You won’t believe how little $8.25 an hour buys

[SwimExpert]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

 

[Socialist]

Fuck off rabbi, your posts are a crock of senseless bullshit. You do realize people need to work these jobs to afford education and a rising cost of living? You do realize poverty is hard to get out of, considering education costs keep going up while wages are stagnant, same with the cost of living, as mentioned. People have children, parents to take care of.. Then again, the right wing hates those in poverty.

I post the obvious answer and it's someone else's fault.
Wages have stagnated under Obama and the socialist regime. Workforce participation is down because its easier to get on SSI and unemployment than to find a job. This is what socialism leads to.
You want more than 8/hr? Go earn it.

Wages have been stagnant for decades, quit your idiotic bullshit and attempts to blame one man for everything. LOL. Yes, because private sector growth under Obama is a great sign of socialism. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Wages for those who acquire new skills and/or education are NOT stagnant.
If one wants to earn more, they have to work for it.

Jesus christ, wages are stagnant for the middle/lower class, but for the top, it's all ok, so I guess fuck everyone but the rich? You're an idiot. People work 60 hours a week to barely get by, are they not working hard enough?

This 30 year old kid retired at 30 and him and his family live on 25 grand a year, oh the horror how does he live on only 25 grand a year?

A man who retired comfortably at age 30 explains how much money he had to save - Yahoo Finance

Good for him, it's not realistic for everyone to do that.

 

[Socialist]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

 

[SwimExpert]

Rob? Are you fucking kidding me? I don't see you bitching about the trillions "robbed" when america destabilized and fucked the entire middle east, nor did the rich, they loved it, but god forbid that a tiny portion of peoples taxes goes to help feed children in africa instead of bombing the middle east.

This is about minimum wage in America. Foreign policy has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Socialist]

Rob? Are you fucking kidding me? I don't see you bitching about the trillions "robbed" when america destabilized and fucked the entire middle east, nor did the rich, they loved it, but god forbid that a tiny portion of peoples taxes goes to help feed children in africa instead of bombing the middle east.

This is about minimum wage in America. Foreign policy has nothing to do with anything.

You're the one who started addressing feeding starving kids, which, luckily, don't exist in america these days thanks to food stamps/evil socialist government programs

 

[SwimExpert]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

 

[thereisnospoon]

People that are making low wages should think of the consequences they face if they decide to make babies.
Tell ya what... YOU take care of them.

I rest my case.

You had better rest your case. You don't have one.

You've essentially confirmed you can care less about the children of those in poverty, and believe anyone who doesn't fit where you want on the socio-economic ladder needs to die.

And I stated this where?

"
People that are making low wages should think of the consequences they face if they decide to make babies.
Tell ya what... YOU take care of them.
"
You're essentially saying: Fuck em, no one should help them. I'm sure you love fetuses though.

No..YOU said that.....What is expected of all of us is to make the proper choices. Failing that, to not place the burden of bad choices on others.
God gave us the ability to reason....and to choose.
No one else should be punished because another made a bad choice.
But you want to use the threat of government sanctions to compel others to compensate those who make bad choices.
Notice the focus on choices.
TO clarify, this does not apply to those who are incapable whether by physical or mental disability of helping themselves. We as a society have a moral obligation to care for those people.
If one is able, they have a moral obligation to care for themselves.
Now go ahead and spew more emotional rants.
You're wasting keystrokes.

 

[Socialist]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

No, I really don't, it's ridiculous you'd throw that hilarious statement out. Taxation on the rich in america to help those in need doesn't make rich people into poor people, it never has, even when we had the highest rates. Grow up.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

Socialist sees nobility in poverty.

 

[Socialist]

I rest my case.

You had better rest your case. You don't have one.

You've essentially confirmed you can care less about the children of those in poverty, and believe anyone who doesn't fit where you want on the socio-economic ladder needs to die.

And I stated this where?

"
People that are making low wages should think of the consequences they face if they decide to make babies.
Tell ya what... YOU take care of them.
"
You're essentially saying: Fuck em, no one should help them. I'm sure you love fetuses though.

No..YOU said that.....What is expected of all of us is to make the proper choices. Failing that, to not place the burden of bad choices on others.
God gave us the ability to reason....and to choose.
No one else should be punished because another made a bad choice.
But you want to use the threat of government sanctions to compel others to compensate those who make bad choices.
Notice the focus on choices.
TO clarify, this does not apply to those who are incapable whether by physical or mental disability of helping themselves. We as a society have a moral obligation to care for those people.
If one is able, they have a moral obligation to care for themselves.
Now go ahead and spew more emotional rants.
You're wasting keystrokes.

God gave us the ability to reason? Sorry, which god?
I agree, no one should be punished, poverty isn't a "bad choice" for the majority of people, people fall in, move up, get stuck in a cycle.. You can imagine which 2 are more frequent then the other... Threat of government? Oh, god forbid taxes are raised by 2%.

