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.
Rents are all over the map. In the Boston area, you are going to pay $500-800 for a bedroom. In Phoenix, you can get a 3br 2ba house for $900 or $1000. The thing is, wages are lower in Phoenix. If the Feds manage to ram through a higher minimum wage, it won't much matter in Boston, where wages are already higher, but it will hurt Phoenix businesses disproportionately, and jobs there will take a hit.
I think the federal government should just stay out of such matters and let the private markets work as they're supposed to. If the minimum wage were eliminated tomorrow, no one would starve. In fact, more people would find work more readily.
I think the federal government should just stay out of such matters and let the private markets work as they're supposed to. If the minimum wage were eliminated tomorrow, no one would starve. In fact, more people would find work more readily.
Nope, this is simply wrong.
The private sector has proven throughout history to not be trusted to pay a decent wage. If unions were popular, we could get away with dropping the minimum wage. Union membership has fallen off the map. Due to over supply of labor, eliminating the minimum wage will suppress wages to third world status.
Unions are the reason Germany had no minimum wage until just recently.
Rents are all over the map. In the Boston area, you are going to pay $500-800 for a bedroom. In Phoenix, you can get a 3br 2ba house for $900 or $1000. The thing is, wages are lower in Phoenix. If the Feds manage to ram through a higher minimum wage, it won't much matter in Boston, where wages are already higher, but it will hurt Phoenix businesses disproportionately, and jobs there will take a hit.
I think the federal government should just stay out of such matters and let the private markets work as they're supposed to. If the minimum wage were eliminated tomorrow, no one would starve. In fact, more people would find work more readily.
That's some hillarious stuff right there...
Boston, MA
Newton, MA (outside of Boston)
Here's some craigslist postings
There's a couple in your price range... I count a total of 3 (none of which are even close to $500)
This doesn't even scratch the surface on the additional taxes, higher electric rates, higher gas rates etc.
What evidence do you have that they would offer $3/day?
What evidence do you have that anyone would take $3/day?
What evidence do you have that abolishing the minimum wage would even affect wages?
History. Where is collective bargaining these days? We tried this experiment 100 years ago and capitalism failed. Capitalism is oppressive without government regulation.
Correct. They are mandated to pay at least the minimum wage by law. If a scrub makes minimum wage, his superior has to make more. Market correction at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
The starting pay for fast food in the Boston area is $8-$10; they know they can't get people to work for the bare minimum wage.
Of course, the progressives will then shift the argument and say, "but they don't make a living wage!" OK, then let's define living wage: enough to live on, right? Suppose you're getting $9/hour ($18K/year). Certainly, it's not a lot of moulah, but you might supplement it with a part time job and bump your total income up to $25K/year. Lots of people do that.
One should not need to work more than 40 hours per week to escape poverty. That was the context behind the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
It's doable. Immigrants come here every day and prove it. The trouble is, political entities and activists are dangling free money in front of people and they're taking the bait, just like stupid fish. Nothing's free in this world. Legislating higher pay for one group merely robs another group of its money. Borrowing money to pay for it all merely steals from our kids and grand kids who will be laboring their entire lives just to cover the interest.
Correct, minus the "stealing" nonsense. Income inequality is an economic drag. Policy looks to reduce the negative effects of that. Inequality is natural, but policy should not exacerbate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
We should stop the madness, and return to a balanced budget and a fair job market where you are paid what you're worth. There really is no other choice.
Balanced budget has nothing to do with this conversation. The Federal government has no reason to ever run a balanced budget.
The private sector has proven throughout history to not be trusted to pay a decent wage. If unions were popular, we could get away with dropping the minimum wage. Union membership has fallen off the map. Due to over supply of labor, eliminating the minimum wage will suppress wages to third world status.
Unions are the reason Germany had no minimum wage until just recently.
The private sector has proven throughout history to create tremendous wealth, prosperity, and a higher standard of living for all. Even the poorest in the United States today are "rich" by global standards--they have cars, flat screen TV, medical care, and all the food they can eat--indeed, obesity is a problem among the poor.
If unions were popular, we'd be just like Britain or France--a mediocre economy with limited opportunities and very high costs for goods and services. Germany is only as prosperous as it is because the Germans are so damn smart and hard working. Also, keep in mind that their unions are different from ours; they call them "work councils" and they prefer to cooperate with management rather than fight.
The solution to the conundrum of low wages and high cost of living is frugality. It's always been the solution. Someone claims $65/month is needed for phone service. I counter with $10 for a budget service, and they merely dismiss the notion. But $55/month is a lot of money. If you can put away $500/year in extra savings, that's a heck of a lot better than zero. Does everyone need a $500 smartphone and $65/month broadband phone service? Of course not. Everyone wants it, all their friends have it, and they'd feel left out without it. But that doesn't translate to a necessity of life.
It's taken me many years to learn how to live frugally. My grandparents lived through the Depression which makes today's economic troubles look like a joke. 25% of people were out of work, and no welfare or unemployment insurance or social security. You literally worked or starved, thus forcing hundreds of thousands of people to live on next to nothing and be willing to uproot their lives and move to where they could make $1/day picking fruit.
Sometimes I think if we eliminated all these safety net programs like unemployment insurance, we'd have full employment, because no one would dare quit their jobs. It's a tradeoff, like anything else, but we've lost some of that edge because of it.
