• 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!

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Here's how it works: It's your life, and you are supposed to support it and provide the means to sustain it.

So...every person must decide for himself when he feels he is ready to have children.

So, another person who simply will not define what percentage of your income reaches the golden line of "ready". Is a couple who has $600 left over for leisure after $1,600 in expenses financially ready to have kids when raising a kids can easily cost $1,000 a month? What factors define financially ready? It will save you 10 pages of bull****ting if you just say "Look, financially ready is a term we've made up because we haven't actually raised children. We just know it's not attainable by the middle class or the lower middle class or the lower class once it's defined."
 
3 posts and you still won't define financially ready?

I don't need to give explicit criteria in order to validate the statement "having children before obtaining the means to care for them is stupid."

Do you think having children before identifying and obtaining the requisites to adequately care for them is a good decision? Is that what you're saying?

I didn't think you could either. Here's an easy way to define it: A couple living on $3,000 a month, are they "financially ready" to have children in a city like New York?

No. Rent in NYC averages $3,000 a month. If you can only come up with $36,000 a year between TWO PEOPLE in NYC, no, you're not there yet. Conceiving children in that situation is stupid.

After that: what about a couple living on $1,500 a month in West Virginia?

No. $18,000 a year is not sufficient anywhere in this country to be financially ready for the costs of parenthood. If you can only come up with $18k a year between two people, you're clearly not there yet financially for it to be smart to bring children into that situation.

Come on Neomalthusian, own up to those statements about "financially ready"? You're sounding like you don't actually have a family of your own when you duck and dodge ;)

You seem excited like you've caught me with some zinger. I have made extremely reasonable statements and just because I won't get pedantically detailed with explicit criteria does not mean I've said anything unreasonable or even disputable.
 
I don't need to give explicit criteria in order to validate the statement "having children before obtaining the means to care for them is stupid."

Here is your statement again: "starting a family before you're financially ready is idiotic."

I asked you to define "financially ready" - and you seem to be catching on at least partially:

- $18,000 a year is not sufficient anywhere to be financially ready for the costs of parenthood.
- Rent in NYC averages $3,000 a month. If you can only come up with $36,000 a year between TWO PEOPLE in NYC, you're not there yet.

Hm, so wait, you're telling us that people who manage to live reasonably well on those incomes aren't financially ready? Seems this is where your argument falls apart as there are literally millions of families living on those incomes who aren't drags on society when you factor in cost of living and would by any standard be financially capable to hold their own on those incomes. See why it is I don't believe you actually have raised a family of your own? Alright, here's the best question you'll get in a while: What factors define whether a person is financially ready? :) I keep asking you the same question in different ways and you refuse to clarify or qualify your statement. I guess some pseudo-intellectuals are content with self serving generalities. I'm not.
 
Here is your statement again: "starting a family before you're financially ready is idiotic."

I asked you to define "financially ready" - and you seem to be catching on at least partially:

Hm, so wait, you're telling us that people who manage to live reasonably well on those incomes aren't financially ready?

People who don't have wealth or income that even comes close to covering the normal expenses of raising children are, by definition, not financially ready to be having children.

It doesn't make sense that you or anyone would be so obtuse in objecting to this.

See why it is I don't believe you actually have raised a family of your own?

I don't care what you believe or disbelieve about my personal life.

Alright, here's the best question you'll get in a while: What factors define whether a person is financially ready?

Disposable income sufficient to cover additional expenses, percentage of income that would be needed to house a larger family (e.g. if you're a couple that spends 40% of your income on a studio in your area, you're not financially ready for a larger family unless you secure a higher paying job in the same area or a job that pays enough to afford housing in a different area).

Honestly have you NEVER thought about family budgeting before or something? Makes me think YOU haven't raised a family if these notions are so foreign to you. ;)
 
Last edited:
People who don't have wealth or income that even comes close to covering the normal expenses of raising children are, by definition, not financially ready to be having children.

Now we're getting somewhere. At least you're not dodging anymore. So alright, a couple with an aggregate income of $70K and living expenses of say $46K:

1. Need to travel to work.
2. Cost of food in the area.
3. Housing

They're not financially ready to have child (lower disposable income). However, a couple with an aggregate income of say $40K and living expenses of around $25K is financially ready to have kids? Yes? That's the what you're going to go with here?
 
