• 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
Did he live with you...or did he live in the bayou on a canoe :p lol

he lived in a POS apartment complex with door-to-door crack dealers and hookers.
 
In USA

Minimum Wage= Teenagers or a secondary job

Mid or High Wage= Where you wanna be trust me


That was refuted earlier in the thread:


There are 4 people for every job opening, which shows that lack of job skills is not the main problem, and because of this, more and more overqualified adults and full-time workers are only being paid minimum wage.

For Each U.S. Job Opening, 4.6 Unemployed

"As an increasing number of workers take on low-wage jobs, poverty in the United States has increased: In 2005, 12.6% of Americans were living in poverty, compared to 15.7% this year (almost 50 million citizens)–the highest rate of poverty since 1965. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage would hopefully help to reverse this trend."
How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy LearnVest
................
 
Yah rising minimum wage would help $7.25 an hour ain't gonna cut it anymore

Wanna live a decent life get a mid or high wage job like I said already
 
Ha. That's about what the weather's like here at the moment. Mn is a whole different world. I got really tired of the -15f daytime temps for weeks on end.

The difference is you can still stuff at -26C (like see how far you can slide a car in a parking lot) whereas at 30C you just want to die.
 
The difference is you can still stuff at -26C (like see how far you can slide a car in a parking lot) whereas at 30C you just want to die.

Eh. I used to live in LA, and I remember the summer months sucking a little (weather wise), but for the most part I'll take a generally temperate climate with occasional bouts of unpleasant warmth over genuinely cold weather any day of the week.
 
Yah rising minimum wage would help $7.25 an hour ain't gonna cut it anymore

Wanna live a decent life get a mid or high wage job like I said already


Wanna tell us how everyone does that when there are way more people than there are jobs that pay above minimum wage?
 
Eh. I used to live in LA, and I remember the summer months sucking a little (weather wise), but for the most part I'll take a generally temperate climate with occasional bouts of unpleasant warmth over genuinely cold weather any day of the week.

Montreal is a nice and cheap place to live where in the winter it only averages -10C as long as you don't mind French.
 
Can you live on minimum wage or even up to 50% more than the minimum wage, before you decide read this article and look the map.
I am looking for another easier to read graph that shows apt costs in every state which in turn shows that at minimum wage FULL time workers cant pay for an apt
Also keep in mind most Minimum wage and low wage earners are part timers <walmarts>


Rent Affordability on Minimum Wage - NYTimes.com

Seems to me there was a thread about this here before...unless I'm mistaken and actually saw it in another forum.

Anyway, there were two objections to this graphic and the article:

1. Rents vary in any location. It's entirely possible to secure housing at less than whatever amount the article comes up with. That kind of negates the stated hours required.

2. I haven't read this whole thread, but as Tigger says...minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage. For that reason, the article is disingenuous.

So it goes.
 
Seems to me there was a thread about this here before...unless I'm mistaken and actually saw it in another forum.

Anyway, there were two objections to this graphic and the article:

1. Rents vary in any location. It's entirely possible to secure housing at less than whatever amount the article comes up with. That kind of negates the stated hours required.

2. I haven't read this whole thread, but as Tigger says...minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage. For that reason, the article is disingenuous.

So it goes.


Conditions have changed. There are 4 times as many people as there are jobs openings. Way more than that if you look at just the jobs openings that pay more than minimum wage. So, we either agree to a living wage, or taxpayers agree to pay more in welfare to those for whom there are no jobs or are paid substandard wages by employers.

Do you have another alternative?

Keep in mind also, there would be no better way of stimulating the economy than raising the minimum wage to a living wage.
 
Montreal is a nice and cheap place to live where in the winter it only averages -10C as long as you don't mind French.

A good friend of mine from law school grew up in Montreal. He speaks highly of it. On the other hand he does live here now.
 
