Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the flip side, I don't understand the argument that you can't support a family on minimum wage and therefore it should be raised. Simple solution: don't have children, or stick with just one.
According to the latest statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, parents will spend an average of $235,000 to raise a child born in 2011 to the age of 17. (And that's not taking into account any savings for college).
We pay roughly 35-40% of our income in all sorts of taxes, let's unrealistically assume it's 25%. Let's assume we need 35% of our income to live on which leaves 40% of income to raise a child.
0.4xMinimum_Breeding_Income=$235,000. Minimum_Breeding_Income=$587,500 per reproduction unit. Minimum_Breeding_Income = $587,500/18=32,639 per single kid family. Minimum breeding income for a person, 32,639/2=$16,319. Surprisingly, a family of two minimum wage workers living in a low COL area should be able to afford a child with some luck and good judgement, of course.
Median annual household income in February 2013 was $51,404. (51,404/32,639)=1.57 kids per median family. Under economic system we live under, 1.57 kids per family is an economic and social disaster. Numbers are even grimmer considering mushrooming single parenthood. No wonder government subsidizes reproduction and legal and illegal immigration. Roughly 30% of American families can't afford a single child.
20% growth on 100,000,000 compensation = $20 millions X 200 largest public companies =$4 billions in compensation growth (just among 200 largest public companies) and it's very conservative estimate.
Let's look at a minimum wage worker.
$7.25/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks= $15,080/year.
Raising minimum wage to $9/hr (it should destroy America according to some)
$9/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = $18,720
I'm not going to quote everything you wrote but you made an excellent point. All this belly aching about minimum wage is absolute garbage in my opinion. What they are saying is we have enough money to pay our top brass exorbitantly well because we can pay everyone else crap. Matter of fact, shareholders have seen record returns as well.
Doesn't seem to be any shortage of money to go around, so the argument about a minimum wage hike devastating the world just sounds rather silly to me. More than anything, it just sounds like the taxpayers are subsidizing the record earnings of corporations along with the incomes of their upper echelon employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagemomma
On the flip side, I don't understand the argument that you can't support a family on minimum wage and therefore it should be raised. Simple solution: don't have children, or stick with just one.
I don't know how you can support yourself on minimum wage. Obviously, supporting one child on such an income would be out of the question.
What is utterly mind-boggling is how stupid these strikers/campaigners for $15 hr McDonalds-Taco bell-Burger King-KFC-Dominos-Wendys jobs are.
They have no clue that individual franchisees own stores.
They have no clue that they themselves (strikers) have no marketable skills and really no skill-set.
If they did they would find it a little easier to break in to management with their fast food store or find a $10 per hour job elsewhere that they could possibly move up to a position of more responsibility and importantance and even higher hourly wages after a year or more if they proved that they were great employees.
While it is true that there are plenty of downsized/layed off quality skilled educated workers that are working today in fast food jobs, it does not mean that the layed off business analyst or the layed off accountant that was let go because he/she had failed the CPA exam four times, and at 31, that theCPA firm that employed them felt that they were not progressing. Much like a pro football team waives players because the team is better off with other players for whatever reason.........this is business world reality too!
Simply because the layed off accountant who was previously earning $42,500 does not mean that flipping burgers should pay him more than $8.50 per hour. It is an extremely simple job which any 16 yr old that desires to work and do a good job, will be able to master in a day or two at the most.
These idiot dummies that are raising hell about $7.25 is not enough to feed my dog, and we need at least $15 per hour, should have given serious thought about that when they were in 7th or 8th grade and still had the ability to get things right and study/take college prep courses in high school.
Anyone that is a standout, Straight A student and takes the proper college prep/accellerated courses in high school CAN GO TO UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE for NEXT TO NOTHING (almost zero cost--e.g. Fully Paid For) IF THEY SIMPLY DO WHAT IT TAKES AND BUST THEIR BUTT AND STUDY AND MAKE THOSE Straight A's in 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade. SheeeAt, there are so many scholarships/grants for students that make those straight A's and are standouts in academic performance.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN 7yr olds in 2nd Grade. EVERYONE OF THEM IS CAPABLE OF DOING THIS.
