• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you live on Minimum Wage

Can you live on Minimum Wage


  • Total voters
    63
That's funny...wealth was concentrated at the top in the 90s when we had unprecedented prosperity.

I don't think that redistribution is conducive to a growing, thriving economy. If you do, the USA is surely not the country for you. Perhaps Australia?

Nope, the higher tax rates for the wealthy evened things out more than they are today after 14 more years of tax cuts for the wealthy. As we found out in the 1920's its not possible to grow an economy when most of the wealth is at the top. And I think you misread who the people just reelected as our leader.
 
How can you have a debate with this guy? It's like an ostrich hiding his head in the sand.

If you really believe that, fine - that's your choice. I've taken as much socialist, authoritarian bullcrap from you that I can stand for the night.
 
That's funny...wealth was concentrated at the top in the 90s when we had unprecedented prosperity.

I don't think that redistribution is conducive to a growing, thriving economy. If you do, the USA is surely not the country for you. Perhaps Australia?

Well to be fair, the wealth- so called- in the 90s fueling this "prosperity" was largely debt funded.
 
The people who make millions don't spend as much of their income as does the working class, that's why the economy is not recovering very quickly.

still fixated on %, I see. the people who make more $$ spend more $$$. If I get really bored, I'll try to find some stats. but I would be willing to bet that the top 10% spends more actual dollars than the other 90% combined.
 
Than you don't give a damn about the economy. Fortunately most of the people that voted in the presidential election do care about our economy.

wrongo...most of the people who voted in the president just care about the empty promises he made
 
still fixated on %, I see. the people who make more $$ spend more $$$. If I get really bored, I'll try to find some stats. but I would be willing to bet that the top 10% spends more actual dollars than the other 90% combined.

You will have to in order to prove your case, or admit it was all a bunch of BS.
 
You will have to in order to prove your case, or admit it was all a bunch of BS.

really? you haven't done so in order to prove yours. therefore by your own logic...what you've been posting was all a bunch of BS
 
Maybe if you live in a cardboard box or in a shelter.
 
You can earn 50 times more if you do drugs.
 
"Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work"

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics | Center for American Progress

Was that three decades without government interference? What was the purchasing trends of American consumers during that time, more towards foreign or domestic produced goods? What was the cause of the trends?

In order to prove that Supply-Side economics doesn't work, it would actually have to exist with only minimal regulation from the government. We don't know that it doesn't work, we only know it doesn't work with heavy government regulation.
 
You will have to in order to prove your case, or admit it was all a bunch of BS.



How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com

Average annual expenditures
Poorest 20%: $17,837
Middle 20%: $36,980
Richest 20%: $83,710

How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com

Average household income before taxes
Poorest 20%: $9,168
Middle 20%: $41,614
Richest 20%: $132,158


the richest spend 63.34% of their annual incomes
the poor spend a whopping 194.56% of their annual income (so where does that extra 94.56% come from? it is given to them by the govt from $$$$ taken from the other 80%)

so, as you can see, the top 20% outspends the bottom 20% by a factor of 4.6X (despite being robbed by the govt to nearly double the amount of $$$$ the bottom 20% spends)
 
Maybe if you live in a cardboard box or in a shelter.

It has been shown, with actual numbers, that living on minimum wage is not only possible, but affords some luxuries and does not mean living in a cardboard box. It may mean sharing their apartment/house with a room mate or two, but that is hardly a cardboard box.

Is there any proof that those earning only minimum wage have done anything to earn more? I'm sure some have, but I don't see where the vast majority of them have. I have seen, several times, including myself, that those who start out at minimum wage, if they prove they are worth more, get raises and even better paying positions.

One of the best things we could do would be to do away with laws and unions that make companies keep undesirable and low/non-productive workers. Many companies are no longer directly hiring people into full time positions because of the cost of mandated benefits. Once full time, an employee is protected from being fired, unless they commit certain acts, such as theft, by laws and unions. Companies are forced to keep low/non-productive workers and that limits what they can offer to desired workers.

Under current law (at least in Texas), the only sure way to weed out undesirables is to hire part time at minimum wage or near it. This allows them to evaluate the worker before either getting rid of the, maintaining them at current level, or promoting/giving them a raise. If a worker under performs or has a bad attitude, their hours get cut until they quit. If they perform only at the minimum required level and their attitude, while not great, is also not a hindrance, then they are kept on at current levels. If they show good performance and attitude, they have the opportunity to move up when positions become available and can receive a raise to encourage them to stay until a position comes open.

