Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

But that's the problem with setting an arbitrary number for minimum wage. That wage amount to eke out a basic living is drastically different in different places.

I could live on current minimum wage in my city. I'd hate every minute of it, but i could do it. That's without scraping gutters and garbage bins for food.

Hungary Bill wrote: I should elaborate a bit: I'm not in favor of the federal minimum wage being raised. For those states with a higher than average cost of living I think it is the states responsibility to set that states minimum wage sufficiently. If the federal minimum wage is to be raised I think it should be done proportionately to an increased cost of living, no the other way around.

I like the idea of a State setting its own "minimum wage", but think that businesses exploit the minimum wage to keep labor costs low, which is why I would rather see the market dictate the wage. Businesses exist to provide goods and services, not to pay people, and compensation can come in many forms that are beneficial to both employee and employer.

aircooled wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: ...If minimum wage goes up, retailers know the market has more dollars available, so they will in turn raise prices to get more of those newly-available dollars. Its called free-market, supply and demand, what-have-you.....

I am pretty sure the free market does not work like that. Company A raises it's profit margin because people have more money. Company B see's that raise, keeps theirs the same, advertises against A, gets more customers. That's free market competition. What you are talking about is a monopoly or some sort of collusion / market manipulation.

If you think that retailers wont raise their prices in response to a national minimum wage increase, well, you should reconsider that position

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

that's the motivation to move past these entry level jobs. If you are only motiviated enough to ask "Do you want fries with that?" For 10 years then you aren't motivated enough for a house in the burbs and a newer car.

I got my first job at 14 when MW was 4.75, busting my ass, learning the value of a dollar and after the first week deciding that I wanted a better paying job so I made the most of opportunities that I could.

I'm tired of people trying to re-frame what is "fair". Life is tough, not everyone lives in a $400,000 house. You don't get a trophy just for participating. No one cares if your feeling get hurt.

Lancer007 wrote: that's the motivation to move past these entry level jobs. If you are only motiviated enough to ask "Do you want fries with that?" For 10 years then you aren't motivated enough for a house in the burbs and a newer car. I got my first job at 14 when MW was 4.75, busting my ass, learning the value of a dollar and after the first week deciding that I wanted a better paying job so I made the most of opportunities that I could. I'm tired of people trying to re-frame what is "fair". Life is tough, not everyone lives in a $400,000 house. You don't get a trophy just for participating. No one cares if your feeling get hurt.

That's pretty insulting to millions of people who are working minimum wage jobs and trying to move up. Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

If you receive $8.25 an hour $1320 a month $15,840 a year. Let's say they are a family of hour so they get $800 a month of food stamps. The USDA study found that a family of four consumers spends at an average $146 a week, which is $584 per month. So they can save over $146 before they receive their TANF. So they are actually making more then $30k a year, I can't feel bad for them when I make that much and paid for a college education and clip coupons every week.

I think we just kind of expect everyone to be as charismatic, intelligent, or lucky as us.

I've met some very dumb rich people. They are not charismatic, they are not intelligent, they are just lucky. They were born into wealth and will stay in wealth. You can watch a few of these on TV.

I've met some very intelligent people who were lucky enough to have smarts on their side. They breezed through school and continued onwards.

Charismatic types sometimes do ok, sometimes end up in crime, sometimes they talk themselves into a job.

There is probably a large portion of unemployed people out there who are neither lucky, charismatic, or smart. These are people who would have built bridges and roads, buildings and buses.

I don't think our current job market really favors that type of worker anymore, and if it gives them anything its usually a minimum wage job.

chrispy wrote:

Hungary Bill wrote: I should elaborate a bit: I'm not in favor of the federal minimum wage being raised. For those states with a higher than average cost of living I think it is the states responsibility to set that states minimum wage sufficiently. If the federal minimum wage is to be raised I think it should be done proportionately to an increased cost of living, no the other way around.

I like the idea of a State setting its own "minimum wage", but think that businesses exploit the minimum wage to keep labor costs low, which is why I would rather see the market dictate the wage. Businesses exist to provide goods and services, not to pay people, and compensation can come in many forms that are beneficial to both employee and employer.

