Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[reason10]

We are talking about basic living here. Not cutting back on discretionary spending.

AGAIN, that's not the employer's problem.

Work more, less college. Never get out of that hell hole.

It's not the employer's job to get an employee out of a hell hole. What is it about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY are you having so much trouble figuring out?

Make his wife work? Are you kidding me here?

Thanks to Democrat policies, most wives HAVE to work just to make ends meet. There's no shame in that. The Father Knows Best days of the Fifties (which you libs treat like the Spanish Inquisition) are gone.

Roomate? Yeah, that works out well. The girl that works at my corner grocery store was just raped and beaten half to death by her roomates. One man, one woman, and the woman's boyfriend messed her up for hours, because thought she snitched on them prostituting a 12 year old girl.

Again, NOT the problem of the employer. It is the problem of the employee. Hell, MINIMUM WAGE employees don't even pay taxes.

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, they should work for the price agreed upon when the take the job.

So you support illegal immigration then too I expect?

Absolutely not.

Why not? If a Mexican agrees to work for 50 cents a day. It's none of your business.

 

[Jackinthebox]

My dad used to hire teens to clean the parking lot. Now that's not financially feasible, the business hires a service that has a machine to do it.

And he probably pays about as much for the same service.

I used to hire kids to mow my lawn at my businesses. They did it for a lot cheaper than the Mexican landscaping company that does it now. The difference is that my insurance won't let me hire the kids anymore. Its a liability issue.

Yes, the business (no longer owned by my dad) pays about the same to a service that uses a machine.

Sad really. I would much rather pay the kids, than The Machine.

 

[asterism]

All for movies and food that cost 3 times as much as before (20 years ago).

and your point is?

Increased minimum wage has led to a diminished customer satisfaction, fewer jobs, and higher prices in the movie business.

 

[reason10]

Mooching?

If it costs "x" amount of dollars to subsist, that is the cost. It makes no difference if they get if from the taxpayer or their employer

Welfare was supposed to be for those who CAN'T help themselves, the handicapped, the abandoned wives and children. Anyone else taking welfare is a LOOTER and a MOOCHER.

A worker is basically equipment for my business. That equipment requires food, shelter, clothing, maintenance, etc. Now you can make ME, the business owner cover those operating expenses, or YOU can foot the bill, through welfare, to make sure that my worker shows up clothed and fed.

Or I can elect a Republican government that will tell that moocher to get off his fat ass and make more money because he's not getting any more money from the government. Cut off a welfare bum and you'll be amazed how fast he gets his lazy ass off the couch and out looking for more money.

 

[reason10]

This is a whole lot of hoopla for just over 2% (3.3 million out of 154 million) of the labor force. The best thing to do is have an economy that is geared towards growth and prosperity. Then competition will raise the wages for the lowest paid.

That's why McDonalds offered $300 signing bonuses in North Dakota.

THAT IS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

 

[reason10]

Concessions have always been the revenue generator for theaters.

In the past, projectionists were highly skilled and respected UNION workers. Comparably, they made roughly $100/hr in today's dollars, from their peak.

Today, the modern technology of the projection room is so simple a chimpanzee can learn to operate it. Today any idiot can throw a switch. Unions are obsolete.

 

[reason10]

The American economy was at its peak when unions were at their strongest. Coincidence? Even Henry Ford himself knew enough to pay his workers a living wage.

1. There is no such thing as a living wage.

2. The strongest economy was during the REAGAN years, which made unions pretty much obsolete.

3. Conditions for workers (along with pay) improved because AND ONLY BECAUSE of capital accumulation. Unions had ZIPPO to do with it.

 

[asterism]

Actually, he knew to make cars cheap enough that even his workers could afford one.

Nice theory, but factually incorrect. 90% of American workers make less than the min wage standard of 1950. We had more money to spend back in the heydey of American road steel.

Henry Ford was dead by then so I'm not sure why you're talking about 1950. If you have facts that refute my statement, post them if you want them to be considered.