I cannot say all companies, but most that I have ever seen in action, do value good employees. But, they are limited on what they can offer the good employee because they have to carry the burden of bad employees that they cannot rid themselves of very easily.

Of course, this only addresses one aspect of the picture, the loss of higher paying unskilled/low skilled jobs also plays a role.

Only when minimum wage no longer allows anything above base level subsistence should it be raised. That level should be reserved for Welfare. We are no where near minimum wage requiring a person to live at a bare minimum level.
 
It has been shown, with actual numbers, that living on minimum wage is not only possible, but affords some luxuries and does not mean living in a cardboard box. It may mean sharing their apartment/house with a room mate or two, but that is hardly a cardboard box.

Is there any proof that those earning only minimum wage have done anything to earn more? I'm sure some have, but I don't see where the vast majority of them have. I have seen, several times, including myself, that those who start out at minimum wage, if they prove they are worth more, get raises and even better paying positions.

One of the best things we could do would be to do away with laws and unions that make companies keep undesirable and low/non-productive workers. Many companies are no longer directly hiring people into full time positions because of the cost of mandated benefits. Once full time, an employee is protected from being fired, unless they commit certain acts, such as theft, by laws and unions. Companies are forced to keep low/non-productive workers and that limits what they can offer to desired workers.

Under current law (at least in Texas), the only sure way to weed out undesirables is to hire part time at minimum wage or near it. This allows them to evaluate the worker before either getting rid of the, maintaining them at current level, or promoting/giving them a raise. If a worker under performs or has a bad attitude, their hours get cut until they quit. If they perform only at the minimum required level and their attitude, while not great, is also not a hindrance, then they are kept on at current levels. If they show good performance and attitude, they have the opportunity to move up when positions become available and can receive a raise to encourage them to stay until a position comes open.

I cannot say all companies, but most that I have ever seen in action, do value good employees. But, they are limited on what they can offer the good employee because they have to carry the burden of bad employees that they cannot rid themselves of very easily.

Of course, this only addresses one aspect of the picture, the loss of higher paying unskilled/low skilled jobs also plays a role.

Only when minimum wage no longer allows anything above base level subsistence should it be raised. That level should be reserved for Welfare. We are no where near minimum wage requiring a person to live at a bare minimum level.

This is total bologna. Companies, union or not, are not forced to keep poor quality workers. Most workers are non-union and non-contract, in other words, "at will" and can be fired for any reason as long as it doesn't violate civil rights laws. In other words, they can't be fired for their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. If they're in an "at will" state, they don't even have to document it. If they're not, they just have to document the worker's transgressions, which don't have to be severe. If a worker is more than 5 minutes late at least 6 times, you can fire him at your discretion. And it's easy to document. And stop spreading the lie that union workers cannot be fired. Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired. If he's late all the time; if he does bad quality work, if he harasses people; if he wastes company time on personal matters, he can and should be fired. It's misinformation that an employer gets stuck with bad employees. Stop spreading the lies.
 
This is total bologna. Companies, union or not, are not forced to keep poor quality workers. Most workers are non-union and non-contract, in other words, "at will" and can be fired for any reason as long as it doesn't violate civil rights laws. In other words, they can't be fired for their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. If they're in an "at will" state, they don't even have to document it. If they're not, they just have to document the worker's transgressions, which don't have to be severe. If a worker is more than 5 minutes late at least 6 times, you can fire him at your discretion. And it's easy to document. And stop spreading the lie that union workers cannot be fired. Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired. If he's late all the time; if he does bad quality work, if he harasses people; if he wastes company time on personal matters, he can and should be fired. It's misinformation that an employer gets stuck with bad employees. Stop spreading the lies.

this does nothing to counter the arguement that a good minimum wage worker actually deserves more than minimum wage.

if you are in a MW job and you do your job well, you earn your mW. only if you excell or do above and beyond the job description do you earn or deserve more than MW
 
Evenstar said:
Well to be fair, the wealth- so called- in the 90s fueling this "prosperity" was largely debt funded.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Remove debt financing from the business world, and all things we know today immediately cease. I don't feel like living in a Little House on the Prairie rerun, thank you very much.
 
