This is why we need a living wage

[Zombie_Pundit]

OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it.
Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?

I am being fair with you. I am going through the numbers, step by step. The numbers are real. Once you acknowledge that a minimum wage is necessary to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line, then we see how desperate that poverty line really is and that the minimum wage needs to be increased well beyond that. You'll see it ends up right around that $7.25 number. And a link to the federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees will not be necessary.

 

[SAYIT]

So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.

I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage. Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum. That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP. The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr. We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry. That's what will happen. How hungry is hungry? You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.

I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are other subjects entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are another subject entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?

You responded to my post about the poverty line being used to determine how much someone needed to live. You said that we all have a concern for humanity but that we could not know how much anyone needed to live. I have provided sources and simple arithmetic to arrive at an actual number. And of course I noticed your disparaging remarks equating the simplest arithmetic to "new math", how clever of you! I'm sure this singular wit will make for a lively, though fair and clean, discussion!

The basic arithmetic, or "new math" as you call it, isn't over quite yet. There other basic needs we as taxpayers subsidize for the low wage earners. You have agreed that a fulltime employee should not be below the poverty line; and your concern for your fellow human being most likely compels you to consider that the basic needs of your fellow human being who works fulltime should be met. And your reasonableness most certainly enables you to discern a need such as shelter and food, without demanding that a packet of ketchup be considered a serving vegetables.
Because we are determining a minimum wage on the most basic needs of a fulltime employee, meeting the cost of these basic needs is the cost of labor.

Why should you, as an average taxpayer, subsidize the labor costs of large and profitable businesses? If you dislike subsidizing the labor costs of these organizations, there are two possible solutions:
1) End the subsidies. Abolish SNAP, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc...
2) Require a minimum wage that is high enough as to disqualify a fulltime employee from these subsidies thus putting the burden of labor costs on the employer.

 

[RKMBrown]

This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.

You've never had even an introduction to economics class.

Did you make it into high school?

{CBO examined the budget impacts of raising the minimum wage to $9 and $10.10. The report concluded that a $9 increase would lift 300,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 100,000 new jobs as employers are expected to reduce workforces to make up for higher wages. A $10.10 increase would lift 900,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 500,000 jobs.}

CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs

The Minimum Wage Delusion, And The Death Of Common Sense - Forbes



What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy

And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.

Cause 8million jobs lost didn't happen. Cause tens of millions of Americans working part time isn't real.

Cause this chart is false:

But hey you go right on believing higher wage rates has no effect on employment rates.

 

[SAYIT]

OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it.
Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?

I am being fair with you. I am going through the numbers, step by step. The numbers are real. Once you acknowledge that a minimum wage is necessary to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line, then we see how desperate that poverty line really is and that the minimum wage needs to be increased well beyond that. You'll see it ends up right around that $7.25 number. And a link to the federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees will not be necessary.

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are another subject entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?

You responded to my post about the poverty line being used to determine how much someone needed to live. You said that we all have a concern for humanity but that we could not know how much anyone needed to live. I have provided sources and simple arithmetic to arrive at an actual number. And of course I noticed your disparaging remarks equating the simplest arithmetic to "new math", how clever of you! I'm sure this singular wit will make for a lively, though fair and clean, discussion!

The basic arithmetic, or "new math" as you call it, isn't over quite yet. There other basic needs we as taxpayers subsidize for the low wage earners. You have agreed that a fulltime employee should not be below the poverty line; and your concern for your fellow human being most likely compels you to consider that the basic needs of your fellow human being who works fulltime should be met. And your reasonableness most certainly enables you to discern a need such as shelter and food, without demanding that a packet of ketchup be considered a serving vegetables.
Because we are determining a minimum wage on the most basic needs of a fulltime employee, meeting the cost of these basic needs is the cost of labor.

Why should you, as an average taxpayer, subsidize the labor costs of large and profitable businesses? If you dislike subsidizing the labor costs of these organizations, there are two possible solutions:
1) End the subsidies. Abolish SNAP, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc...
2) Require a minimum wage that is high enough as to disqualify a fulltime employee from these subsidies thus putting the burden of labor costs on the employer.

Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line". You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier. Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries? Why should we pay a child of 15 with zero experience the same as an adult with 5years experience who stocks at the same store? Why should we pay that child the same as we would someone fresh out of college or a vocational school?

Why should someone sitting in AC on their butt taking orders at a drive through window get paid the same as a roofer working in 115 degree weather?

 

[SAYIT]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.

I think the problem is folks that have made a career out of being on welfare want more handouts.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?

Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees. I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.

 

[SAYIT]

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.

I think the problem is folks that have made a career out of being on welfare want more handouts.

Any (not just welfarists) who manage to suck on the gov't teat want more but the prob here is socialists who can't (or won't) seem to grasp the fundamentals of a capitalist economy. They need to stop jamming their paws into my pocket to make themselves feel good.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.

You are not answering the question.

How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?

Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.

The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion. Please don't ask me to google that for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?

Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees. I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.

Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers? Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?

Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees. I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.

Bullshit. Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?

Clean your post and I'll answer. I came here for a clean discussion.

 

[SAYIT]

Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line". You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier. Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?

While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line". You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier. Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?

While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.

The minimum wage increases over time. Why do you think it increases over time? How do you think the increases are determined and justified?

 

[SAYIT]

Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?

What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.

You are not answering the question.

How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?

Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.

The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion. Please don't ask me to google that for you.

I don't agree that min wage is a function of the poverty line. It is what the gov't stipulates as the bottom rung and entry level means entry into the workforce. Working the counter at McD's or bagging groceries is not a career. Woo.

 

[SAYIT]

It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line". You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier. Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?

While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.

The minimum wage increases over time. Why do you think it increases over time? How do you think the increases are determined and justified?

Gov't fiat, which isn't to say they are unwarranted.