Jesus christ dude...have you ever heard of divorce man...have you ever known decent people that got divorced...have you ever known a guy that left his wife and kid or two for another woman ...or just took off...your not seeing any legitimate reasons because you just want to be right and label everyone that doesnt have as much as you no good..

There are legitimate reason to end up in such a situation, never said there weren't. (Ok, I admit my wording would lead to that conclusion, that is my sometimes (probably often) lack of rhetorical skill. I know what I am saying, it just for some reason never gets on the page that way and I don't catch it until someone points it out. one of the reasons for being on a forum is to practice and learn my communications skills)

But whether she got in that situation by legitimate means or her own choices is still an necessary addition to our knowledge about her.

However, whether someone in that situation stays in that situation is entirely up to them. I also understand that with a child, it will require help from family and friends.

what I should of probably said, and this relates to the subject of the thread, just our mythical single mother. I see a lot of excuses why someone has to stay at minimum wage but no reason for them to.
 
Last edited:
Conditions have changed. There are 4 times as many people as there are jobs openings. Way more than that if you look at just the jobs openings that pay more than minimum wage. So, we either agree to a living wage, or taxpayers agree to pay more in welfare to those for whom there are no jobs or are paid substandard wages by employers.

Do you have another alternative?

Keep in mind also, there would be no better way of stimulating the economy than raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

Alternatives:

Live on less.
Tighten employment rules to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
Relocate to areas that have jobs available.

A couple more points: Raising the minimum wage will not stimulate the economy...it'll put a drag on the economy. Paying more in welfare is also a drag on the economy because the government must suck more money out of the private sector. These two points...if increased...are bad news.
 
Alternatives:

Live on less.
Tighten employment rules to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
Relocate to areas that have jobs available.

So you have no viable alternatives, thanks!
A couple more points: Raising the minimum wage will not stimulate the economy...it'll put a drag on the economy. Paying more in welfare is also a drag on the economy because the government must suck more money out of the private sector. These two points...if increased...are bad news.


Who spends a bigger percentage of their income, the working poor, or the wealthy?
 
So you have no viable alternatives, thanks!



Who spends a bigger percentage of their income, the working poor, or the wealthy?

percentages don't stimulate the economy...actual dollars do.

90% of 20K will not stimulate the economy as much as 15% of 200K
 
................

The first link, I have already responded to another thread.

The second.

First, raising minimum wage, as I said earlier in the thread would only lead to wage adjustments as the price of everything raises to pay for that increase, within a very shot time, that new "living wage" won't mean anything and every would be right back to where it is today, just with different dollar amounts. And those same fat cats at the top will increase theirs by just as much of a percentage as the bottom got adjusted, probably more since it would give an excuse to make the raises in price and who is going to go around counting everything to see if the fudged 1% or 2%.

second, why did all those jobs leave. I know the general answer from liberals is greed, specifically the greed of companies and share holders. However, I don't believe it. How much does it cost to run an oil refinery in the US? What was it in 1970? How much does labor cost them? How much does EPA changes cost them to not only meet the new standards but to regulate them? How much to drill an oil well in the US and meet all the EPA requirements to do it? Somewhere around 95% of the refineries that existed in 1970 have been closed (EPA is one reason given for closing, labor costs another, while I believe at least some of it is those causes, I don't think it is the whole truth), they no longer exist. How much is a gallon of gas? What would be that price if all our oil came from the US?

What about the auto industry? etc, etc, etc.

During the '70s, 80s, what were the sales of us goods like? How well did they compete with cheaper and higher quality good brought in from overseas? What was the quality of American manufactured goods like on average? Americans then and now bought on price and quality (for those who could afford it). Trade deficits with some countries became astronomical as Americans bought up the foreign goods and left the American products mostly on the shelf (or on the show room floor, as the case may be). Companies that used other companies products, like steel, started buying form overseas to try to control costs, the steel industry almost died. So, companies started outsourcing (actually they started it in some industries as early as the 1950s or even earlier) in order to survive. Some adjusted by replacing large amounts of the work force with robotics and automation. The cost of labor was too high to compete, in some industries added and changing EPA regulations were too costly to meet, Corporate taxes were high (Currently highest in industrialized world), the only way they could survive and compete was to outsource to cheaper labor pools and less restrictive regulation. The American Consumer simply would not buy enough American made products to keep them operating. They could not compete with cheap overseas products. Once they moved, they did not pass on any reductions in cost other than those necessary to compete, but instead kept the difference.