This is total bologna. Companies, union or not, are not forced to keep poor quality workers. Most workers are non-union and non-contract, in other words, "at will" and can be fired for any reason as long as it doesn't violate civil rights laws. In other words, they can't be fired for their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, etc. If they're in an "at will" state, they don't even have to document it. If they're not, they just have to document the worker's transgressions, which don't have to be severe. If a worker is more than 5 minutes late at least 6 times, you can fire him at your discretion. And it's easy to document. And stop spreading the lie that union workers cannot be fired. Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired. If he's late all the time; if he does bad quality work, if he harasses people; if he wastes company time on personal matters, he can and should be fired. It's misinformation that an employer gets stuck with bad employees. Stop spreading the lies.

So 13 workers at Chrysler that got caught drinking at lunch and going back to work under the influence of alcohol were not given back their jobs? The union had nothing to do with this?

Companies, any where, can fire minorities "at will" without fear of legal/civil actions being taken against them? When that claim of prejudice is wagered against a company, how much does it take to prove it wasn't prejudice? How much negative coverage will be levied against a company that fights the charge will there be? How much will it cost them to fight it, both in lost revenue and legal fees? Or even to settle out of court to avoid the bad press and legal fees?

NYC can’t fire this $100,049-a-year teacher pulled from the classroom 11 years ago - NYPOST.com How to Fire a Teacher in New York City « Greenewable’s Weblog

These, and others, all exist because Unions have either been the implement of the restrictions or the union has backed the tenure system and other systems to protect people from being fired.
 
Luna Tick said:
Unions negotiate an appeals process that gives a worker the chance to defend himself from accusations. This is to protect people from trumped-up firings, but a union won't prevent a bad employee from being fired.

My ass they won't.
 
How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com

Average annual expenditures
Poorest 20%: $17,837
Middle 20%: $36,980
Richest 20%: $83,710

How Americans Make And Spend Their Money - Forbes.com

Average household income before taxes
Poorest 20%: $9,168
Middle 20%: $41,614
Richest 20%: $132,158


the richest spend 63.34% of their annual incomes
the poor spend a whopping 194.56% of their annual income (so where does that extra 94.56% come from? it is given to them by the govt from $$$$ taken from the other 80%)

so, as you can see, the top 20% outspends the bottom 20% by a factor of 4.6X (despite being robbed by the govt to nearly double the amount of $$$$ the bottom 20% spends)



Now multiply those figures by the percentage of population each income group represents and you will have figured it out.
 
Nope. Living on Minimum Wage is almost impossible. Especially for anyone who has any sort of bills (electric, cable, gas, etc...). Of course, the Minimum Wage was never really intended to be for people to live on for extended periods of time, and definitely not with a family. People who want to see the Minimum Wage as a Living Wage seem to miss that point more often than not.

The first minimum wage passed in 1968 adjusted for inflation was 10.58 per hour.

Minimum wage has always been about protecting the bottom of the economic pyramid from destitute povery.
 
My ass they won't.

my brother's sister-in-law married a dude that was a big time pothead and all around worthless POS. his daddy got him a union job at one of the auto parts makers in our area. dude was constantly late for work, called in sick at least once a week, showed up for work high as ****, etc, etc, etc. they tried for over a year to fire his ass with no success. he finally quit because it was too much effort to get up and get dressed for work every day.
 
Now multiply those figures by the percentage of population each income group represents and you will have figured it out.

dude, the math is so simple it is ridiculous. 20% of the pop = 20% of the pop. there are the same number of people in the bottom 20% as there are in the top 20%. take the total population, rank them by income and then take 20% off the bottom and average their income/expenditure and take 20% off the top and average their income/expenditure. it is the same freakin number of people.
 
The first minimum wage passed in 1968 adjusted for inflation was 10.58 per hour.

Minimum wage has always been about protecting the bottom of the economic pyramid from destitute povery.

What says that destitute poverty is not all that they have earned? What says the government has a responsibility to provide anything above what the market says a worker should earn? Is there anything that proves any one should be protected from destitute poverty if that is all that they have earned?
 
What says that destitute poverty is not all that they have earned? What says the government has a responsibility to provide anything above what the market says a worker should earn? Is there anything that proves any one should be protected from destitute poverty if that is all that they have earned?

life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. maybe they just aren't pursuing hard enough......
 
Back
Top Bottom