Fisher
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 17,002
- Reaction score
- 6,913
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
**** no. No one can live on one minimum wage full time job.
Sure they can, especially if they get house mates.
**** no. No one can live on one minimum wage full time job.
Even if they "cannot" handle going to college for a "college" degree. There are still trade schools. There are skilled jobs, like auto mechanics, that you can go to trade school for or get hired by a local dealer and the company will train you (if you show you have the attitude and aptitude for them to spend the money on you).
A friend of mine is a welder. He didn't go to college, but instead learned welding at a welding school. He worked hard, became skilled and now qualifies as a master welder who can work pipeline and power plant work. He is around 30 years old now, can earn $40/hr or more and never has problems finding a job (in right to work states, he is not union).
My brother works as a field service technician for a Caterpillar dealership. He got out of the Air Force, went there to ask what schools he needed to get hired and got hired on the spot. He worked hard, kept a good attitude and was sent to specific schools that he needed (the dealership paid for them). I don't know his exact salary, we never talked about it, but I overheard somewhere around $35/hr. He could probably make more if he moved from the field, but he likes it and makes enough to suit him that he is not interested in moving and since he is good at it, the dealer has no reason to move him.
There a slew of skilled jobs out there for those who will at least make the effort to become skilled. Welder, mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc, that do not require college. Are you going to end up on the Top Earners list, no, but you can make a damned good living at these trades.
Been there, done that, not nice at all, But the question was possible, not pleasant.If it's that nice, why don't you give it a try?
he lived in a POS apartment complex with door-to-door crack dealers and hookers.
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"
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.
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.
If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
I fully agree with this post. And yet the greater issue, imo, is corruption within the current political system. If welfare is to be eliminated, or cut significantly, all welfare not excluding corporate bailouts and subsidies also need to be reversed. Rich people also receive welfare which is even more unjust. The government should exist only to keep law and order; not to maintain a standard of living for people.
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.
Oh, I agree here. Many of the corporate subsidies and things we do I think are also problematic. I think a lot of these types of thing, both with the general public and with business, may even have a generalized good purpose but the METHOD in which they're persued actually run counter, or at least inefficient, towards that purpose.
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.
If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
I understand completely what your points are...you dont seem to want to accept I disagree with you. I also dont believe raising the minimum wage is going to diminish jobs...thats just excuse rhetoric used as filler to make an argument against it...anyone that NEEDS an employee to make money for them doesnt get rid of the job for 50cts an hour.
I employed dozens and dozens of employees over the years and my wife many many more...so please spare me the parroting of the anti minimum wage rhetoric I dont buy it and I lived it as an employer who always paid more than minimum wage and always made more money than any of close competitors. A few bucks more in wages can make you alot more money...not this ridiculous claim by the opponents of it that its going to somehow crash the minimum wage job market...nonesense.
I'm not making this comment about you..I don't know you or anything about you...but I love how people would rather make excuses,complain,argue,rather than simply ask the question "how did someone like me go from making minimum wage ($2.30 in 1977) to owning his own businesses".My wife and I owned several business...Im not making this comment about you..I dont know you or anything about you...but I love how everyone that owned a business tells me how they busted their ass..and how I know many of them that are full of crap
Not everyone can own a business or start one...many arent smart enough or could never get the start money.
Just think if everyone was well off...who would clean the toilets and cut the grass and raise the richs kids while they play
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.
The article uses average rent like any other comparisons...and less rent can be totally unacceptable living conditions.
If millions of americans work for min wage and its not supposed to be livable...what does that mean you work and cant live ?
Now...you're correct. If that persons business REQUIRES 10 people to actually run, he's probably going to keep them employed if he wants to run his business. Which means he'll either have to take the $1,500 a month hit out of his own pocket OR through other savings around the office. OR he could deem that the business would no longer be practically profitable and thus close it down, losing all those jobs. Or, he decides that he can cut a portion of the business out to reduce overhead and need less people for smaller hit to profitability.
"...totally unacceptable living conditions."
Ummmm....yeah...if anything less than a two bedroom apartment for one person is considered unacceptable then that, alone, should invalidate that whole article.
In 1985 I was living on $400 per month while living alone at my new job in AZ. The car was paid for, a 79 Volare. I paid rent, food, utilities, gasoline, car insurance. I was working 60 hours a week, making $1000 per week take-home pay, and saving $600 per week.....You could do it, but your entire frame of reference would have to change.
You would need to share an apartment or rent a room from someone.
You diet would be very limited. You would learn all about real economy.
No cell phone, no cable TV, can't afford to run the AC.
Sort of like life in the 50's!
You get excited if they open a day old bread store within walking distance.
People live among us who struggle with this every day, it is only a temporary station.
This is the beauty of the USA, we are not assigned to a place in life for life.
We can, through hard work, and commitment get promoted and get rises.
As a young man I lived this life, it is hard, but it makes you appreciate the little things.
First, your own arguments aren't making logical sense.
In one post you talk about a $12 minimum wage (and I believe even then you're suggesting it's not enough) That's a $3.75 increase, not a "50 ct" bump. Are you suggesting that $8.75 would be "livable"? Or are you just pulling an imaginary number out of thin air simply because it tries to make your point look better?
