Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[dblack]

AYUP... work your ass off only to have more of your income go to dead beats... screw that.

How about work your ass off and still have to get your meals from the welfare office? If you are so sick of welfare, then mandate a living wage. You should not have to pay to feed shelter and clothe my workers. But you will have to for as long as you don't make me pay them a living wage.

Still going with this silly argument? I agree that we should definitely put a stop to businesses profiting from the welfare state. But that's simple to do without instituting wage controls. Simply make employers reimburse the state for any welfare benefits their employees receive. Or simply don't let them employee people receiving benefits. That solves the problem without the government dictating our economic decisions.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Oh, clothes and bike. Relying on handouts is not a solution to anything either. There is no reason why a person who works every day should have to turn to handouts from the government or anyone else in order to be clothed, or to secure reliable transportation to their job. A bicycle here in the winter is a totally absurd solution.

Then shovel snow ya cry baby.

Are you intentionally being a moron at this point? Shoveling snow is not a real job. Are you seriously expecting a person to quit regular work for what is essentially a temp job? Heck, these days you would be lucky to even find people to pay you for it anyway. My construction company does snow removal. We have virtually no residential contracts anymore, and no guy with a shovel is going to be able to service our corporate contracts.

Listen to this moron. working isn't a real job... what a piece of shit.

If you think that shoveling snow a few times this winter is going to support a person, then YOU are the moron. So eat a turd. I'm don't with your ignorance.

Yeah cause working can't possibly support a person. Face it, you are a moron.

Shoveling snow a few times in the wintertime is not going earn anyone a living. You are a serious dipshit for even suggesting such nonsense.

 

[Jackinthebox]

AYUP... work your ass off only to have more of your income go to dead beats... screw that.

How about work your ass off and still have to get your meals from the welfare office? If you are so sick of welfare, then mandate a living wage. You should not have to pay to feed shelter and clothe my workers. But you will have to for as long as you don't make me pay them a living wage.

Still going with this silly argument? I agree that we should definitely put a stop to businesses profiting from the welfare state. But that's simple to do without instituting wage controls. Simply make employers reimburse the state for any welfare benefits their employees receive. Or simply don't let them employee people receiving benefits. That solves the problem without the government dictating our economic decisions.

It only solves part of the problem. It doesn't do anything to actually get people off of welfare though.

 

[dblack]

AYUP... work your ass off only to have more of your income go to dead beats... screw that.

How about work your ass off and still have to get your meals from the welfare office? If you are so sick of welfare, then mandate a living wage. You should not have to pay to feed shelter and clothe my workers. But you will have to for as long as you don't make me pay them a living wage.

Still going with this silly argument? I agree that we should definitely put a stop to businesses profiting from the welfare state. But that's simple to do without instituting wage controls. Simply make employers reimburse the state for any welfare benefits their employees receive. Or simply don't let them employee people receiving benefits. That solves the problem without the government dictating our economic decisions.

It only solves part of the problem. It doesn't do anything to actually get people off of welfare though.

And that's where your flight into fantasy begins. You're thinking of minimum wage laws as a way to force employers to pay more for jobs than they're worth. But they don't do that. They merely outlaw jobs that are worth less.

 

[Skull Pilot]

AYUP... work your ass off only to have more of your income go to dead beats... screw that.

How about work your ass off and still have to get your meals from the welfare office? If you are so sick of welfare, then mandate a living wage. You should not have to pay to feed shelter and clothe my workers. But you will have to for as long as you don't make me pay them a living wage.

Still going with this silly argument? I agree that we should definitely put a stop to businesses profiting from the welfare state. But that's simple to do without instituting wage controls. Simply make employers reimburse the state for any welfare benefits their employees receive. Or simply don't let them employee people receiving benefits. That solves the problem without the government dictating our economic decisions.

It only solves part of the problem. It doesn't do anything to actually get people off of welfare though.

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that the government has made it easier and easier to get on the dole.

 

[Jackinthebox]

And that's where your flight into fantasy begins. You're thinking of minimum wage laws as a way to force employers to pay more for jobs than they're worth. But they don't do that. They merely outlaw jobs that are worth less.

Any job, I don't care what it is, is worth an honest day's pay. No matter what you do for a living, you should be paid enough to put food on the table. More than they're worth? Any job is worth at least enough to get off of welfare.

But if your business model can't afford to operate without socialized labor, then yes, those jobs SHOULD be outlawed. As you yourself have argued to some degree.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that the government has made it easier and easier to get on the dole.

