-named Democrats' condescension supposed to excuse yours?

You have a terrifyingly ignorant grasp on the realities of poverty. To put it politely.
Also an insultingly ignorant grasp on the realities of mental health.

And you think politicians don't?
Do you think politicians do? Yes, or no?

Mjr again, are politicans' ignorance on the above subjects supposed to excuse yours?

[mjr]

Mjr, are these un-named Democrats' condescension supposed to excuse yours?

Is that relevant? Condescension is condescension, is it not?

Mjr again, are politicans' ignorance on the above subjects supposed to excuse yours?

I don't make policy. Or law.