US Has Lowest Minimum Wage, Most Young People Without Jobs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Key point - I don’t think he’s saying that minimum wage should be $25. He’s pulling the usual marketing tactic of saying you could hypothetically argue it should be $25 based on productivity to make $10.50 appear more attractive.

The $25 wage is DOA as an argument, and he knows that. I don’t have the data on hand, but I seriously doubt that we’ve seen the growth in wages for most professions (non-minimum wage included) mirror the increase in productivity. If everybody is getting more productive, I would be hard pressed to believe everybody should suddenly make XX% more (or else the whole point of an increase is defeated).

52k a year for minimum wage skills is ridiculous. Somewhere in the 20k range starts to look more reasonable. The real question, IMO, is at what point can somebody work a job (40 hours a week) and get by with the necessities (food, shelter, basic healthcare) without government assistance and without taking extraordinary measures. From some quick back of napkin calculations, a family of four can get ~16k per year in government benefits by doing nothing but cashing in on welfare. A 40 hour a week job at $7.25 brings in ~15k per year…I’m hoping my numbers are off somewhere, but that feels wrong on some level that no work > unskilled work.

42

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Where was unemployment in 1968 when minimum wage had it’s highest purchasing power?[/quote]

In what massively significant ways is the economy different now than in 1968?

min wage doesn’t exist in a vacuum. [/quote]

Well for one, major corporations didn’t ship nearly as many jobs overseas. [/quote]

You’re still missing a massive component, well two actually. And you’ll ignore them forever, even if you know them, and you know why…

43

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Key point - I don’t think he’s saying that minimum wage should be $25. He’s pulling the usual marketing tactic of saying you could hypothetically argue it should be $25 based on productivity to make $10.50 appear more attractive.

The $25 wage is DOA as an argument, and he knows that. I don’t have the data on hand, but I seriously doubt that we’ve seen the growth in wages for most professions (non-minimum wage included) mirror the increase in productivity. If everybody is getting more productive, I would be hard pressed to believe everybody should suddenly make XX% more (or else the whole point of an increase is defeated).[/quote]

It isn’t working, because 10.50 doesn’t look any better.

Jobs that pay these wages were never, will never be, and shouldn’t be looked at as career opportunities to live and raise a family on.

There is zero incentive to improve your lot if the government forces you to be paid more than your worth.

Don’t get it twisted, this MW push has jack and shit to do with “helping low wage earners” no matter what the progressives tell you.

45

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
From some quick back of napkin calculations, a family of four can get ~16k per year in government benefits by doing nothing but cashing in on welfare. A 40 hour a week job at $7.25 brings in ~15k per year…I’m hoping my numbers are off somewhere, but that feels wrong on some level that no work > unskilled work.[/quote]

EXCELLENT POINT! That not only feels wrong, but is wrong. However, the government is able to pay more because it forcibly takes its money from the people. Those who you accuse of doing “no work” are actually far more important to “USA, Inc.” than a worker at McDonald’s is to it. It is also impossible to replace those on welfare with technology. They are professional voters.

Raising the minimum wage does nothing but make it harder for McDonald’s to employee people. When other companies have to get rid of employees, USA, Inc. gains employees.

46

What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?

47

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

Anything is possible.

You know what we should do?

FLAT WAGE. The wave of the future.

No matter what you do, how well you do it, nor how long, everyone only ever makes say 100k. Every pays 35% in total taxes, and the government will set the prices of all goods and services so that the 70k you have left is all you need to live with your 2.5 kids, dog and white picket fence in the burbs.

Ahhhhh, utopia.

48

ehhh, fucked up my math. Should be 30% and 70k left, or 35% and 65k left

49

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

I guess it would be possible and would be a “less horrible” alternative to an across the board hike. However, its still bad and considering that minimum wage jobs are not really meant to be main income, family supporting jobs by themselves, they shouldn’t be paid as such. However, if I ended up in a bad enough bind and had to start using these jobs to support my family, You can always work 2. Working 2 part time jobs could get you roughly 60 hrs a week and about 23k a year which is enough to provide for a small family on and if you have a spouse that can do the same the that’s 46k that you are pulling down as a household. This is very manageable and could be easily used to ride out a rough patch until you could find something better.