Easier? Actually, they have been cutting benefits and applying a lot more red tape. If it really were "easier" then you wouldn't have all those folks who complain how they can't get by, yet still don't qualify for assistance.

That is all really beside the point anyway. Easier or harder makes no difference. You are putting the cart in front of the horse, assuming that everyone on assistance is a fraud. You could cut welfare in half, right now, today, by implementing a living wage standard.

 

[dblack]

And that's where your flight into fantasy begins. You're thinking of minimum wage laws as a way to force employers to pay more for jobs than they're worth. But they don't do that. They merely outlaw jobs that are worth less.

Any job, I don't care what it is, is worth an honest day's pay. No matter what you do for a living, you should be paid enough to put food on the table. More than they're worth? Any job is worth at least enough to get off of welfare.

At least you're being straight up with the stupid. But it's surprising to hear a "successful businessman" make such an ignorant statement.

But if your business model can't afford to operate without socialized labor, then yes, those jobs SHOULD be outlawed. As you yourself have argued to some degree.

No, I'm arguing the opposite. People should be free to accept any job they want, regardless of what it pays. I'm simply saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to profit from the labor of people who are supplemented by welfare.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be allowed to offer jobs that pay less than what welfare can provide. Because even those jobs are valuable to some people, and some of them would continue to be filled, even if welfare "paid more". Some people would still work those jobs because often there's more to be gained from a job than a wage. Some people are more interested in the learning or future opportunities a given job might provide. Some don't need to earn an "honest living" to get by (you really should re-read that Bucky Fuller quote a couple more times and think about what it implies). And other people will work the low-paying jobs because they can't find anything better and don't qualify for welfare, or choose not to utilize it for various reasons. .

Finally, many would choose to go on welfare rather than work a shitty job for low pay, and that's fine. Those businesses who are truly surviving on "socialized labor" would either change their business model, or go out of business. But by outlawing low wage jobs as a blanket policy you put everyone above out of work, essentially punishing them when they're harming no one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that the government has made it easier and easier to get on the dole.

Easier? Actually, they have been cutting benefits and applying a lot more red tape. If it really were "easier" then you wouldn't have all those folks who complain how they can't get by, yet still don't qualify for assistance.

That is all really beside the point anyway. Easier or harder makes no difference. You are putting the cart in front of the horse, assuming that everyone on assistance is a fraud. You could cut welfare in half, right now, today, by implementing a living wage standard.

All those folks?

How many is that anyway?

And if they can't get by they should look for a second job.

The problem I see is no one wants to work more than 37.5 hours a week and they all still expect to have it all.

What you don't seem to understand is that your so called living wage will actually cut the purchasing power of a lot of people.

Let's say you raise the minimum wage to 15 an hour overnight.

That means labor costs for a lot of business just doubled. So many of the industries that rely on low skilled labor will be forced to raise prices to compensate for the additional expense.

Now that price increase will eat into the higher incomes of the people who got their magic raise but waht about the people already making 15 to 20 an hour?

The rise in prices will decrease their purchasing power

So all you did was lower the standard of living of a lot of people in your quest to make life "fair"

If you want a better standard of living then make it happen yourself. But most people won't because as I said earlier they don't want to work more than one job, they use all their sick time every year and wouldn't dream of not taking a vacation

 

[Skull Pilot]

AYUP... work your ass off only to have more of your income go to dead beats... screw that.

How about work your ass off and still have to get your meals from the welfare office? If you are so sick of welfare, then mandate a living wage. You should not have to pay to feed shelter and clothe my workers. But you will have to for as long as you don't make me pay them a living wage.

Still going with this silly argument? I agree that we should definitely put a stop to businesses profiting from the welfare state. But that's simple to do without instituting wage controls. Simply make employers reimburse the state for any welfare benefits their employees receive. Or simply don't let them employee people receiving benefits. That solves the problem without the government dictating our economic decisions.

It only solves part of the problem. It doesn't do anything to actually get people off of welfare though.

The best way to get people off welfare is to put a maximum amount to any benefits people can receive

 

[Jackinthebox]

At least you're being straight up with the stupid. But it's surprising to hear a "successful businessman" make such an ignorant statement.

It's ignorant to say that I believe in an honest day's pay for an honest day of work?