Last edited:
Hm, I don't recall offering any economic theories. Can you refresh my memory and tell me theory I have put forth?
You've been doing it this entire thread and in many others as well. I call your theories Dreamland.


Yet you are impotent to identify anyone whose person or property has been assaulted or damaged by the act of offering to pay below the fixed price. Duly noted. No victim. Victimless crime.
Try reading a history book.
 
Uh, yeah. That's what I just said. Ownership is NOT the same as simply having something. Ownership is a legally recognized right to have something.

Without ownership, capitalism (private OWNERSHIP of the means of production) cannot exist. It is predicated on the legal concept of ownership.
Doesn't require a legal system, just the social recognition. It might be recognized by law but that's not a requirement.


Nope. Ownership is a legal right, and can only be determined legally, not by might makes right.
If Might Makes Right is the social system then it's quite acceptable as means of determining ownership - no laws required. I'm sure there were many situations of communal ownership long before there were laws to address the idea.


I duly note your failure to provide any example of a company that has eliminated all it's competition and achieved monopoly status.
I can easily see Intel and AMD combining together 10 years ago to control the CPU market. Not even a stretch of the imagination.


You once again display your ignorance. Ownership is a collection of legal rights to use and enjoy property, including the right to transmit it to others.
Yawn - same song, same error.



Slavery is a violation of a person's ownership rights in his own body.
Which in no way stops a capitalist society from practicing it.
 
and your not interested the following supreme law
Supreme law?

The only "supreme law" is survival of the fittest in a given system, whether it be a living jungle in South America or a concrete jungle in the US.
 
Last edited:
Here's how it works: It's your life, and you are supposed to support it and provide the means to sustain it.

So...every person must decide for himself when he feels he is ready to have children.
You're never ready to have children.

Or at least I think so...don't have any yet.
 
Demanding that minimum wage give you everything you could possibly want is just another symptom - and more proof - of the entitlement system we live in.

Economic liberals can't push themselves forward, so they'd rather pull everyone else back.

Well said.
 
'A lot' can mean anything and is extremely subjective.

Can most world citizen's that have a full time job doing the most simplistic of tasks that usually requires zero training/experience; receive sufficient pay from this one job to live above the poverty line?

Probably not.

So yes, relative to the world, I believe it is a (relatively) lot.
 
So, another person who simply will not define what percentage of your income reaches the golden line of "ready". Is a couple who has $600 left over for leisure after $1,600 in expenses financially ready to have kids when raising a kids can easily cost $1,000 a month? What factors define financially ready? It will save you 10 pages of bull****ting if you just say "Look, financially ready is a term we've made up because we haven't actually raised children. We just know it's not attainable by the middle class or the lower middle class or the lower class once it's defined."

It's not my call to tell someone else when or whether he ought to have children. That decision is his to make, not mine.
 
You've been doing it this entire thread and in many others as well. I call your theories Dreamland.

You're making stuff up. I haven't offered any economic theories in this thread.

Try reading a history book.

That won't identify anyone whose person or property is assaulted or damaged by the act of offering to pay below a fixed price. There is no identifiable victim, which makes it victimless crime. It is unethical for the government to punish someone for an act that results in no identifiable victim, since such punishment is, in fact, an initiation of aggression.
 
Doesn't require a legal system, just the social recognition. It might be recognized by law but that's not a requirement.

If Might Makes Right is the social system then it's quite acceptable as means of determining ownership - no laws required. I'm sure there were many situations of communal ownership long before there were laws to address the idea.

Nope, ownership means one has the enforceable right to use something. It does not simply mean one "has" something.

I can easily see Intel and AMD combining together 10 years ago to control the CPU market. Not even a stretch of the imagination.

Yet you can't point to any real example other than in your imagination.

Yawn - same song, same error.

Which in no way stops a capitalist society from practicing it.

Capitalism can't exist in the absence of secure property rights and individual liberty. What you refer to as "unfettered capitalism" is really lawless chaos, and your use of the term is disingenuous.
 
Do you mean he started the job at minimum wage when he was 18 and kept the same job at minimum wage for an additional 22+ years? That sounds like a stable person to me.

you misspelled "stagnant"
 
you misspelled "stagnant"

Does the employer really care if this employee is labelled stagnant by group A or labelled stable by group B?

Group B gets to enjoy a warm fuzzy by seeing a person who is dedicated to their job. Group A gets to satisfy their desire for superiority by seeing someone earning a lower wage than them. The employee enjoys a predictable life with an income to feed his family. The employer gets a cheap, reliable employee. Everybody wins.

