|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Raise the Mininal Wage to $15/hour (7/30/2015 12:56:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Now try to be a single parent, busting your butt working 50 hours/week at $7.25/hour while handling two children. Assuming neither of them have medical problems, that family is still below the federal poverty level. The parent can not go to school because she has two full time jobs (her day job, and her job as a parent). What sort of lives do those children lead growing up?
It isn't easy. I know. You do realize, don't you, that the "minimum" (how ironic you change the word to support your argument, yet bitch when people refer to the ACA as "Obamacare") wage isn't set up to be, nor should be, the wage a person works outside of beginning jobs? I know you do, but I'm just pointing out that you're completely ignoring it.
Not much difference between minimal and minimum. I fact they are based on the same root word. Where as 'Affordable Care Act' and 'Obamacare' are two different things. One is a law, the other is the ravings of uninformed people. Big difference!
Really? You do realize, don't you, that the President even said that he didn't mind it being called "Obamacare," right?
quote:
The problem with 'beginning jobs' in America, is that for many, they never leave those jobs. Due to many thousands of factors. One of the big factors is education. An it has been shown that the further one is from their 'days in school' the harder it is to return to complete tests and past with a degree. That an judging the studying with every other part of a person's life.
The minimum wage was originally set up to give workers the 'bare bones' of wages. It was to help standardize wage/salary practices across the nation. Over time, this number has risen. Unfortunately the cost to live, to exist, and be happy, have also risen. Mathematically speaking, there is no way for a person working 40 hours on minimum wage to ever leave poverty. They will always be on one or more state and/or federally funded programs. The number of people in this situation grows each year. So do we stick with this tread, year after year, placing more Americans into poverty? Or do something pro-active about the problem?
Somewhere along the chain of events 'minimum wage' became 'standardized wage'. In that more Americans now work at lower wage levels than they did in previous years/decades, even though the cost of just about everything has gone up. At a macro level, this is placing more people on welfare programs than its helping to get them above such needs. What is the point of working 5-10 years with little to no chance of advancement to better paying jobs for many of American's workers?
You might want to take a look at how many people work on the minimum wage (or less), then, Joether. That number has been going down since the late 00's (where it peaked). Yes, we're quite a bit higher now than before the recession, but the number is going down.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I worked minimal wage in my early years (retail is hell during Christimas....).
I worked minimal wage in my early years (retail is hell during Christmas....).
I think you messed up here. I understand what your trying to express. However, in either case, I was not making a pile of money to live on! Yeah, I added an 'i' in Christmas.....sue me!
I was agreeing with you, that retail is hell during Christmas. Nothing more. Nothing less. I guess I failed at actually quoting you, though. lol
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
But I went off to college and got a good degree. Have done things since. Yet, in my many years of volunteer work, I've seen time and again parents whom are just struggling to make basic ends meet. And its a huge hurdle each week, let alone, each month. In the above example, the parent works 50 hours at $7.25/hour. That's about $300/week, grossing. After various things the company is forced to take out, the parent is left with $240. Assuming one month, that is $920. The rent in the cities around me are $600 for a one room apartment, for one month. There is food, clothing, heating, and many other factors. That parent has no real financial hope of over coming their situation. They will be on welfare. And who pays for that welfare, DS?
Let's see if you did your calculations correctly...
40x7.25 = 290
15 (time and a half) x 7.25 = 108.75
50 hours/wk @ $7.29/hr. = $398.75 gross
You've missed your mark, there. And, yes, that's still going to be tough. It's going to be nigh on impossible. But, again, the minimum wage isn't intended to be the wage one works for to support a family.
Yeah, I'm off the mark do to clerical error. I did do the math off to one side when writing things originally!
We both agree this is a wage not intended to support a family. And yet, more and more it is becoming common place.
So the question remains: Do we do nothing about it? Or do we take stock of reality and decided we have to do something to change the flow of costs from taxpayers back to employers?
