Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[Jackinthebox]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is fucking moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. Fucking gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Then why are they advocating the 17.47 per hour number?

This is fucking moronic, son. Dumb. Stupid. Retarded.
The argument has no bearing. You think we're going to have a national minimum wage at 17.47 per hour and these individuals will pay no taxation because it will jeopardize their living wage?






Earth to the OP.
Well, at that budget with that income and not having to pay taxes, I'm in. The government on the other hand is not. Nor will they ever invent a min. wage with tax exempt status. But day dreaming is fun.

The least the authors could do is the proper math regarding taxation instead of an ad hac call to not have them texed.

This is just lousy.

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

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

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

liberals screwed people at bottom by inviting in 20 million illegals, ruining schools, destroying the American family, forcing corporations off shore with highest taxes in world, and with a huge welfare system that discourages productive work.

 

[Jackinthebox]

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

liberals screwed people at bottom by inviting in 20 million illegals, ruining schools, destroying the American family, forcing corporations off shore with highest taxes in world, and with a huge welfare system that discourages productive work.

Well I agree with about half of that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

liberals screwed people at bottom by inviting in 20 million illegals, ruining schools, destroying the American family, forcing corporations off shore with highest taxes in world, and with a huge welfare system that discourages productive work.

Well I agree with about half of that.

dear its all correct. If you disagree say exactly why or admit you lack the IQ for it.

 

[Jackinthebox]

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

liberals screwed people at bottom by inviting in 20 million illegals, ruining schools, destroying the American family, forcing corporations off shore with highest taxes in world, and with a huge welfare system that discourages productive work.

Well I agree with about half of that.

dear its all correct. If you disagree say exactly why or admit you lack the IQ for it.

I am against illegal immigration and the deterioration of the family unit.

Public schools are just indoctrination institutes, so they were already ruined. But illegal immigration has put a major burden on schools and our general infrastructure.

Corporations ran off shore because they could, not because of taxes. Most companies pay little or no taxes. Corporate welfare is alive and well too. Our depressed wage standards alone subsidize corporate profits.

Work has been mandated by welfare since 1996. The people I see on welfare are HIGHLY motivated to get off of it, but lack meaningful opportunity to do so.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is fucking moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. Fucking gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Then why are they advocating the 17.47 per hour number?

This is fucking moronic, son. Dumb. Stupid. Retarded.
The argument has no bearing. You think we're going to have a national minimum wage at 17.47 per hour and these individuals will pay no taxation because it will jeopardize their living wage?






Earth to the OP.
Well, at that budget with that income and not having to pay taxes, I'm in. The government on the other hand is not. Nor will they ever invent a min. wage with tax exempt status. But day dreaming is fun.

The least the authors could do is the proper math regarding taxation instead of an ad hac call to not have them texed.

This is just lousy.

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

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

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Corporations ran off shore because they could, not because of taxes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Corporations ran off shore because they could, not because of taxes..

you mean if tax was reduced to 0% none would come back from Ireland for example? Why does the dummy think they went there in the first place? See why we say slow?

 

[RKMBrown]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is fucking moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. Fucking gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Then why are they advocating the 17.47 per hour number?

This is fucking moronic, son. Dumb. Stupid. Retarded.
The argument has no bearing. You think we're going to have a national minimum wage at 17.47 per hour and these individuals will pay no taxation because it will jeopardize their living wage?






Earth to the OP.
Well, at that budget with that income and not having to pay taxes, I'm in. The government on the other hand is not. Nor will they ever invent a min. wage with tax exempt status. But day dreaming is fun.

The least the authors could do is the proper math regarding taxation instead of an ad hac call to not have them texed.

This is just lousy.

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

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

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

ROFL dumb ass pansy want's 35k a year for 15year old bag boys that just started, never had a job before in their entire lives.