Unfortunately, a lot of it was caused by the government interfering in the first place. We, the American people, through our purchases, Unions and elections are the ones that drove these jobs overseas. Now we need to fix, but instead, we go ahead and elect official so that the government will "fix" it. The same blame government that caused a lot of the breakage in the first place.
 
Can you live on minimum wage or even up to 50% more than the minimum wage, before you decide read this article and look the map.
I am looking for another easier to read graph that shows apt costs in every state which in turn shows that at minimum wage FULL time workers cant pay for an apt
Also keep in mind most Minimum wage and low wage earners are part timers <walmarts>


Rent Affordability on Minimum Wage - NYTimes.com

Why would you think you SHOULD be able to?
 
So you have no viable alternatives, thanks!



Who spends a bigger percentage of their income, the working poor, or the wealthy?

Those alternatives are viable for the people who don't have jobs...regardless whether you think they are or not. The fact is...people don't need the government to get a job.

Oh...I forgot another viable alternative: create your own job.
 
So you have no viable alternatives, thanks!



Who spends a bigger percentage of their income, the working poor, or the wealthy?

Who can afford to give the government the finger and move elsewhere taking their money with them? We have already seen some do it (both companies and individuals), at what point do more do it? What should we do to stop them? Charge an exit tax? Maybe build a wall around us and shoot anyone trying to leave? (how well did that work out in Berlin?) Or should we not piss them off to the point they leave?

What would happen if we piss off the owners of Walmart, they decide they are rich enough and are fed up with the government and taxes so they decide to just close down Walmart and sell off it's assets?
 
lol ok...what are you entitled to do then...live in a box in an alley or apply for govt assisted housing section 8

You're not entitled to any particular living space.

However in terms of options?

Inquiring with friends and family if they have any space that you could stay in.

Inquire with friends, family, coworkers, or acquaintances if they'd like to go in on an apartment with you.

Look around for people looking to rent out a room or level of their house for a fee.

Look into a studio or one bedroom apartment rather than a two bedroom apartment.

Post something up at local areas that have bulletin boards, such as Churches or perhaps a local Y, indicating you're looking for a roommate.

All legitimate and practical ways besides leaping to your attempt to belittle my point by leaping to extremes as if they're the only other outcome beyond having your own two bedroom apartment.
 
Well zyphlin says no one is entitled to live in an apt alone...then your not entitled to cheap goods and services

You're correct, he's not entitled to that. It doesn't change the fact that the repercussions he's speaking of are possibilities and would not just affect him but also those making the new minimum wage. Meaning, sure...they're getting more money. Their cost of living also has gone up, and the potential job opportunities have potential shrunk for them. We're not "entitled" to having a cheap goods and services, but that doesn't counter the argument he's making. Perhaps you should attempt to comprehend and understand my points before you parrot them in a way that they don't apply.
 
Too many conservatives confuse profit and greed...theyve become synonomous with business today..a generation before the rich had their own self imposed limits and shared some of the wealth with their workers who made them rich...today its all about me..so you have to force them to share..

So....nothing at all addressing my points and rather just emotional appeals and typical partisan attacking. Great counter argument.
 
Existing is not living...and I stand by in most of the country you cannot live meaning able to pay for all basic necessities...and try being a single mother on minimum wage...

And here's where I'm admittedly somewhat heartless when talking about a political issue...because frankly allowing emotional overreactions to a few to damage the country as a whole is wrong in my opinion in terms of political thought. And my view on this is similar regardless of which party a particular issue may favor.