It does require that their parents give a SheeeAt and make certain that little Jimmy & Sally actually at least maintain an excellent academic performance for each year grade level so that they can build on that foundation with each successive grade promotion. If little Jimmy & Sally aren't where they need to be by age 13 or 14 (grade 8 or 9 at the latest), IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAY CATCH UP. Jimmy & Sally are becoming teens and wish to develop independence from parents as the need to be cool.......Well if Jimmy & Sally are already looking at possible entrepreneurships in crystal meth production or selling dope or management/and or human resources in prostitution/brothel business.....by age 14.......they are really really screwed.
We all have choices.
These folks with tatoos and greasy long stringy hair and skateboard/x-games athlete type of homeless person appearance wonder why THE MAN IS DOWN ON THEM AND WHY THEY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING ABOVE $7.25 per hour.
Don't get me started on the young folks with gold teeth displayed and saggy pants that cannot speak English , even though they are US born citizens. For shizzle and whasss up dog and dat be da bomb and hO MEE how you be do...........
Everybody wants but no one wants to accept responsibility and take charge of their own destiny.
You have suburban kid from wealthy families that don't want to work at a job that they aren't in to, whatever that means. The dumbass wealthy parents that let these sloppy dressing/poor mannered kids become welfare-mindset people by allowing these freeloaders to do nothing. I don't know about you but in my home, if you were my kid, go find some job at Taco bell or McDonalds or wherever, because you need to show future employers than you can be counted on to show up everyday and be responsible and do a great job.
Hey, you say well, I can't find a job................I'd say go talk to Sam, your uncle Sam, as the ARMY/NAVY/AIR FORCE/MARINES/COAST GUARD/NATIONAL GUARD etc are ALWAYS LOOKING FOR GOOD PEOPLE.
Oh, they won't let you be an individual and dress like you want to. TOUGH! You have to be able to be self sufficient and make your own way. Part of life is accepting that we all have choices and consequences.
You've got to pay the cost to be the boss!
An unskilled dumbass demanding $15 an hour is crazy!
In the right to work states here in the Southeast, I'd have little hesitation to let go anyone with a toxic attitude of feeling entitled to $15 but without proving their worth as management potential or at least show they are capable of being promoted for outstanding team work.
Too many other 16yr olds would jump at a chance for their first job making $7.25.
Who needs a staff of employees that don't want to work and only want to gripe about $15 per hour when they have no skills.
I have no sympathy for the nuts that think they should be paid $15 per hour to work in fast food places.
They need to do whatever is necessary to better themselves... get a job elsewhere..............join the Military, go to trade school/community college................. ..........................The Military offers quality training and there are incentives/programs that will help pay college tuition costs.
The Military offers a quality of life that is much much better than being an adult flipping burgers at a fast food chain without having advanced into mgt with that fast food chain. If you are in fast food and you aren't a manager, you DON'T HAVE A CAREER POSITION, YOU HAVE A MINIMUM WAGE JOB AND NOTHING MORE.
Why On Earth Should Someone Be Paid Any More Than $8 per hour to a burger flipper when any 16 or 17 yr old kid can do it equally well on his first day on the job, even with this being his/her first job ever?
Many of these morons are going to see the 29 hour work schedule, as businesses are likely to have unskilled/low skilled hourly wage employees limited to no more than 29 hours per week.
It is simply easier to use more unskilled hourly people on the payroll but NEVER Let anyone exceed 29 hours per week ever. Because anyone can easily do such a basic job with almost no expense or training, employees are interchangeable and dispenseable.
Wait until these "give me $15" marching morons realize that the 29 hour schedule will mean that they will now have to change from their McDonalds uniform to their Taco Bell uniform to their KFC uniform, as surely it will mean multiple part time jobs.
What is utterly mind-boggling is how stupid these strikers/campaigners for $15 hr McDonalds-Taco bell-Burger King-KFC-Dominos-Wendys jobs are.
They have no clue that individual franchisees own stores.
They have no clue that they themselves (strikers) have no marketable skills and really no skill-set.