You are the biggest MORON in the history of mankind.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The problem is there are many people so economically illiterate they will buy this absolute drivel.
Can you even imagine what would happen if these nutjobs got their way? Who would bother to get a higher education? I can be a grocery bagger for 35k a year while the apprentice engineer is making the same amount.

These people are mentally disturbed and have an IQ lower than my beloved dog.

 

[OnePercenter]

of course wages matter thats why 30 million jobs have moved to China!! see why we say slow?

Of course Eddie missed the point. Business have already increased prices for rises in employee costs but failed to pass it on to their employees.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Corporations ran off shore because they could, not because of taxes..

you mean if tax was reduced to 0% none would come back from Ireland for example? Why does the dummy think they went there in the first place? See why we say slow?

You mean there is only WalMart and McDs in Ireland?

 

[Jackinthebox]

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is fucking moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. Fucking gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Then why are they advocating the 17.47 per hour number?

This is fucking moronic, son. Dumb. Stupid. Retarded.
The argument has no bearing. You think we're going to have a national minimum wage at 17.47 per hour and these individuals will pay no taxation because it will jeopardize their living wage?






Earth to the OP.
Well, at that budget with that income and not having to pay taxes, I'm in. The government on the other hand is not. Nor will they ever invent a min. wage with tax exempt status. But day dreaming is fun.

The least the authors could do is the proper math regarding taxation instead of an ad hac call to not have them texed.

This is just lousy.

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

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

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

ROFL dumb ass pansy want's 35k a year for 15year old bag boys that just started, never had a job before in their entire lives.

You are the biggest MORON in the history of mankind.

What difference does it make how old they are? We have 16 year old firefighters in my firehouse. Are you telling me that firefighters should be paid min wage too?

 

[Jackinthebox]

The problem is there are many people so economically illiterate they will buy this absolute drivel.
Can you even imagine what would happen if these nutjobs got their way? Who would bother to get a higher education? I can be a grocery bagger for 35k a year while the apprentice engineer is making the same amount.

These people are mentally disturbed and have an IQ lower than my beloved dog.

My aunt worked for a grocery store for 30 years. On that salary she raised a family, bought a house AND paid for a PhD. Now she is an advisor for Vassar College. Her "retirement" job.

 

[dblack]

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.

What? Are you just trying to ignore the points in my post?

Ban people from welfare from having those jobs, and then those jobs will be filled by illegals, the mentally handicapped, and people who don't actually need jobs.

First of all, employers willing to hire illegals will do it in either case. But people like the mentally handicapped and those who don't actually need jobs are exactly who you'll be fucking over by mandating a minimum wage, and I don't really get why. Why shouldn't they be allowed to 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.

What? Are you just trying to ignore the points in my post?

Ban people from welfare from having those jobs, and then those jobs will be filled by illegals, the mentally handicapped, and people who don't actually need jobs.

First of all, employers willing to hire illegals will do it in either case. But people like the mentally handicapped and those who don't actually need jobs are exactly who you'll be fucking over by mandating a minimum wage, and I don't really get why. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work?

The mentally handicapped have already stolen jobs from people who actually need them. They already get full government benefits, live in group homes, the whole but. But the grocery stores hire them for about $2/hr. They are exempt from min wage laws.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

You can tell all these deadbeat morons who have the American economy all figured out, have owned a business at some point in their lives, can't you?

 

[dblack]

The mentally handicapped have already stolen jobs from people who actually need them. They already get full government benefits, live in group homes, the whole but. But the grocery stores hire them for about $2/hr. They are exempt from min wage laws.

Dude... I'm sorry. I didn't realize.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

This same mindset was responsible for creating the great blight of the Rust Belt, for shutting down more than 30,000 American factories, and for exporting 32 million American jobs just in the decade 1969-1979.

 

[Jackinthebox]

This same mindset was responsible for creating the great blight of the Rust Belt, for shutting down more than 30,000 American factories, and for exporting 32 million American jobs just in the decade 1969-1979.

We shifted from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy. It wasn't because auto workers were overpaid.