Why are you so angry at this employee? What harm does he/she cause to you?
 
Does the employer really care if this employee is labelled stagnant by group A or labelled stable by group B?

Group B gets to enjoy a warm fuzzy by seeing a person who is dedicated to their job. Group A gets to satisfy their desire for superiority by seeing someone earning a lower wage than them. The employee enjoys a predictable life with an income to feed his family. The employer gets a cheap, reliable employee. Everybody wins.

Why are you so angry at this employee? What harm does he/she cause to you?

what makes you think I have any anger towards him? I just don't have any sympathy for him when he whines about how working for minimum wage isn't "fair" or that we need to raise minimum wage.

If you are happy working the same minimum wage job for 30 years, fine. If you are not, do something to make yourself qualified to do something more. Don't sit around and bitch about minimum wage being too low.

but seriously, what kind of person works for 30 years and is still only making minimum wage? even ****ty jobs like mickey Ds or being a janitor give you raises after you've been there a while.

The only people around my age I know that are still working minimum wage are those who can't hold a job, so they hop from one crappy job to another every couple of months and have to start back at the bottom.

I go to church with a lady, my age (around 50), who dropped out of high school when she was 16. never finished, never went to college, never did any other kind of training. She's been working at LOWES for the last 20+ years. worked her way up to dept. manager and makes around $16/hr.

it's like I said. If you are 40 and have been working at the same job for 20 years and are still only making minimum wage, you have issues.
 
I go to church with a lady, my age (around 50), who dropped out of high school when she was 16. never finished, never went to college, never did any other kind of training. She's been working at LOWES for the last 20+ years. worked her way up to dept. manager and makes around $16/hr.

it's like I said. If you are 40 and have been working at the same job for 20 years and are still only making minimum wage, you have issues.

I don't know if I've said this here before or not, but I moved into my current house 14 years ago. At the local Walmart, there are cashiers who have been there since before I moved in. They were bottom-level cashiers then, they are bottom-level cashiers now. They had no customer service skills then, they have none now. They're slow, stupid, rude and frankly, I have no idea why they still have jobs. In another 14 years, they'll probably still be bottom-level cashiers. Should I feel sorry for any of them because they make crappy wages? No. They did it to themselves.

Seriously, if you're still doing the same job in even 5 years, something is wrong. Everyone should strive to be upwardly mobile.
 
I don't know if I've said this here before or not, but I moved into my current house 14 years ago. At the local Walmart, there are cashiers who have been there since before I moved in. They were bottom-level cashiers then, they are bottom-level cashiers now. They had no customer service skills then, they have none now. They're slow, stupid, rude and frankly, I have no idea why they still have jobs. In another 14 years, they'll probably still be bottom-level cashiers. Should I feel sorry for any of them because they make crappy wages? No. They did it to themselves.

Seriously, if you're still doing the same job in even 5 years, something is wrong. Everyone should strive to be upwardly mobile.

I saw it in the National Guard all the time, back in the day. 45-50 y/o guys who were still E4s. been in the guard for 25 years and been promoted once or twice. sit around every drill complaining because they had to do all the **** work. but they refuse to go to any NCO prep courses, refuse to go to any schools, etc, etc, etc.
 
I saw it in the National Guard all the time, back in the day. 45-50 y/o guys who were still E4s. been in the guard for 25 years and been promoted once or twice. sit around every drill complaining because they had to do all the **** work. but they refuse to go to any NCO prep courses, refuse to go to any schools, etc, etc, etc.
Sameness is comfortable, even if you dislike it.
 
Sameness is comfortable, even if you dislike it.

Then they have no business complaining about it because that's the path they chose.
 
No and I think a good solution to get the people that would rather rely on welfare off of it is to gradually raise the wage every year starting with a big jump to $9 an hour and end with $12 an hour by 2016.
 
Then they have no business complaining about it because that's the path they chose.

I haven't heard them complaining. I hear people complaining on their behalf. These scum are called politicians. A burger flipper has no power to change minimum wage.
 
Then they have no business complaining about it because that's the path they chose.
Complaining is easier than doing.
 
I had to tell an employee that the amount of money he made wasn't predicated on his ability to spend it. In truth it was dependent on his ability to make himself indispensable to the company.
 
Back
Top Bottom