The states already do set their own minimum wage. Places like DC, Connecticut etc have set their MW to $8.25. Cali is at $8, etc. NY is just eeking out the same as the fed minimum ($7.25) even though their CoL is higher than just about any other area in the country.

trigun7469 wrote:

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

If you receive $8.25 an hour $1320 a month $15,840 a year. Let's say they are a family of hour so they get $800 a month of food stamps. The USDA study found that a family of four consumers spends at an average $146 a week, which is $584 per month. So they can save over $146 before they receive their TANF. So they are actually making more then $30k a year, I can't feel bad for them when I make that much and paid for a college education and clip coupons every week.

Cloths? Shelter? electricity? heat? Out of pocket health care even if you get 'free health care'? transport too and from work?

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Move. Seriously. No one says you have to live in a big city. There is a lot of world out there to sit stable in a shiity situation.

Easy answer when not considering the # of people who can't move. They are already a family working 2 jobs, they have a child they can't move out of state/area/city due to divorce and parenting rights, elder relatives etc etc Many could, but not all. Plus the cost of moving isn't insignificant especialy when poor. What if you are in susidised housing. Can you get help somewhere else in advance etc etc. Many people are trapped.

This is where I have a problem. When did we quit taking responsibility for our actions. The decisions we make in life put us where we are. If you chose/choose to live where the cost of living may be high, or the job market is bleak, chose to have children, etc, etc, etc, etc it's not everyone else's responsibility to get you out of that position.

The majority of society wants everything for nothing. There are better paying jobs out there but people don't want to actually work for a living. Flipping burgers is not a $15/hr skill. The minimum wage now is too much for some jobs. The employers are not printing money so the cost is passed on to the consumer(us).

What happens when we continue to raise minimum wage to the point where the consumer can no longer afford to pay for it? Now the employer goes under because they aren't doing enough bussiness to pay the inflated wages. The unemployed end up on gov't assistance and our taxes are now supporting them.

That is a whole different problem. There is no magic fix. If you want more in life go get it. Find a way. Don't expect the rest of society to provide it for you.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Lancer007 wrote: that's the motivation to move past these entry level jobs. If you are only motiviated enough to ask "Do you want fries with that?" For 10 years then you aren't motivated enough for a house in the burbs and a newer car. I got my first job at 14 when MW was 4.75, busting my ass, learning the value of a dollar and after the first week deciding that I wanted a better paying job so I made the most of opportunities that I could. I'm tired of people trying to re-frame what is "fair". Life is tough, not everyone lives in a $400,000 house. You don't get a trophy just for participating. No one cares if your feeling get hurt.

That's pretty insulting to millions of people who are working minimum wage jobs and trying to move up. Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

And that is pretty insulting to those of us that have worked the MW jobs and fought our way out of poverty. "Entry Level Job" is just that... where you start. You should work to move UP from there, not stay there indefinitely.

ppddppdd wrote: It pretty much just assumes that all these people are working minimum wage jobs because they're just lazy.

I certainly never said or implied that. What I said is that minimum-wage jobs were something an untrained worker could do. That's pretty much WHY they are minimum-wage jobs: nothing is required of the worker beyond showing up for work and completing the assigned tasks.

If I start out working in a bakery moving 50-lb sacks of flour from one end to the other, I am fulfilling that requirement. But as I observe the operation of the bakery and begin to take on new responsibilities based on that experience, I begin to add value to my contribution. Therefore I become a baker's assistant and am no longer simply a sack porter, so my pay goes up.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

trigun7469 wrote:

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

If you receive $8.25 an hour $1320 a month $15,840 a year. Let's say they are a family of hour so they get $800 a month of food stamps. The USDA study found that a family of four consumers spends at an average $146 a week, which is $584 per month. So they can save over $146 before they receive their TANF. So they are actually making more then $30k a year, I can't feel bad for them when I make that much and paid for a college education and clip coupons every week.

Cloths? Shelter? electricity? heat? Out of pocket health care even if you get 'free health care'? transport too and from work?

Work harder, get raise, buy new shoes. I dont see the disconnect. What is the problem again?

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Lancer007 wrote: I'm tired of people trying to re-frame what is "fair". Life is tough, not everyone lives in a $400,000 house. You don't get a trophy just for participating. No one cares if your feeling get hurt.