Second, please then explain to me how it is you don't bleieve that raising minimum wage is going to diminish jobs. How you can sit here and give stereotypical anti-corporation rants about the evil rich people not caring about anyone and shipping out jobs and then turn around and act like they'll all bite a large hike right in the ass makes no sense.
10 people making minimum wage, working a total of 40 hours a week, would be $3,300 in flat pay roll costs.
10 people making the number you stated earlier, $12, for that same time span would be $4,800.
That's a bit over a 45% increase in the cost of their payroll. Or roughly the equivilent of that person bringing on 4 1/2 new people in the old pay cycle.
Now...you're correct. If that persons business REQUIRES 10 people to actually run, he's probably going to keep them employed if he wants to run his business. Which means he'll either have to take the $1,500 a month hit out of his own pocket OR through other savings around the office. OR he could deem that the business would no longer be practically profitable and thus close it down, losing all those jobs. Or, he decides that he can cut a portion of the business out to reduce overhead and need less people for smaller hit to profitability.
Of course, this is assuming the business HAS to have those 10 and those 10 are all minimum wage workers. Lets say 7 of them are minimum wage, 2 make $16.50, and one (the manager) makes $33.
His pre-increase payroll cost is $4,950. His post-incrase payroll cost would be $6,000. A little over a 21% increase in payroll. Again, could potentially take that money out of profits or some other part of the business. Or, you succeeded in redistributing that from one employee to the next as they'd potentially lower the other employees pay. So you get those 7 making $12 now, but the two people with the higher level job...they're now at $12 as well. And the one high end guy drops to $15.75, nearly cutting his pay in half. That would take it to a neutral point revenue wise.
Well golly gee, your singular experience naturally makes you a greater expert on this than anyone else, regardless of their own experiences, and clearly anything people disagreeing with you state is just "anti-minimum wage rhetoric" (Note, perhaps you should comprehend what I right before slinging out insults considering I haven't once advocated against the minimum wage in this thread).
You're right, sometimes paying more to your employees generates greater revenues for yourself because you attract a higher caliber of employee that functions at a better level and improves your business as a whole in a way greater than you'd have by simply saving on payroll. But even with your own constant stereotyping of the evil rich business owners being greedy and purely seeking money, if that is the case then those people already WOULD be paying more for their employees. If all business owners now care about is profit, regardless if that means shipping jobs overseas or whatever else, then in a situation you describe they'd be giving their employees more money. Unless yo'ure at this point suggesting its not "greed" but now just outright disdain and hate for others motivating them and thus they pay less to SPITE their employees despite making less profit for themselves.
Your logic is ALL OVER the place and it's not surprising, because you're not actually arguing based on logic but based purely on emotion and platitudes. I don't have an issue that you disagree with me. There's many people that do, I fully get and understand that. My issue is your continual repeated attempts to demonize those that disagree with you as some kind of insult worthy individual, your misrepresentation of what people are actually suggesting, and your flippant dismissal of others points through the use of inconsistent arguments
I'm not making this comment about you..I don't know you or anything about you...but I love how people would rather make excuses,complain,argue,rather than simply ask the question "how did someone like me go from making minimum wage ($2.30 in 1977) to owning his own businesses".
If someone isn't smart enough or can't get the start up money,that's just the way the "Game" is played.
Don't hate the Player,hate the Game.
All I can say is that I found a way to do it.
(and I'm no one special)
Too bad no one seems to interested in how I did it.
I volunteer (and give considerable amounts of money) at a program that teaches at risk teens the restaurant business.
So I have no problem reaching out to those who want to better themselves.
And I have no problem walking over those who rather wallow in self pity and make excuses to reach those who want to better themselves.
The map you cited does not use average rent. It uses market rent. Market rent is significantly higher than the actual rent agreed upon during lease implementation in most cases. The "market rent" for my last apartment was $870/month. Our actual rent was $635. The apartment before that had a market rent price of $950. We paid $675. In fact, every apartment I've lived in, both in Texas and in Indiana, had a similar structure. The "market rent" was based upon some manufactured value, but was never applied to actual leases. It's all a gimmick used by property managers to make people feel good about the rent they actually pay. "Well, I pay $800, but the market price was $1150!".
Besides that, many people have shown how the "market rate" in the map is not representative of the actual options available. I can find 15 1-bedroom apartments near several job sources and public transit outposts that would be less than $450/month...and these apartments are relatively safe and in acceptable condition.
Im not addressing all that sorry...I didnt have a singular experience, I had many over many years...have you ever owned a business if so what kind and how many employees have you had
1)
2) Visiting a city is not remotely the same as living in one. There're many, many things that I have at my fingertips all the time that you just don't.
The map you cited does not use average rent. It uses market rent. Market rent is significantly higher than the actual rent agreed upon during lease implementation in most cases. The "market rent" for my last apartment was $870/month. Our actual rent was $635. The apartment before that had a market rent price of $950. We paid $675. In fact, every apartment I've lived in, both in Texas and in Indiana, had a similar structure. The "market rent" was based upon some manufactured value, but was never applied to actual leases. It's all a gimmick used by property managers to make people feel good about the rent they actually pay. "Well, I pay $800, but the market price was $1150!".
Besides that, many people have shown how the "market rate" in the map is not representative of the actual options available. I can find 15 1-bedroom apartments near several job sources and public transit outposts that would be less than $450/month...and these apartments are relatively safe and in acceptable condition.