 

[Socialist]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

Socialist sees nobility in poverty.

Yeah, which is why the evil socialists in venezuela/cuba/etc have reduced extreme poverty.

 

[SwimExpert]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

No, I really don't, it's ridiculous you'd throw that hilarious statement out. Taxation on the rich in america to help those in need doesn't make rich people into poor people, it never has, even when we had the highest rates. Grow up.

But you're not talking about taxing the rich to pay for social safety nets. You said it yourself: You would rob the comfortable to provide for everyone less comfortable.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yeah, which is why the evil socialists in venezuela/cuba/etc have reduced extreme poverty.

dafuk?

 

[Socialist]

Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

No, I really don't, it's ridiculous you'd throw that hilarious statement out. Taxation on the rich in america to help those in need doesn't make rich people into poor people, it never has, even when we had the highest rates. Grow up.

But you're not talking about taxing the rich to pay for social safety nets. You said it yourself: You would rob the comfortable to provide for everyone less comfortable.

Oh please, I was referring to taxation, if you call that robbing, so be it.

 

[Socialist]

Yeah, which is why the evil socialists in venezuela/cuba/etc have reduced extreme poverty.

dafuk?

He claimed socialists love poverty, this literally makes no sense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I care for other people

With other other people's money.

Oh lord.. The world produces more then enough food to feed everyone, distribution is a failure, so much is wasted for profit, the first world capitalists mercilessly exploit the third world.. There's a reason capitalists lose money when workers don't work, they don't produce value. Oh god "Other people's money." I'll never get tired of this. Y'know what? If someone lives in luxury while children suffer, I see nothing wrong with "taking their money."

Do you think food producers are in it to lose money?....
Of course you would think nothing of stealing. You are a parasite.
Here's an idea. Start your own business. And then start a trend of REWARDING the third world...
Here's something that helps me sleep better....The knowledge that there are so few who believe( not think)m as you do.
Also, that what you wish for , you will never receive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why not use your own money, since you care about the children so much?

Yes, because I have disposable income.. I wish.

So, you want everyone else to willfully live in poverty, just because someone else is in poverty....but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself. Four legs good, two legs better, I see....

No, I really don't, it's ridiculous you'd throw that hilarious statement out. Taxation on the rich in america to help those in need doesn't make rich people into poor people, it never has, even when we had the highest rates. Grow up.

But you're not talking about taxing the rich to pay for social safety nets. You said it yourself: You would rob the comfortable to provide for everyone less comfortable.

Oh please, I was referring to taxation, if you call that robbing, so be it.

Another dumb fuck who views the purpose of taxation as a means to punish.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, which is why the evil socialists in venezuela/cuba/etc have reduced extreme poverty.

dafuk?

He claimed socialists love poverty, this literally makes no sense.

You do love poverty. If there were no poverty, you'd have nothing to bitch about. And with nothing to bitch about, you'd have no purpose in life.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

You won t believe how little 8.25 an hour buys Oxfam America First Person Blog
Disgusting that this is possible in the "richest country in the world"

Cleaning the movie theater is part of my daughter's duties. But does her job actually pay enough to live on? Photo: Mary Babic/Oxfam America
27Tweet

54Like

1+1

For my hard-working family and friends who earn just above the US minimum wage, a paycheck doesn’t go very far.

My daughter struck it lucky when she landed a job for $8.25 an hour at the local movie theater. They pay 25 cents more than the Massachusetts minimum wage (which is already 75 cents more than the federal wage); they don’t charge her for the monogrammed black polo shirt that constitutes her uniform (unlike some businesses); they let her know her hours a few days ahead; and they are, simply put, nice people: film nerds who enjoy keeping an independent theater alive, who don’t mind if she reads a book while sitting in the box office and waiting for the next rush.

Still, it’s a business. Her hours each week never mount up to the point where they’d be responsible for her healthcare (30 hours a week or more); her schedule varies widely; when it’s slow, they let her go (and it’s been a slow year for movies). And, to reiterate: they pay $8.25 an hour.

You can’t blame them; they’re generous at paying more than the legally required wage. But it is, even for my daughter, a measly wage. She lives at home, but she’s scraping together savings for college, living very simply, contributing to the household.

So what her earnings really translate to? I wondered, after seeing this helpful and harrowing piece on What Life Really Costs at $7.25 an Hour.

First, there’s transportation. After taxes, she brings home $7.62 an hour. Last week, after working for 27 hours (and commuting for about 8 hours), she got a check for $205.71. Just to get there and back: Slice the bus fare off the top (2.10 each way; 4.20 round trip; times four): 205.71 – 16.80 = 188.91.

A sandwich = one hour’s work. Some days, when her shift stretches longer than eight hours, she gets a plain chicken sandwich at the place next door: 7.43 (with tax). So she works a full hour to buy a sandwich. Without a drink.