Please show your proof that it's becoming more and more common place.
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You and I! Meanwhile, their employer is making a profit off our subsidizing of their employees.
Oh no! "You and I" are helping someone that's "truly needy!" The horrors!! Oh, wait. I'm okay with doing that (see my sig line).
The reason why these people are needy is because their employers are allowed to pay them shit, while profiting on the difference. As time marches forward, we'll see more and more needy people, and more and more profit reports from employers.
Are you 'OK' subsidizing companies that will give you nothing in return? They profit, you pay to help the needy. Wouldn't it be nice if you, the needy, and I, could profit?
If you and I are not "profiting," from a business, stop going to that business. If you are not getting a greater value of goods or service than the money you are spending, then, perhaps, you need to get your goods/services elsewhere. That's the whole point of the Market. Competition results in lower costs. If a business is losing customers because the goods/services they are providing aren't valuable to their intended customers, they either go out of business or change.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
At $15/hour, that parent can handle many of the basic costs with some money left over. Assuming good budgeting skills (and thats a big if), that parent could get out of being poor after a few years. Most likely they will not be taking welfare funding, but will not be in the middle class until their kids are 18+.
Again, this all assumes neither kid nor the parent has any medical problems.
Federal Poverty Levels
Do you think people value things they had to earn more than things they get given? Do you think the value of something earned is in a direct relationship to how difficult it was to get that something? How much more should a Union Skilled Tradesman earning $40/hr. (note the use of the word "earning") get if the minimum wage goes from $7.25 to $15.00? Should that person now earn $47.25? $80? $82.76 (increased by the same ratio as the minimum wage)?
Money is a curious concept. When it comes to wages, the ability of the dollar to handle problems rises like a 'typical supply curve'. Since basic level items needed for survival is something everyone pays. Moderate level items (>$500) most people pay, while others do without or purchase once in a great while. High level items (>$5,000) most people purchase once in a while. Stratosphere items ($>$75,000) are not purchased more than a handful of times. This is for the middle class.
The poor or poverty level must pay for the basic level items. Their 'moderate level' items is around $100-250. High items, about $1,200-$1,400. Stratophere items is anything they are lucky to pay for once in a life time!
Now the rich and super rich. Anything below $10,000 is not a problem.
While these are 'ballpark' figures, I hope it shows that as one has more purchasing power, the rate of handling basic and moderate needs diminishes. That it becomes less of an hurdle to overcome.
Should a trades person automatically see a pay rate increase if the minimal wage is rated by nearly twice its amount? With more people earning $15/hour and getting out of poverty, there will be more money set aside as 'disposal income' than in previous years. Those leaky pipes, poor driveway, and wall that needs redone? People will now have money to handle those projects, or get trades people to perform the work. That the trades person will likely see more work opportunities than in the previous fifteen years! They could raise their price of work per hour, but unlike the minimum wage person; their pay is by market forces, not governmental law. More business means more profit. More profit means greater likelihood of raises or bonuses to workers. Or hiring more workers whom in turn allow more profit to the business.
So more people out of poverty, means more in taxes coming in. More people with higher levels of disposable income, mean more purchasing power (and more taxes coming in). More people buying fixed and variable costs that could not be afforded before, means more profit for businesses. Not having to 'bust one's chops' at 50 hours, could take 36-40 hours (assuming full time status here) and....maybe....see their kids once in a while! Businesses will wish to take advantage of the new disposable income that is being generated to move more products and services. Which part of the cost of business is paying taxes.
You didn't answer the question, Joe. I know you can do it. It's not that difficult. It can be done with 2 or 3 letters, even.
quote:
So the American worker is not in poverty, requiring less welfare systems. The American business sees a prosperous 10-15 years with expansion and growth. The governments from local to federal see more revenues. As a side note, if those governments take the new funds and work down debts, that would be a good thing too! The whole of the nation benefits. How is this a bad thing?
That's very unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
|