That's pretty insulting to millions of people who are working minimum wage jobs and trying to move up. Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

That's part of the problem, though: Just because you show up doesn't mean that you get a trophy. If you don't show up, however, there's no way that you'll ever get the trophy. That translates exactly to: Just because you work hard doesn't mean that you'll get the $400k house. If you want the $400k house, your best bet, however, is to work hard.

Bobzilla wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Lancer007 wrote: that's the motivation to move past these entry level jobs. If you are only motiviated enough to ask "Do you want fries with that?" For 10 years then you aren't motivated enough for a house in the burbs and a newer car. I got my first job at 14 when MW was 4.75, busting my ass, learning the value of a dollar and after the first week deciding that I wanted a better paying job so I made the most of opportunities that I could. I'm tired of people trying to re-frame what is "fair". Life is tough, not everyone lives in a $400,000 house. You don't get a trophy just for participating. No one cares if your feeling get hurt.

That's pretty insulting to millions of people who are working minimum wage jobs and trying to move up. Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

And that is pretty insulting to those of us that have worked the MW jobs and fought our way out of poverty. "Entry Level Job" is just that... where you start. You should work to move UP from there, not stay there indefinitely.

No it's not, you have the ability, skill, personaility etc to do that. Look at PHeller's excellent post on how not everyone is as lucky on the brains/personaility etc draw. Many people are truly stuck, or feel stuck where they are. Now, if there was <1% unemployment and constant cost of living across all areas then we can get back to a conversation about market forces delivering a minimum wage and people having the ability to move up. Until then it's hard to argue that many people can't right now.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

And the harder you work, the more youll be compensated. People should not expect to get $50k a year jobs instantly.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

trigun7469 wrote:

PHeller wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: It's enough to live on if you're willing to live in the crappiest, unsafest part of town, not save a dime, have unreliable transportation or use the bus, and eat the unhealthiest foods available. Then comes the question of "moving up". How does one move up up the economic ladder when they live in a hell hole, don't own a car, have no savings, and are unhealthy?

If you receive $8.25 an hour $1320 a month $15,840 a year. Let's say they are a family of hour so they get $800 a month of food stamps. The USDA study found that a family of four consumers spends at an average $146 a week, which is $584 per month. So they can save over $146 before they receive their TANF. So they are actually making more then $30k a year, I can't feel bad for them when I make that much and paid for a college education and clip coupons every week.

Cloths? Shelter? electricity? heat? Out of pocket health care even if you get 'free health care'? transport too and from work?

Well, their food is paid for. The rest could be covered on $1320/month before welfare if they're smart about it.

Honestly, i don't even spend $1320 a month on shelter, clothes, transportation, and electricity, and that's making no real attempt to be frugal. And that IS including renting two garages.

Bobzilla wrote:

chrispy wrote:

Hungary Bill wrote: I should elaborate a bit: I'm not in favor of the federal minimum wage being raised. For those states with a higher than average cost of living I think it is the states responsibility to set that states minimum wage sufficiently. If the federal minimum wage is to be raised I think it should be done proportionately to an increased cost of living, no the other way around.

I like the idea of a State setting its own "minimum wage", but think that businesses exploit the minimum wage to keep labor costs low, which is why I would rather see the market dictate the wage. Businesses exist to provide goods and services, not to pay people, and compensation can come in many forms that are beneficial to both employee and employer.

The states already do set their own minimum wage. Places like DC, Connecticut etc have set their MW to $8.25. Cali is at $8, etc. NY is just eeking out the same as the fed minimum ($7.25) even though their CoL is higher than just about any other area in the country.

Some states do, majority do not. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

Every place I have worked in the last Decade and a half started people at a pay rate higher than the Federal minimum wage. You barely needed a pulse to get hired. If you could lift a box, read (or could fake reading) english, and pass a drug test, youd likely get a job. Those jobs are available. Most of them will require significant effort though. I supported myself on that income alone. I worked harder than the average drooler though, got promoted, made more, and have enjoyed success since then. Its not hard to show up on time, work hard, and get noticed. Whats hard is teaching someone patience.

