Can you live on Minimum Wage

$7.25X40X52=$15,080.00 per year. You can survive on that even after your minimal withholdings. It is just a matter of what you feel entitled to. You may have to give up your $160/month cable/internet/telephone package. You may have to drive an older car and have to be more purposeful in your errands as not to waste gas. You may have to have room mates to be able to afford a nicer apartment/house. You may have to cook at home with cheaper ingredients than going to the Olive Garden and wait until the movies you want to see are at Redbox instead of going to the theater. It is just a matter of the decisions you make once your decisions have you supporting yourself on minimum wage.

Fisher said:

$7.25

Click to expand...

Crap....my former post was actually incorrect. I was going off of an $8.25 current minimum wage because my brain farted for a moment. The bump up to $12 originally suggested actually would been even bigger of a shift, more than a 50% increase.

lpast said:

You did it the same way I did it and my wife...I owned several business' for many years and so has my wife...but umm not everyone is you and I and are in the same circumstances..

Click to expand...

Nobody's circumstances are the same,but there are always ways of changing the circumstances one finds themselves in.

It seems me and my wife,and you and your wife share this in common...we set goals for ourselves,and either achieve them,or if we can't,we find goals that we can achieve.

I chose 'Yes' that I could live on minimum wage. We own our home outright and our annual PFD basically cancels out our property taxes and insurance. Electricity and Internet are our only bills, the latter of which we could technically go without if we had to. Car expenses, food, and home improvement stuff but beyond that... not much left... we can live very minimally.

The kicker is health insurance. That continues to get so bloody expensive that there'd be no hope of purchasing it from a minimum wage. But that doesn't mean I "can't live on" minimum wage. Life is life. Health insurance is not oxygen, food or water.

Re: the article on which the thread is premised, I don't see a reason that a single minimum wage should be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment.

lpast said:

Thats not what I said but you will continue to make what I say into what you want it to be...no need to continue

Click to expand...

This is what you said:

lpast said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

So...we are talking about the article, right? The article stipulates a two bedroom apartment. You are saying that rent that is less than average can be totally unacceptable. That means that my response is exactly in line with what you said.

But, hey...if you didn't mean what you said then perhaps you should NOT continue.

You easily could if that's what you wanted to do. If you do the minimum work, you should get the minimum wage, and live very minimally.

Working as intended.

Increasing the minimum wage will do other things: prices will go up because either there is more demand for them or because the production costs have gone up; as an employer I know that I cannot raise my prices too much at once without losing business so I would have to lower raises throughout the peon pool to offset the raise I would be forced to give to the lowest on the totem pole. (Actually most of my employees are on salary and my starting wage for hourly's is currently $10 just because it makes it easier to do the math in my head.

Fisher said:

Increasing the minimum wage will do other things: prices will go up because either there is more demand for them or because the production costs have gone up; as an employer I know that I cannot raise my prices too much at once without losing business so I would have to lower raises throughout the peon pool to offset the raise I would be forced to give to the lowest on the totem pole. (Actually most of my employees are on salary and my starting wage for hourly's is currently $10 just because it makes it easier to do the math in my head.

Click to expand...

and...due to factors such as this...raising the minimum wage would not actually help the MW earner and would hurt everyone else.

OscarB63 said:

and...due to factors such as this...raising the minimum wage would not actually help the MW earner and would hurt everyone else.

Click to expand...

It actually helps the MW earner, but marginally. As a standard rule of thumb, cost of living is not on pace with minimum wage increases as a whole. Therefore, the lowest rung is helped, but yes - the higher rungs are hurt because their wages (after a certain extent) are not tied into comparisons with minimum wage.

For instance, a minimum wage increase wouldn't help me because I'm well above a wage that has MW as a determinant. However, an employer who pays people slightly above that minimum wage in an effort to increase morale, production, and efficiency may be adversely affected.

Gipper said:

It actually helps the MW earner, but marginally. As a standard rule of thumb, cost of living is not on pace with minimum wage increases as a whole. Therefore, the lowest rung is helped, but yes - the higher rungs are hurt because their wages (after a certain extent) are not tied into comparisons with minimum wage.

For instance, a minimum wage increase wouldn't help me because I'm well above a wage that has MW as a determinant. However, an employer who pays people slightly above that minimum wage in an effort to increase morale, production, and efficiency may be adversely affected.

Click to expand...

if MW is raised across the board...the vast majority of employers are going to increase prices to offset higher payroll (or they cut back on employees or hours, etc) and that is going to offset much, if not all, of any benefit the MW earner would gain from a higher wage. maybe I'm too cynical...but i don't see very many employers "eating the cost' of paying a higher MW. someone other than the employer is going to pay that cost and it is usually the consumer. and higher consumer costs always hurt those that make the least the most.

OscarB63 said:

if MW is raised across the board...the vast majority of employers are going to increase prices to offset higher payroll (or they cut back on employees or hours, etc) and that is going to offset much, if not all, of any benefit the MW earner would gain from a higher wage. maybe I'm too cynical...but i don't see very many employers "eating the cost' of paying a higher MW. someone other than the employer is going to pay that cost and it is usually the consumer. and higher consumer costs always hurt those that make the least the most.