If they did they would find it a little easier to break in to management with their fast food store or find a $10 per hour job elsewhere that they could possibly move up to a position of more responsibility and importantance and even higher hourly wages after a year or more if they proved that they were great employees.
...
Take a good look at the unemployment numbers. With numbers like that there is strong downwards pressure on wages. Fighting to up the minimum wage fights the pressure for lower wages.
The Fed has been printing a lot of money. Enough to cause higher prices for goods we buy. But not enough to get unemployment down. Higher wages to go with higher prices. The minimum wage sets the floor on how far you can fall.
Take a good look at the unemployment numbers. With numbers like that there is strong downwards pressure on wages. Fighting to up the minimum wage fights the pressure for lower wages.
Anytime I see someone throwing those U6 numbers around, I tend to believe they are trying to use heavy handed stats to prove their point. All measures tend to move in synchrony. You could cite the U3 numbers and make the same basic point. Just saying... Most people go buy the U3 numbers to keep things simple.
Having said that, the commonly cited measures (U3) aren't exactly great, but they are moving in the right direction. Many babyboomers have hit retirement, whether they were planning for it, or they were forced into it. Perhaps some would like to work, but aren't willing to work at these wages. Some may decide to return to the workforce later in attempt to add a bit more cushion for the future... When they simply won't have the option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row
The Fed has been printing a lot of money. Enough to cause higher prices for goods we buy. But not enough to get unemployment down. Higher wages to go with higher prices. The minimum wage sets the floor on how far you can fall.
It's debatable what impact all this money printing has had on the price of goods and services. There is an awful lot of demand for USD. It accounts for about 60% of the world's money supply. There are also a great deal of pockets that are stuffed with it. With this in mind, what effect does money printing have on the circulating money supply? How much inflation is caused by idle dollars?
According to our government, inflation has been very low. I know, I know... They don't factor in the things we like to buy like gasoline for example. It's important to realize that many of these things are also influenced by supply and demand. None the less, wages have been flat or barely moving. I have to ask if this has been holding inflation down a bit.
With regards to the money supply, wasn't a great deal of the money supply destroyed due to bad debt? I mean, our money supply is basically made up of debt. Wasn't the point of the money injection to make up for this?
Back to your point, what impact does money printing have on unemployment? I know this was one of the goals according to Bernanke and Co, but the logistics of such a strategy doesn't quite make sense to me. Seems all the new dollars are simply winding up in the hands of those who already have the largest concentrations of wealth. Maybe Bernanke is playing for the other team here?
Correct. The Federal MW rate is $7.25. Feel better?
Quote:
Why are you even participating in this thread...
...if you think such pedantry adds anything to the conversation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Who could live off less than $7/hr?
No one. Especially not anyone who lives on their own.
No one could live off the $10/hr being argued for either.
Did someone tell that the MW employee should expect to be able to live off that?
Still, beyond the hourly rate aspect the number of hours worked and lack of opportunity
for advancement in those low end jobs aspect looms even larger. But now, as in decades past,
those MW employees actually capable of advancement or worth more will manage that on their own.
Which brings us back to the real issue:
the low income of the low and no skilled is a social work problem not an employer problem.
Last edited by MrRational; 09-08-2013 at 07:29 AM..
Companies aren't in the business of creating jobs.
Bingo!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatsby1925
We need companies to create more good, professional-level entry-level jobs for those with an education or equitable work experience.
That sound like a dog-whistle for some sort of another Govt intervention to write another 3000 page law, and mandate how we wipe our behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
It doesn't destroy America (just makes it nastier), so why boosting wages $1.75/hr of 1,000,000 people should spell disaster?
Let me make it even more funny for you -- income and wealth inequality has increased since the 60s. Govt intervention in business and our lives has increased. Do you think those are not related? Do you think Govt is some benevolent force in this equation, looking out for the little guy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
As long as people accepted this slavish "idea" owning classes have nothing to fear. Ultimately, fear of resistance is the only thing that keeps people on top from exercising full power over less deserving people at the bottom. American working class is neutered, incapacitated and dumbed down. In a complex society it's never about since resources and power are distributed so unevenly. It's constant struggle. If working classes quit fighting to pursue individual rat race they are eventually "rewarded" with more work for less. It's the law of the Jungle in action.