50

Hell we should raise minimum wage to $12/hr so everyone makes $80K a year! Wait, am I doing this right??

51

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

I guess it would be possible and would be a “less horrible” alternative to an across the board hike. However, its still bad and considering that minimum wage jobs are not really meant to be main income, family supporting jobs by themselves, they shouldn’t be paid as such. However, if I ended up in a bad enough bind and had to start using these jobs to support my family, You can always work 2. Working 2 part time jobs could get you roughly 60 hrs a week and about 23k a year which is enough to provide for a small family on and if you have a spouse that can do the same the that’s 46k that you are pulling down as a household. This is very manageable and could be easily used to ride out a rough patch until you could find something better.[/quote]

Lol dude 23k is not enough to provide for a small family.

52

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

I guess it would be possible and would be a “less horrible” alternative to an across the board hike. However, its still bad and considering that minimum wage jobs are not really meant to be main income, family supporting jobs by themselves, they shouldn’t be paid as such. However, if I ended up in a bad enough bind and had to start using these jobs to support my family, You can always work 2. Working 2 part time jobs could get you roughly 60 hrs a week and about 23k a year which is enough to provide for a small family on and if you have a spouse that can do the same the that’s 46k that you are pulling down as a household. This is very manageable and could be easily used to ride out a rough patch until you could find something better.[/quote]

Lol dude 23k is not enough to provide for a small family.
[/quote]

It would depend on where you live.

53

Yeah, it is. Not well, but it can be done. You will have to ride around in a POS, choose the absolute cheapest cell policy you can get and only get one for the house or just get a landline, not cable or directv bill, and your choice of home will have to be very reserved. But it can be done if you are in a bad enough bind and actually have enough pride to get yourself out of a bind instead of depending on others to do it for you. None of this is meant to be long term but these jobs are not long term jobs. At least not to be worked by themselves.

54

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

I guess it would be possible and would be a “less horrible” alternative to an across the board hike. However, its still bad and considering that minimum wage jobs are not really meant to be main income, family supporting jobs by themselves, they shouldn’t be paid as such. However, if I ended up in a bad enough bind and had to start using these jobs to support my family, You can always work 2. Working 2 part time jobs could get you roughly 60 hrs a week and about 23k a year which is enough to provide for a small family on and if you have a spouse that can do the same the that’s 46k that you are pulling down as a household. This is very manageable and could be easily used to ride out a rough patch until you could find something better.[/quote]

Lol dude 23k is not enough to provide for a small family.
[/quote]

Back in the day, kids were lucky to get one toy to play with…

Yeah, you’ll survive just fine.

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
What if we did a minimum wage for full time employees and then one for part time?

Is that possible?[/quote]

I guess it would be possible and would be a “less horrible” alternative to an across the board hike. However, its still bad and considering that minimum wage jobs are not really meant to be main income, family supporting jobs by themselves, they shouldn’t be paid as such. However, if I ended up in a bad enough bind and had to start using these jobs to support my family, You can always work 2. Working 2 part time jobs could get you roughly 60 hrs a week and about 23k a year which is enough to provide for a small family on and if you have a spouse that can do the same the that’s 46k that you are pulling down as a household. This is very manageable and could be easily used to ride out a rough patch until you could find something better.[/quote]

Lol dude 23k is not enough to provide for a small family.
[/quote]

Back in the day, kids were lucky to get one toy to play with…

Yeah, you’ll survive just fine. [/quote]

Not sure I agree with any of you about this. All I can do it take that amount of money and plug it into the economy where I live. (New Hampshire)

Lets say for sake that I’m applying this to just myself. Minimum wage in NH is $7.25 an hour, working full time will net me $15,080 for the year. (before Taxes)

Rent: A low end place where I live will cost around $600-$650. Lets Just say $600, plus add on utilities. Electric, Water, and Heat. So lets round that out at $800 a month =$9,600 per year.

Food: I’ve been on this diet before so lets say you buy the bare necessities for food each week. Eggs, Frozen veggies, tuna, chicken(when on sale), milk, and lets throw in frozen blueberries because they’re cheap and you need to eat some type of fruit. We’re looking at, lets say best case scenario $50 per week= $200 per month = $2,400 per year.

