Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[SAYIT]

Well aren't you entitlement minded.

An honest day's wage for an honest day of work is hardly an entitlement.

But it is highly subjective and varies widely by geography and lifestyle choices.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

State's have a right to set their own min wage, and some do outside of Federal requirements. But the Federal govt has a constitutional right to regulate interstate trade.

People who are making min wage get foodstamps.

Not all peeps who make min wage get food stamps and people who are jobless get food stamps AND welfare. If you have no marketable skills you have to start somewhere.

The starting point should not be welfare. Anyone who is getting up and going to work everyday should not be relying on foodstamps in order to get by. WalMart is the biggest employer of workers on public assistance. That is a substandard starting point that is a drain on our economy, not beneficial.

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

State's have a right to set their own min wage, and some do outside of Federal requirements. But the Federal govt has a constitutional right to regulate interstate trade.

People who are making min wage get foodstamps.

Not all peeps who make min wage get food stamps and people who are jobless get food stamps AND welfare. If you have no marketable skills you have to start somewhere.

The starting point should not be welfare. Anyone who is getting up and going to work everyday should not be relying on foodstamps in order to get by. WalMart is the biggest employer of workers on public assistance. That is a substandard starting point that is a drain on our economy, not beneficial.

Why should the general public pay for a fifteen dollar an hour min wage for the small percentage of people who cant manage to get a real job?

 

[Roadrunner]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

State's have a right to set their own min wage, and some do outside of Federal requirements. But the Federal govt has a constitutional right to regulate interstate trade.

People who are making min wage get foodstamps.

Not all peeps who make min wage get food stamps and people who are jobless get food stamps AND welfare. If you have no marketable skills you have to start somewhere.

In a Republic Of Virtue, re-education camps would solve the problem of the able bodied jobless, and leave billions on the table for the truly needy.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

State's have a right to set their own min wage, and some do outside of Federal requirements. But the Federal govt has a constitutional right to regulate interstate trade.

People who are making min wage get foodstamps.

Not all peeps who make min wage get food stamps and people who are jobless get food stamps AND welfare. If you have no marketable skills you have to start somewhere.

The starting point should not be welfare. Anyone who is getting up and going to work everyday should not be relying on foodstamps in order to get by. WalMart is the biggest employer of workers on public assistance. That is a substandard starting point that is a drain on our economy, not beneficial.

We agree that those on the gov't dole are a drain on our economy but we disagree on how best to solve that problem. I say it's the individual's responsibility to improve their skills and not the federal gov'ts job to skew the wage market.

There is nothing wrong with being a grocery clerk. In fact, it was once a viable career path for a blue collar worker. The only thing that has been skewed is the fact that American workers are continually getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. The fact that half of all people on welfare today actually have jobs should be a HUGE wake up call that something is very wrong with the earnings standards for the American worker.

Again, from the OP:

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.

At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011. Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

 

[SAYIT]

BS.

Gov't dictated higher wages at the bottom of the scale means higher wages - and higher prices - for everyone, leaving those at the bottom with the same dilemma they now have (but they'll need a wheelbarrow to carry around the almost worthless cash) ... poverty. The only way out of that dilemma is for the worker to become more valuable to potential employers.

You can call BS all you want, but all historical data shows just the opposite of what you are saying. The min wage today is 26% less than it was in 1974. Is your cost of living 26% less?

You're becoming shrill and desperate. Using snapshots is disingenuous at best. The point remains that gov't dictated higher wages at the bottom of the scale means higher wages - and higher prices - for everyone, leaving those at the bottom with the same dilemma they now have (but they'll need a wheelbarrow to carry around the almost worthless cash) ... poverty. The only way out of that dilemma is for the worker to become more valuable to potential employers.

Shrill and desperate because I am going by actual data, and not unfounded assumptions? Higher wages do not, never have, and never will drive inflation. I have never raised my prices due to a state mandated min wage increase.

No, you're not. You started this thread with absurd assumptions regarding the cost of living and have unsuccessfully attempted to defend them using absurd and untrue arguments. Take another look and see what you can slash:

RENT ------------------------------$1000
BASIC UTILITIES --------------$200
ADVANCED UTILITIES ------$150
FOOD ------------------------------$300
NON-FOOD GROCERY -----$50
CLOTHING -----------------------$75
TRANSPORTATION ----------$500
HEALTHCARE -----------------$350
MISCELLANEOUS -----------$400
------------------------------------------------------
Average Basic Monthly Expenses $3,025

 

[Jackinthebox]

Well aren't you entitlement minded.