 

[reason10]

I am just going to have to flat out disagree there. I believe that any person who puts in a 40 hour week should earn enough to live on. Not luxuriously, but to meet a basic standard of living in American society.

Who's responsible for that? I say the WORKER is. If his skills cannot earn enough, he needs to either (a) work a second job (b) go back to school and get more marketable kills, (c) get a roommate, or (d) learn to live on less.

There is no such thing as an entitlement to a lifestyle.

 

[Jackinthebox]

We are talking about basic living here. Not cutting back on discretionary spending.

AGAIN, that's not the employer's problem.

It certainly is. Either the employer can pay to operate their own staff, or YOU, the taxpayer, can subsidize his labor costs.

Work more, less college. Never get out of that hell hole.

It's not the employer's job to get an employee out of a hell hole. What is it about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY are you having so much trouble figuring out?

You can make all the right choices and still wind up in poverty. But at the end of the day, I don't care WHAT a person does for a living. If they are putting in a 40 hour week, they should be paid enough so that I don't have to buy their food.

Make his wife work? Are you kidding me here?

Thanks to Democrat policies, most wives HAVE to work just to make ends meet. There's no shame in that. The Father Knows Best days of the Fifties (which you libs treat like the Spanish Inquisition) are gone.

Shoving women into the workplace has had a devastating effect on the family unit and even the moral fabric of what was once a conservative society. You thank Democrat policies, facetiously, and then say their is no shame in that. You are a hypocrite.

Women in the workplace was the first step to flood the workforce and undermine labor. Illegal Mexicans were next in line.

Roomate? Yeah, that works out well. The girl that works at my corner grocery store was just raped and beaten half to death by her roomates. One man, one woman, and the woman's boyfriend messed her up for hours, because thought she snitched on them prostituting a 12 year old girl.

Again, NOT the problem of the employer. It is the problem of the employee. Hell, MINIMUM WAGE employees don't even pay taxes.

Actually, yes they do. Not only income taxes, but sales tax, gas tax, toll tax, etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On this page, we will itemize a sample budget for a single person in order to analyze what a fair standard would be for a minimum-wage worker. It is our position that a person working eight hours a day, five days a week, at any job, should be able to support themselves to a minimum basic standard of living. This practical wage is necessary in order to elevate the class of working poor to contributing members of society. Working for anything less than what is needed to subsist on independently, is nothing short of slavery.

All figures are based on national averages, for a Federal standard.


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

A full-time job at 40 hours per week is 173.2 hours per month calculating 4.33 weeks in each month. To find a reasonable minimum wage, we divide the average basic monthly expenses figure, by the number of hours worked. For the average American worker to support themselves without government assistance or by borrowing beyond their means, that worker must earn...

$17.47 per hour

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.

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



Here is a detailed description of how we arrived at our sample budget figures:

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

RENT ------------------------------$1000

Sorry, a guy pushing a broom or running the fry machine should be paying his mom a coupla hundred a month, max.

TRANSPORTATION ----------$500

Sorry, a guy pushing a broom or running the fry machine should be walking to work or taking the bus.
$100 a month, max.

BASIC UTILITIES --------------$200
ADVANCED UTILITIES ------$150

Should be included in the rent he pays his mom.

I just cut your expense numbers in half.

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you

Divided by 2....... $8.75 an hour sounds good.

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950.

Sorry, a guy pushing a broom or running the fry machine isn't 400% more productive than the guy doing the same job in 1950.

 

[dblack]

No, discriminate based on the value you provide to the organization.

That is very arbitrary.

It makes no difference to me if you are 16 and living at home, or 60 and living in a nursing home. It makes no difference to me if min wage is $2 or $20. If I need a person standing there to sell popcorn, I need that person standing there. Their "value" is infinite really. Without that worker, I would be out of business.

That's moronic.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Mooching?