Swank Force One wrote: Well, their food is paid for. The rest could be covered on $1320/month before welfare if they're smart about it. Honestly, i don't even spend $1320 a month on shelter, clothes, transportation, and electricity, and that's making no real attempt to be frugal. And that IS including renting two garages.

What about a family of 4 though, which is what this particular discussion is talking about?

Still I doubt it would be that difficult once the food is paid for. Might need to have some thrift store shopping for the kids clothes though.

4cylndrfury wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

And the harder you work, the more youll be compensated. People should not expect to get $50k a year jobs instantly.

They should just expect them after 20-30 years in the workforce and a few decades worth of experience. A lot to look forward to, right?

I've been in the workforce for 13 years and I only recently broke the $20/hr barrier. Chances are I'll never break the $40/hr barrier.

It seems the only reason I've gotten here is because I've hopped from job to job always looking for higher pay and I've talked up the last position enough to make it sound important. I've never had any luck "moving up" within a company and I can't imagine doing that at my first job out of highschool (catering or grocery store).

mtn wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Well, their food is paid for. The rest could be covered on $1320/month before welfare if they're smart about it. Honestly, i don't even spend $1320 a month on shelter, clothes, transportation, and electricity, and that's making no real attempt to be frugal. And that IS including renting two garages.

What about a family of 4 though, which is what this particular discussion is talking about? Still I doubt it would be that difficult once the food is paid for. Might need to have some thrift store shopping for the kids clothes though.

wouldnt be hard to live on that money if you werent paying for a cell phone with data, cigarettes, and video games. I have extended family getting aid from the state due to low income. They have nicer electronics than I do...

4cylndrfury wrote:

mtn wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Well, their food is paid for. The rest could be covered on $1320/month before welfare if they're smart about it. Honestly, i don't even spend $1320 a month on shelter, clothes, transportation, and electricity, and that's making no real attempt to be frugal. And that IS including renting two garages.

What about a family of 4 though, which is what this particular discussion is talking about? Still I doubt it would be that difficult once the food is paid for. Might need to have some thrift store shopping for the kids clothes though.

wouldnt be hard to live on that money if you werent paying for a cell phone with data, cigarettes, and video games. I have extended family getting aid from the state due to low income. They have nicer electronics than I do...

berkeleyE36 M3CUNTE36 M3berkeley

I hate the flippin cell phones. I hate it when my buddy, who I know makes less (but not too much less) than me, complains about not having money, and is always in amazement that I can just go out and buy a guitar for $1,500. It is because he pays an extra $360 a year on a cell phone. It is because he is driving a $5,000 car rather than a $3,000 car. It is because I don't pay for cable, and I shop around for EVERYTHING.

mtn wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Well, their food is paid for. The rest could be covered on $1320/month before welfare if they're smart about it. Honestly, i don't even spend $1320 a month on shelter, clothes, transportation, and electricity, and that's making no real attempt to be frugal. And that IS including renting two garages.

What about a family of 4 though, which is what this particular discussion is talking about? Still I doubt it would be that difficult once the food is paid for. Might need to have some thrift store shopping for the kids clothes though.

I could probably do it for less money with a family of 4 if i was trying to stay frugal.

Was really just a data point.

PHeller wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Yes, there will always be freeloaders, but I think most are working hard for what they have.

And the harder you work, the more youll be compensated. People should not expect to get $50k a year jobs instantly.

They should just expect them after 20-30 years in the workforce and a few decades worth of experience. A lot to look forward to, right? I've been in the workforce for 13 years and I only recently broke the $20/hr barrier. Chances are I'll never break the $40/hr barrier.

Thats a shame. Sorry to hear about your situation. But it is YOUR situation. Why is it that you cant do something different? Why is bettering your situation someone elses responsibility? You want the government to mandate you get a raise? Why? Are you working harder now? is your work suddenly more valuable than it was previously?

I have no degree, and have been working for 15 years. I make a good wage because Ive worked hard, and gotten noticed for it. Im not particularly Lucky, or Charismatic, or come from Wealth, I just WORK HARD. Im also reasonably frugal, so I am able to save money each month. Thats how I live. If a minimum wager should get a 10% pay increase, why not me? Are they more deserving?