Clothes: working minimum wage you don’ deserve to have luxuries like hanging out or anything, so lets say you’re only buying clothes for work and 1 pair of pants and one shirt for out of work. So socks, underwear, t shirt, work pants, work shirt(if not provided for you) social pants, social shirt, and work shoes, and social shoes. best case scenario… $200 per year.

Car: Lets say your car was given to you. So the price of the car is free, however you still need to put gas, oil changes and the bare minimum to pass inspection. At (best of a dream case scenario) $25 per week for gas, and an allowance of $30 every 4 months for oil changes, and a one time fee of $100 for tires. You’re looking at a total of $1,490 per year

Working minimum wage nets you $15,080 per year before taxes, while living minimum wage costs you $13,690. Therefore after taxes and baring nothing dramatic happens in your life like your transmission shitting the bed in your car. A person on mw will be lucky to break even.

And yet, they’re expected to then take their free time to do anything that will help them get out of their situation they’re in. However we’re somehow neglecting the fact that doing ANYTHING costs money.

And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation.

56

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
From some quick back of napkin calculations, a family of four can get ~16k per year in government benefits by doing nothing but cashing in on welfare. A 40 hour a week job at $7.25 brings in ~15k per year…I’m hoping my numbers are off somewhere, but that feels wrong on some level that no work > unskilled work.[/quote]

EXCELLENT POINT! That not only feels wrong, but is wrong. However, the government is able to pay more because it forcibly takes its money from the people. Those who you accuse of doing “no work” are actually far more important to “USA, Inc.” than a worker at McDonald’s is to it. It is also impossible to replace those on welfare with technology. They are professional voters.

Raising the minimum wage does nothing but make it harder for McDonald’s to employee people. When other companies have to get rid of employees, USA, Inc. gains employees.[/quote]

Nick are you an extreme Libertarian? We agree on this. We will work our our differences on the drugs in the other thread.

57

First off there would be no taxes to speak pay more than likely. Unless I am forgetting something. And a minimum wage job is not supposed to get you ahead. It is merely something to help you ride out a rough patch until you can find a real job. Also, you are acting like this is all that they can work. If you cant make it, get a second job. Two part time jobs at 30 hrs a week will earn you about 11500 a piece so you end up with 23 and as you just figured up that is more than enough to live on.

58

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
First off there would be no taxes to speak pay more than likely. Unless I am forgetting something. And a minimum wage job is not supposed to get you ahead. It is merely something to help you ride out a rough patch until you can find a real job. Also, you are acting like this is all that they can work. If you cant make it, get a second job. Two part time jobs at 30 hrs a week will earn you about 11500 a piece so you end up with 23 and as you just figured up that is more than enough to live on.[/quote]

You still have to pay one side of Medicare and Soc Sec tax which is about 7.5%. There is a tax credit that you will get, but I can not think what it is called to help lower that 7.5%.

59

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

And again, this is just for one person. So adding even 1 child to the mix, said person would barely have a chance to ever get ahead. Let alone make it out of their shitty situation. [/quote]

So it is my responsibility to fix this for them? So the government should force a company to pay this person more than their work is worth? For what? What net gain does the person get, when forcing a food shop to pay people $2 more an hour forces them to increase their prices and/or reduce the people they employ?

What is the upper limit in MW in your scenario then?

Do you see how it is just another form of welfare? The increase in wages isn’t “free” money.

60

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
First off there would be no taxes to speak pay more than likely. Unless I am forgetting something. And a minimum wage job is not supposed to get you ahead. It is merely something to help you ride out a rough patch until you can find a real job. Also, you are acting like this is all that they can work. If you cant make it, get a second job. Two part time jobs at 30 hrs a week will earn you about 11500 a piece so you end up with 23 and as you just figured up that is more than enough to live on.[/quote]

You still have to pay one side of Medicare and Soc Sec tax which is about 7.5%. There is a tax credit that you will get, but I can not think what it is called to help lower that 7.5%.[/quote]

Yes, you are still paying PR taxes.