Click to expand...

Of course they will raise prices, but you also have to account for the fact that labor is not 100% of business' costs. If you raised minimum wage from 5 to 6 dollars, a 20% increase, you won't see prices to consumers raised an equal 20%. You may see it raise 3-6% on average. They can pass on the effect of the wage increase and have approximately the same profit margin without it looking like they lost their damn minds overnight.

OscarB63 said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Now compare how many people in the country make closer to 20K and 200K and you will understand what I was talking about.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no record of national employment going down each and every time national minimum wage was increased. Economists say that it would also stimulate the economy so there is more demand for producers. Seems a much better alternative to me to than taxpayer funded welfare.

Catawba said:

There is no record of national employment going down each and every time national minimum wage was increased. Economists say that it would also stimulate the economy so there is more demand for producers.

Click to expand...

And it likely wouldn't be since our minimum raise increases have been few and far between and incremental...a far cry from the call for changing it right now to a "Living" wage. Such as the $12 number thrown out earlier in this thread as a possibility.

The modern minimum wage began in 1978 at $2.65

Over the next three years it increased $.70 cents, with increases of 25, 20, and then 25 cents.

It then didn’t increase for another 9 years at which point it went up $.45 in consecutive years.

It went up $.50 five years late and $.40 the year after.

Ten years after it jumped $.70 over three straight years.

It should be noted, the last two years of those record jumps we absolutely DID lose substantial jobs in the market. I am not claiming this to be a direct response to the hike in the minimum wage, but at least in recent history there absolutely is a record of employment going down at a time when the minimum wage is substantially increased.

Still, those “Substantial” increases are collectively all lower than a dollar in a particular year, with only ONE prior to 2007 being greater than fifty cents.

That’s an increase of $4.60 over a THIRTY FOUR year period. That’s an average increase of $.13 and a half cents a year.

On the flip side, bumping to a “living wage” such as was described in this thread…say $12….is a $4.75 dollar increase. Seemingly desired to occur in an immediate fashion. And that number was thrown out there with a statement that it may likely not be enough.

Yes, an occasional increase of $.25 every few years or around a dollar every decade is not likely to significantly impact the job market in a significant way. However, incremental updates to the Minimum Wage is a staggeringly different situation than a significant spike in an attempt to create a “livable wage”. What you’re attempting to do is move the goal posts by referencing historical data on the Minimum Wage while ignoring the fact that what is being called for is unquestionably an entirely different animal than those historical actions.

An increase of $.15 cents an hour is not going to have the same impact as a $4.75 dollar and hour increase. That’s common sense. Attempting to compare them is ridiculous

Seems a much better alternative to me to than taxpayer funded welfare.

Click to expand...

Only when one is functioning under the premise that the only two actions possible to be taken are increase tax payer funded welfare or institute government mandated increases to wages. Sadly, despite your desire to convince people the world you fabricate in your mind is reality, it's not and our answers are not only the "A" and "B" option you provide.

Zyphlin said:

our answers are not only the "A" and "B" option you provide.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I missed something in the last 60 years, what other plan has been put forth?

Yes, you can LIVE on minimum wage. You wont have a nice house, nice car or anything really nice for that matter, but it can be done easily. The reason people here in the states feel they can't live on minimum wage is because they THINK they need a car, big house, big TV and don't want to cook for themselves so they feel they need to eat out every day. I have been all over the world where people live on $60 a month. It can be done, we just don't have the discipline to do it here because we are materialistic and wasteful people.

Catawba said:

Now compare how many people in the country make closer to 20K and 200K and you will understand what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

throw in the number of people who make millions and you'll see how stupid it is to argue % instead of actual $$$ spent

OscarB63 said:

throw in the number of people who make millions and you'll see how stupid it is to argue % instead of actual $$$ spent

Click to expand...

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.

Of course you can live on minimum wage, you may just have to work more than 40 hours per week though. It's possible where I live to rent out a studio apartment for roughly $400-500 per month in rent. If you work 40 hours a week at $7.25 per hour I would say you could probably budget and manage to live with that income.

Will you be able to afford a large apartment with a smartphone, cable TV, high speed internet and a newer car? Most likely not. One of the problems with the "living wage" concept is that people think they are owed such things and that these need to be factored into what constitutes as "livable."

I can survive on minimum wage ( i can survive on no income)... but I can't live on minimum wage.

Catawba said:

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.

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why...

Gipper said:

Gee, I wonder why...

Click to expand...

Because like in the 1920s most of the country's wealth is concentrated at the top.

Or...just maybe...Obama's tax policies are oppressing business, who then have to take measures against the populace?

I couldn't give a damn if the wealth is concentrated at the top, as I'm not an entitlement baby/socialist. Sorry if you think the bourgeois owe you a living.

Gipper said:

I couldn't give a damn if the wealth is concentrated at the top

Click to expand...

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.

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?