If it costs "x" amount of dollars to subsist, that is the cost. It makes no difference if they get if from the taxpayer or their employer

Welfare was supposed to be for those who CAN'T help themselves, the handicapped, the abandoned wives and children. Anyone else taking welfare is a LOOTER and a MOOCHER.

I agree. That is who it is SUPPOSED to be for. Which is why I support the notion of a real living wage. You see, you are not seeing who the real moocher is. It is not the working stiff who gets up and goes to work every day. HALF of all welfare recipients have jobs. The real moocher is ME, the business owner, who keeps the min wage low so that I can make YOU pay my labor costs. So that I can make YOU feed my workers, so that I don't have to.

A worker is basically equipment for my business. That equipment requires food, shelter, clothing, maintenance, etc. Now you can make ME, the business owner cover those operating expenses, or YOU can foot the bill, through welfare, to make sure that my worker shows up clothed and fed.

Or I can elect a Republican government that will tell that moocher to get off his fat ass and make more money because he's not getting any more money from the government. Cut off a welfare bum and you'll be amazed how fast he gets his lazy ass off the couch and out looking for more money.

Make more money? Where? At the job that doesn't pay enough to live on in the first place? You are speaking in contradictions sir.

 

[dblack]

Today, you are LUCKY if you can get someone to pack your bags in the first place.

today you are lucky to have a bank teller or phone operator. Their high wages made them worth less than minimum. Thank God the free market allows for rapid progress and the devil allows for liberal soviet intervention.

typical low IQ liberal thinks he's making an argument by using cartoons!!

Typical ignorant Republican thinking that I am a liberal because I am tired of supporting socialist business.

Black is white, eh?

 

[asterism]

No, they should work for the price agreed upon when the take the job.

So you support illegal immigration then too I expect?

Absolutely not.

Why not? If a Mexican agrees to work for 50 cents a day. It's none of your business.

It's my business if he's not here legally.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Actually, he knew to make cars cheap enough that even his workers could afford one.

Nice theory, but factually incorrect. 90% of American workers make less than the min wage standard of 1950. We had more money to spend back in the heydey of American road steel.

Henry Ford was dead by then so I'm not sure why you're talking about 1950. If you have facts that refute my statement, post them if you want them to be considered.

If we were paid for our output as an employee today as compared to the standard expected of a worker in 1950, the minimum wage in 2010 would have been $28.56. (The actual minimum wage was only $7.25/hr.) $28.56 was slightly more than 90% of Americans who earned less than $27.98 per hour. Hence, 90% of American workers earn less than a minimum wage worker earned in 1950.

Read more: 90 of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[asterism]

My dad used to hire teens to clean the parking lot. Now that's not financially feasible, the business hires a service that has a machine to do it.

And he probably pays about as much for the same service.

I used to hire kids to mow my lawn at my businesses. They did it for a lot cheaper than the Mexican landscaping company that does it now. The difference is that my insurance won't let me hire the kids anymore. Its a liability issue.

Yes, the business (no longer owned by my dad) pays about the same to a service that uses a machine.

Sad really. I would much rather pay the kids, than The Machine.

Machines don't have cost increases set by fiat, don't strike, and don't call in sick to protest they paycheck they agreed to receive when they took the job. Machines don't expect to support a family on zero skills.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I am just going to have to flat out disagree there. I believe that any person who puts in a 40 hour week should earn enough to live on. Not luxuriously, but to meet a basic standard of living in American society.

Who's responsible for that? I say the WORKER is. If his skills cannot earn enough, he needs to either (a) work a second job (b) go back to school and get more marketable kills, (c) get a roommate, or (d) learn to live on less.

There is no such thing as an entitlement to a lifestyle.

Saying that the worker is responsible is victim blaming. That's like saying that starving people in Africa and India (and the US) are starving because of their own personal choices, rather than bad policy.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Sorry, a guy pushing a broom or running the fry machine should be paying his mom a coupla hundred a month, max.

And what if his mother is dead? Why should someone "pushing a broom" be paid any less than a pencil pusher?