Do I feel for a single mother in such a situation? Absolutely. Does every single mother experience that because of poor decisions on their part? No, they don't. However...the reality is that society should not be promoting such a thing as the baseline, and making sure that such a thing is absolutely comfortably livable is setting it as a baseline. While not everyone in such a situation is there due to their own choices, making it far less sustainable through massive government assistance or mandate deters it.

The problem with Poverty and other such things is it's a self fulfilling issue. The more you strive to make poverty or bad situations not just livable, but comfortably livable, then the more you promote people being in that condition. Maybe it's a conscious thought, maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's unconsious, maybe it's laziness or perhaps contented ness or possibly bad luck (and the acceptance of that bad luck as being the norm). But however it may be, the more you enhance the "livability" of life in poor situations, the more you encourage those poor situations to propagate and expand.

The other issue is that actually ELIMINATING those poor situations is an impossibility due to human nature and reality. Our minimum wage is higher than it's ever been. Our amount of public aid, free/subsidized services, and assistance is greater than any time before. And yet we're still at roughly similar (and as you pointed out) higher number than in the past. Despite all our efforts it's not like this has changed and the call is simply for more, more, more.

No, not all American's are entitled to their own individual two bedroom apartment. No, I disagreed with Bush and the Republicans when they suggested every American deserves a house. Yes, you know what, there are going to be people in ****ty...****ty situations. Some of which completely, or largely, beyond their own control. ANd you know what, I'm in favor of some safety nets for those individuals. My issue however, as clearly evidenced throughout the years and even by your own statements in this thread, is that there is a dishonest and disgusting tactic by some who suggest that if you don't constantly say "MORE, MORE, MORE" that somehow you want none. My issue is that I believe there's a difference between a safety net, something to catch you when you fall to ATTEMPT to climb back up, and simply installing a hammock down there that one can just kind of hang in while it's continually attempted to be raised higher and higher. I disagree, entirely, with this ridiculous and impossible notion of attempting to essentially "eliminate" poverty or assure everyone has some sort of "livable" situation which, based on your description, is actually a comfortable situation sans significant, or even minor, sacrifices or compromises.

Now...if you want to simply, in a typical intellectually empty manner, decry me as "heartless" or go on some stereotypical hyper partisan anti-conservative rant instead of actually addressing what I say, be my guest. It simply highlights that your arguments is based off nothing but base emotional platitudes without an actual practical political or sociological application. If you disagree on specific points based on actual opinions/views backed by facts and prefer a different identifiable method, or a reason you dislike mine, then that's great. But it's see,img most responses is "grr greedy uncaring conservatives suck. People should be made comfortable because that'd be nice and stuff and well, um, just make 'the rich' pay for it somehow"
 
Last edited:
Wanna tell us how everyone does that when there are way more people than there are jobs that pay above minimum wage?

Clearly, the answer is to force employers to pay people more.....NATURALLY they'll just go "Shucks, alright, guess I'll just have to pay everyone more" and not in any way shape or form look to find a way to mitigate the cuts by either cutting back on hours, cutting back on employees, cutting back on promotions, cutting back on benefits, or some other manner of pay roll re-organization to account for the new required amount of payroll expenditures. That of course wont' have ANY affect on the problem already present in terms of the lack of jobs available.
 
Can you live on minimum wage or even up to 50% more than the minimum wage, before you decide read this article and look the map.
I am looking for another easier to read graph that shows apt costs in every state which in turn shows that at minimum wage FULL time workers cant pay for an apt
Also keep in mind most Minimum wage and low wage earners are part timers <walmarts>


Rent Affordability on Minimum Wage - NYTimes.com

No, and anyone who can't get beyond that barrier needs to reevaluate their work ethic, find better opportunities, or go to school.
 
**** no. No one can live on one minimum wage full time job.
 
Back
Top Bottom