An honest day's wage for an honest day of work is hardly an entitlement.

But it is highly subjective and varies widely by geography and lifestyle choices.

Granted, it can vary by region, but that was already taken into account in the original article. Lifestyle choices, we are talking about a single person being able to support themselves on their own. Not lifestyle choices, but a basic and reasonable standard for anyone who gets up and goes to work everyday. They should be paid enough so that I don't have to buy their groceries. .

 

[SAYIT]

Labor is a resource just like any other business expense. Let's pretend for a moment that labor is actually gasoline, and that I operate a trucking company. Who should pay my fuel costs to run my fleet? Should I pay the price at the pump? A price which is pretty much a government regulated standard. Or should I be able to tank up my fleet at the highway department pump, and skip paying?

The price at the pump is NOT "a gov't regulated standard." The only gov't impact on the price of gas is the taxes they add on. The price of gas itself is a function of supply and demand and if you've purchased any lately you'd know that.
Labor is indeed a commodity and it's value is set by the same market forces ... supply and demand.

The price at the pump certainly is govt regulated to a very large extent. Selling gas for excessive amounts during times of crisis, for example, is illegal. I saw many fellow business men fined very heavily, some lost their businesses, after Hurricane Katrina. And I am all the way up here in NY, not in the disaster area.

Anecdotal anomalies. The price we pay at the pump is not gov't regulated but rather is a function of supply and demand ... just like labor.

It's not about supply and demand. If that were true, gas would be under $2 a gallon right now. The same as the last time crude was below $65 a barrel. Most of our price at the pump is taxes.

Once again you speak out of your ass. State and Federal taxes - on average - amount to less than 20% of the price. The rest is a direct function of supply and demand. Right now there is an oversupply putting downward pressure on prices (or haven't you noticed).

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, you're not. You started this thread with absurd assumptions regarding the cost of living and have unsuccessfully attempted to defend them using absurd and untrue arguments. Take another look and see what you can slash:

And if you bothered to follow the link at the bottom, you would see how they came by those figures.

 

[Roadrunner]

Labor is a resource just like any other business expense. Let's pretend for a moment that labor is actually gasoline, and that I operate a trucking company. Who should pay my fuel costs to run my fleet? Should I pay the price at the pump? A price which is pretty much a government regulated standard. Or should I be able to tank up my fleet at the highway department pump, and skip paying?

The price at the pump is NOT "a gov't regulated standard." The only gov't impact on the price of gas is the taxes they add on. The price of gas itself is a function of supply and demand and if you've purchased any lately you'd know that.
Labor is indeed a commodity and it's value is set by the same market forces ... supply and demand.

The price at the pump certainly is govt regulated to a very large extent. Selling gas for excessive amounts during times of crisis, for example, is illegal. I saw many fellow business men fined very heavily, some lost their businesses, after Hurricane Katrina. And I am all the way up here in NY, not in the disaster area.

Anecdotal anomalies. The price we pay at the pump is not gov't regulated but rather is a function of supply and demand ... just like labor.

It's not about supply and demand. If that were true, gas would be under $2 a gallon right now. The same as the last time crude was below $65 a barrel. Most of our price at the pump is taxes.

Once again you speak out of your ass. State and Federal taxes - on average - amount to less than 20% of the price. The rest is a direct function of supply and demand. Right now there is an oversupply putting downward pressure on prices (or haven't you noticed).

Can you imagine what a single person would have to gross to net $3,025 a month?

 

[Roadrunner]

No, you're not. You started this thread with absurd assumptions regarding the cost of living and have unsuccessfully attempted to defend them using absurd and untrue arguments. Take another look and see what you can slash:

And if you bothered to follow the link at the bottom, you would see how they came by those figures.

If you weren't sitting at the net mentally masturbating all day, you might get a real job and get to retire and mentally masturbate on the net all day!

 

[Jackinthebox]

Once again you speak out of your ass. State and Federal taxes - on average - amount to less than 20% of the price. The rest is a direct function of supply and demand. Right now there is an oversupply putting downward pressure on prices (or haven't you noticed).

As a retailer of gasoline I make virtually nothing at all on gasoline in NYS and every third quarter I sell at ten cents BELOW cost.