A book = three hours. She loves books and music, and we visit the library every week. But sometimes she likes to buy the ones she loves the very most. Her favorite graphic novelist, Emily Carroll, just published a beautiful new book, Through the Woods. On Amazon, discounted, it’s $18.10. So she worked almost three hours to buy it.

Work shoes cost a day’s pay. We do most of our shopping at Goodwill, but every once in a while, she indulges. She really needed a good pair of shoes as she stands most of the time at work. She got a cheap pair of Nikes at around $50: Basically, a day’s pay.

And what about college tuition? Again, she got lucky: Smith College offered her a whopping scholarship, covering about half the cost. Which left her with a bill of (only) $24,000 for a year, not counting books, art supplies, etc.

So if she wants to cover one year of college – at this deeply discounted price – she’s going to work 3150 hours. Or 61 hours a week for a year. If she wants to go for the full four years… it would take 12,598 hours. Of course, she couldn’t eat. Or pay rent, take the bus, buy shoes, or get her hair cut. At least she can go to the movies…

So she’s lucky in some ways. But so many workers do not enjoy her luck. In fact, the vast majority of low-wage workers do not match this “Poster Child” profile of the minimum wage worker.

Source: the Economic Policy Institute.
Indeed, the average age of low-wage workers is 35. A third have dependent children at home. In our (extremely fortunate)Congressional district, 34,000 working families are using food stamps, and 71,000 are living below the poverty line .

It definitely does not buy that insurance we all have to buy.

 

[HappyJoy]

You won t believe how little 8.25 an hour buys Oxfam America First Person Blog
Disgusting that this is possible in the "richest country in the world"

Cleaning the movie theater is part of my daughter's duties. But does her job actually pay enough to live on? Photo: Mary Babic/Oxfam America
27Tweet

54Like

1+1

For my hard-working family and friends who earn just above the US minimum wage, a paycheck doesn’t go very far.

My daughter struck it lucky when she landed a job for $8.25 an hour at the local movie theater. They pay 25 cents more than the Massachusetts minimum wage (which is already 75 cents more than the federal wage); they don’t charge her for the monogrammed black polo shirt that constitutes her uniform (unlike some businesses); they let her know her hours a few days ahead; and they are, simply put, nice people: film nerds who enjoy keeping an independent theater alive, who don’t mind if she reads a book while sitting in the box office and waiting for the next rush.

Still, it’s a business. Her hours each week never mount up to the point where they’d be responsible for her healthcare (30 hours a week or more); her schedule varies widely; when it’s slow, they let her go (and it’s been a slow year for movies). And, to reiterate: they pay $8.25 an hour.

You can’t blame them; they’re generous at paying more than the legally required wage. But it is, even for my daughter, a measly wage. She lives at home, but she’s scraping together savings for college, living very simply, contributing to the household.

So what her earnings really translate to? I wondered, after seeing this helpful and harrowing piece on What Life Really Costs at $7.25 an Hour.

First, there’s transportation. After taxes, she brings home $7.62 an hour. Last week, after working for 27 hours (and commuting for about 8 hours), she got a check for $205.71. Just to get there and back: Slice the bus fare off the top (2.10 each way; 4.20 round trip; times four): 205.71 – 16.80 = 188.91.

A sandwich = one hour’s work. Some days, when her shift stretches longer than eight hours, she gets a plain chicken sandwich at the place next door: 7.43 (with tax). So she works a full hour to buy a sandwich. Without a drink.

A book = three hours. She loves books and music, and we visit the library every week. But sometimes she likes to buy the ones she loves the very most. Her favorite graphic novelist, Emily Carroll, just published a beautiful new book, Through the Woods. On Amazon, discounted, it’s $18.10. So she worked almost three hours to buy it.

Work shoes cost a day’s pay. We do most of our shopping at Goodwill, but every once in a while, she indulges. She really needed a good pair of shoes as she stands most of the time at work. She got a cheap pair of Nikes at around $50: Basically, a day’s pay.

And what about college tuition? Again, she got lucky: Smith College offered her a whopping scholarship, covering about half the cost. Which left her with a bill of (only) $24,000 for a year, not counting books, art supplies, etc.

So if she wants to cover one year of college – at this deeply discounted price – she’s going to work 3150 hours. Or 61 hours a week for a year. If she wants to go for the full four years… it would take 12,598 hours. Of course, she couldn’t eat. Or pay rent, take the bus, buy shoes, or get her hair cut. At least she can go to the movies…

So she’s lucky in some ways. But so many workers do not enjoy her luck. In fact, the vast majority of low-wage workers do not match this “Poster Child” profile of the minimum wage worker.

Source: the Economic Policy Institute.
Indeed, the average age of low-wage workers is 35. A third have dependent children at home. In our (extremely fortunate)Congressional district, 34,000 working families are using food stamps, and 71,000 are living below the poverty line .

It definitely does not buy that insurance we all have to buy.

That's where the subsidies come in that your parents and the rest of us pay for because it's the right thing to do, jr.

10, 21 points, what does it matter?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election Trump vs. Sanders