I thought I was hallucinating and reading Marx again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
No wonder government subsidizes reproduction and legal and illegal immigration. Roughly 30% of American families can't afford a single child.
This is a vicious cycle, circling the toilet drain -- Govt subsidizing people, and people feeding more power to the govt to subsidize them. And I would add corporations here too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
More than anything, it just sounds like the taxpayers are subsidizing the record earnings of corporations along with the incomes of their upper echelon employees.
Very true, it is the Govt subsidizing, and we taxpayers are dumb by-standers letting this happen, because we're also getting some crumbs from this gravy train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
Seems all the new dollars are simply winding up in the hands of those who already have the largest concentrations of wealth. Maybe Bernanke is playing for the other team here?
Govt is doing wealth re-distribution alright. Taking it from the middle class and feeding the top. Govt was never a neutral entity. It is an instrument to do exactly that -- move wealth from the middle class to the rich. Bigger the Govt gets, faster and larger the re-distribution occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
the low income of the low and no skilled is a social work problem not an employer problem.
Social Problem -- I am sure you left out that more Govt (more laws, more regulation, more bureaucrats) is the fix.
Until we return to much smaller, lawful, Constitution Goverment things will get worse. If we don't return in our volition, laws of nature, like Math for example, will do it for us, in a very ugly way.
Anytime I see someone throwing those U6 numbers around, I tend to believe they are trying to use heavy handed stats to prove their point. All measures tend to move in synchrony. You could cite the U3 numbers and make the same basic point. Just saying... Most people go buy the U3 numbers to keep things simple.
Looking at the link I posted. We have 4% higher unemployment now as apposed to 2001~2003 when we were having a national recession. That it is down 3% points from its peek doesn't Chang the fact that we still have that far to go arain to get back to the economic good times of 2001~2003. Not to mention that we need a 2X reduction (6% drop in the unemployment rate) to get back to the peek of the dot com bubble unemployment rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
Having said that, the commonly cited measures (U3) aren't exactly great, but they are moving in the right direction. Many babyboomers have hit retirement, whether they were planning for it, or they were forced into it. Perhaps some would like to work, but aren't willing to work at these wages. Some may decide to return to the workforce later in attempt to add a bit more cushion for the future... When they simply won't have the option.
It's debatable what impact all this money printing has had on the price of goods and services. There is an awful lot of demand for USD. It accounts for about 60% of the world's money supply. There are also a great deal of pockets that are stuffed with it. With this in mind, what effect does money printing have on the circulating money supply? How much inflation is caused by idle dollars?
According to our government, inflation has been very low. I know, I know... They don't factor in the things we like to buy like gasoline for example. It's important to realize that many of these things are also influenced by supply and demand. None the less, wages have been flat or barely moving. I have to ask if this has been holding inflation down a bit.
Food is up. As you mentioned Gas is as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
With regards to the money supply, wasn't a great deal of the money supply destroyed due to bad debt? I mean, our money supply is basically made up of debt. Wasn't the point of the money injection to make up for this?
The Fed's buying of BMC was reprinting that destroyed money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
Back to your point, what impact does money printing have on unemployment? I know this was one of the goals according to Bernanke and Co, but the logistics of such a strategy doesn't quite make sense to me. Seems all the new dollars are simply winding up in the hands of those who already have the largest concentrations of wealth. Maybe Bernanke is playing for the other team here?
The people that get the money first benefit most from inflation. The banks get the money first. The Fed is owned by the banks. Lets us see if we raise the minimum wage the employers could get a loan at very low interest rates and cover the higher wages with it until cash flow catches up. So banks from the Fed first. Employers second. Workers third.
With the housing bubble it went a bit like this. Banks first home owners second, business third, workers forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
...
Which brings us back to the real issue:
the low income of the low and no skilled is a social work problem not an employer problem.
But the minimum wage is a lever that can be used to move the economy.
But the minimum wage is a lever that can be used to move the economy.
It's just the low hanging fruit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