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, I'm arguing the opposite. People should be free to accept any job they want, regardless of what it pays. I'm simply saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to profit from the labor of people who are supplemented by welfare.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be allowed to offer jobs that pay less than what welfare can provide. Because even those jobs are valuable to some people, and some of them would continue to be filled, even if welfare "paid more". Some people would still work those jobs because often there's more to be gained from a job than a wage. Some people are more interested in the learning or future opportunities a given job might provide. Some don't need to earn an "honest living" to get by (you really should re-read that Bucky Fuller quote a couple more times and think about what it implies). And other people will work the low-paying jobs because they can't find anything better and don't qualify for welfare, or choose not to utilize it for various reasons. .

Finally, many would choose to go on welfare rather than work a shitty job for low pay, and that's fine. Those businesses who are truly surviving on "socialized labor" would either change their business model, or go out of business. But by outlawing low wage jobs as a blanket policy you put everyone above out of work, essentially punishing them when they're harming no one.

So rather than getting people off of welfare, you are going to support even MORE illegal immigration to fill those positions.

 

[Jackinthebox]

The best way to get people off welfare is to put a maximum amount to any benefits people can receive

There already is a max amount. For a single person, it's $399 a month plus $186 in foodstamps. The TANF benefit has a maximum lifetime benefit of 60 months, cumulative.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The best way to get people off welfare is to put a maximum amount to any benefits people can receive

There already is a max amount. For a single person, it's $399 a month plus $186 in foodstamps. The TANF benefit has a maximum lifetime benefit of 60 months, cumulative.

So then we don't have to "help" people get off welfare now do we?

They"ll be kicked off and have to support themselves like they should have been doing all along

 

[Jackinthebox]

All those folks?

How many is that anyway?

A lof of folks I talk to. Folks who still rely on handouts from the food pantry where I volunteer.

And if they can't get by they should look for a second job.

Some people can't even find a first job, much less a second. Until recently, unemployment was higher than during the Great Depression.

The problem I see is no one wants to work more than 37.5 hours a week and they all still expect to have it all.

We are talking about working 40 hours a week for the basics, not 37 to have it "all."

What you don't seem to understand is that your so called living wage will actually cut the purchasing power of a lot of people.

False. All historical data shows the exact opposite.

That means labor costs for a lot of business just doubled. So many of the industries that rely on low skilled labor will be forced to raise prices to compensate for the additional expense.

The market value for a product has NEVER been dictated by labor costs, or tied to it in any way.

If you want a better standard of living then make it happen yourself. But most people won't because as I said earlier they don't want to work more than one job, they use all their sick time every year and wouldn't dream of not taking a vacation

Sick time? Are you kidding me? Min wage workers do not get sick time and vacations. Step away from the silver spoon sir.

 

[Jackinthebox]

So then we don't have to "help" people get off welfare now do we?

They"ll be kicked off and have to support themselves like they should have been doing all along

Maybe you haven't notices the homeless problem and overflowing prisons.

You can't support yourself on a min wage job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So then we don't have to "help" people get off welfare now do we?

They"ll be kicked off and have to support themselves like they should have been doing all along

Maybe you haven't notices the homeless problem and overflowing prisons.

You can't support yourself on a min wage job.

Then get more than one job.

And do you realize that only about 3% of workers are making the federal minimum wage?

In that 3% are service workers who also get tips

But you are not talking about raising the minimum wage only when you talk about this so called living wage. Youi are talking about raising everyone's income under some arbitrary amount.

And if you think that labor costs don't factor into product price you don't know squat about running a business.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Then get more than one job.

You shouldn't need more than one job just to survive. If you want a second job to get a nicer car, to pay for some college, to pay to raise a child, that's all good. But you should not have to work more than 40 hours a week in order to subsist. Americans are already the most overworked labor force in western society.

But that is all assuming a second job is even available. An applicant to Harvard has a better chance of getting in than an applicant at McDonald's.

And do you realize that only about 3% of workers are making the federal minimum wage?

But now you are ignoring all the rest of the workers who make more than the Fed min, but still less than what is needed to get by.

But you are not talking about raising the minimum wage only when you talk about this so called living wage. Youi are talking about raising everyone's income under some arbitrary amount.

It's not an arbitrary amount. It is a specific amount calculated in the OP article, which you apparently didn't bother to read before commenting.

And if you think that labor costs don't factor into product price you don't know squat about running a business.

Says the person who doesn't know squat about running a business. I will say it again. The market value of a product has NOTHING to do with your labor costs.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

This is 'tarded. In some areas of the country this is true, for others it's 'tarded.

That's why minimum wage is 'tarded.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Who spends 75 USD a month on fucking clothes? WHo actually needs to do that?
Who, as a single individual needs to spend 400 USD per month on misc. items? Oh, right. No one.

'tarded, son. 'tarded.