 

[SAYIT]

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

State's have a right to set their own min wage, and some do outside of Federal requirements. But the Federal govt has a constitutional right to regulate interstate trade.

People who are making min wage get foodstamps.

Not all peeps who make min wage get food stamps and people who are jobless get food stamps AND welfare. If you have no marketable skills you have to start somewhere.

The starting point should not be welfare. Anyone who is getting up and going to work everyday should not be relying on foodstamps in order to get by. WalMart is the biggest employer of workers on public assistance. That is a substandard starting point that is a drain on our economy, not beneficial.

We agree that those on the gov't dole are a drain on our economy but we disagree on how best to solve that problem. I say it's the individual's responsibility to improve their skills and not the federal gov'ts job to skew the wage market.

There is nothing wrong with being a grocery clerk. In fact, it was once a viable career path for a blue collar worker. The only thing that has been skewed is the fact that American workers are continually getting a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. The fact that half of all people on welfare today actually have jobs should be a HUGE wake up call that something is very wrong with the earnings standards for the American worker.

Again, from the OP:

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.

At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011. Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Good God, man. You say you aren't a socialist but you certainly post as one. No one said there is anything wrong with clerking or cab driving. You seem to think you have a monopoly on compassion. That's very liberal of you. The fact remains if one CHOOSES to settle on such non-skilled work, one runs the risk of struggling financially. It's not for YOU to choose for others which, BTW, is also a very liberal habit.

 

[SAYIT]

Once again you speak out of your ass. State and Federal taxes - on average - amount to less than 20% of the price. The rest is a direct function of supply and demand. Right now there is an oversupply putting downward pressure on prices (or haven't you noticed).

As a retailer of gasoline I make virtually nothing at all on gasoline in NYS and every third quarter I sell at ten cents BELOW cost.

Perhaps it's time you get into another biz. You don't seem too successful at selling gas.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Can you imagine what a single person would have to gross to net $3,025 a month?

Better yet, anyone making less than a living wage should not be taxed. Doesn't make any sense to have someone paying taxes then getting money from welfare. It's just costly red tape and paper shuffling. Of course, that creates nonsense jobs too.

 

[SAYIT]

Well aren't you entitlement minded.

An honest day's wage for an honest day of work is hardly an entitlement.

But it is highly subjective and varies widely by geography and lifestyle choices.

Granted, it can vary by region, but that was already taken into account in the original article. Lifestyle choices, we are talking about a single person being able to support themselves on their own...

What do you mean by "on their own?" Normal peeps make choices. If one wants a car then other stuff must be sacrificed. If one wants to spend $1000/mo on rent, other stuff has to go.

 

[Jackinthebox]

If you weren't sitting at the net mentally masturbating all day, you might get a real job and get to retire and mentally masturbate on the net all day!

Excuse me? I am already partially retired. How I spend my day is none of your concern.

 

[SAYIT]

Can you imagine what a single person would have to gross to net $3,025 a month?

Better yet, anyone making less than a living wage should not be taxed. Doesn't make any sense to have someone paying taxes then getting money from welfare. It's just costly red tape and paper shuffling. Of course, that creates nonsense jobs too.

The bottom 50% of American wage earners - which includes all who you claim make less than a living wage (whatever that is) - already pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride on the backs of those who do have to pay those taxes. Feel better now?

 

[Jackinthebox]

Good God, man. You say you aren't a socialist but you certainly post as one. No one said there is anything wrong with clerking or cab driving. You seem to think you have a monopoly on compassion. That's very liberal of you. The fact remains if one CHOOSES to settle on such non-skilled work, one runs the risk of struggling financially. It's not for YOU to choose for others which, BTW, is also a very liberal habit.

I don't support a living wage out of compassion. I support it because it makes good economic sense. Even Henry Ford knew to pay his workers well enough to afford his product, when he was the largest employer in the nation.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Perhaps it's time you get into another biz. You don't seem too successful at selling gas.

Successful enough to retire and dick around on the internet all day.

 

[Jackinthebox]

What do you mean by "on their own?" Normal peeps make choices. If one wants a car then other stuff must be sacrificed. If one wants to spend $1000/mo on rent, other stuff has to go.

I mean on their own, living independently, meeting their basic expenses without government assistance. And yes that includes both housing AND transportation to and from their job. "Sacrificing" necessities only sets the stage for a permanent welfare class.