The solution to the conundrum of low wages and high cost of living is frugality. It's always been the solution. Someone claims $65/month is needed for phone service. I counter with $10 for a budget service, and they merely dismiss the notion.
Dismiss it? I never responded to you... but here's my response
I'd love for you to point me in the direction of these $10/month cell plans because I've never seen anything lower than $35/month.
I don't think it's really worth the conversation to argue this point much though because we aren't talking about a lot of money in reality. You might be able to find a budget phone and save yourself $30... maybe
The private sector has proven throughout history to create tremendous wealth, prosperity, and a higher standard of living for all. Even the poorest in the United States today are "rich" by global standards--they have cars, flat screen TV, medical care, and all the food they can eat--indeed, obesity is a problem among the poor.
Rich by global standards is irrelevant. That is a product of our free trade agreements manipulating foreign labor.
Capitalism creates winners and losers. For every man that gets rich, there are 10 that get poor. Capitalism already failed. The United States is a mixed economic system, not a capitalist economic system.
The private sector's wealth creation is always with the assistance of public infrastructure. The private sector cannot exist currently without public infrastructure and regulation of the markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
If unions were popular, we'd be just like Britain or France--a mediocre economy with limited opportunities and very high costs for goods and services. Germany is only as prosperous as it is because the Germans are so damn smart and hard working. Also, keep in mind that their unions are different from ours; they call them "work councils" and they prefer to cooperate with management rather than fight.
German Unions were rejected by the American South. Germany's ability to exist without a minimum wage was attributed 100% to unionization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
The solution to the conundrum of low wages and high cost of living is frugality. It's always been the solution. Someone claims $65/month is needed for phone service. I counter with $10 for a budget service, and they merely dismiss the notion. But $55/month is a lot of money. If you can put away $500/year in extra savings, that's a heck of a lot better than zero. Does everyone need a $500 smartphone and $65/month broadband phone service? Of course not. Everyone wants it, all their friends have it, and they'd feel left out without it. But that doesn't translate to a necessity of life.
That is not a public policy perscription. It is a strawman argument. The solution to low wages is higher wages. Low wage folks should not need Federal assistance to eat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
It's taken me many years to learn how to live frugally. My grandparents lived through the Depression which makes today's economic troubles look like a joke. 25% of people were out of work, and no welfare or unemployment insurance or social security. You literally worked or starved, thus forcing hundreds of thousands of people to live on next to nothing and be willing to uproot their lives and move to where they could make $1/day picking fruit.
That is a nice story, but it is an anecdote. Anecdotes are not valid sources for policy debate. Starvation is unacceptable in a 21st century social democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
Sometimes I think if we eliminated all these safety net programs like unemployment insurance, we'd have full employment, because no one would dare quit their jobs. It's a tradeoff, like anything else, but we've lost some of that edge because of it.
We would create a nation of poor slaves with corporate overlords. Everyone would be desperate to work just to achieve basic needs such as food. There would be no discretionary spending in this model. Safety nets are economic stabilizers that buffer recessions. Without unemployment insurance, folks losing their job take demand out of the economy, which leads to a continuous downward spiral. Without economic stabilizers, deflation is a real problem.
Or "hillarious" might refer to Hillary, as in Clinton?
It's deceptive to use a slick paid listing site with gorgeous pictures of fully applianced luxury condos and call that the norm. Of course you can pay $5,000 a month around here if you want that kind of a place. I know families paying that much to live in top school districts like Lexington, just for their kids.
Granted, the property values in eastern Mass. are exorbitant and I wouldn't recommend anyone on a low income to locate here. On the other hand, as previously stated, starting pay around Boston is a lot higher than minimum wage; $8-10/hour is the norm.
I rent in the Boston area and I own a rental house in Phoenix, so I'm pretty familiar with the rental markets in both cities. These broker ads tend to feature more expensive offerings, and then there's the broker's fee. There are still owner-offered rooms and flats which are cheaper; some on Craigslist and some on flyers at the local market or coin-op, or word-of-mouth among college students, of whom there are some 250,000 around Boston.
But overall, it's not a very affordable area. Should Massachusetts, therefore, follow Seattle's lead and bump up the minimum wage to make it affordable? I think that might have the opposite effect, and make it even less affordable, as entry jobs dry up and unemployment rises, then taxes rise to cover unemployment, and costs of doing basic work like cleaning and food services shoot through the roof. And forget about encouraging any new factories. Mass. has lost most of its manufacturing; New Balance stuck it out for the longest time, but in the end even they've had to move factories to China just to stay in business. I don't think making wages artificially high will encourage any factories to move back here. Maybe they'll move to Arizona, though.
That is a nice story, but it is an anecdote. Anecdotes are not valid sources for policy debate. Starvation is unacceptable in a 21st century social democracy.[/b]
No, an anecdote is an account of an individual's experience. The Depression is not an anecdote but a matter of historical fact. I suggest you read up on both:
All of us are informed by our personal experiences, which are by definition anecdotal. To get to the next level, and know something beyond your own little world, you have to do some reading, preferably non-partisan and non-ideological writings that report the facts as known and accepted by millions of people.
Or "hillarious" might refer to Hillary, as in Clinton?
Two dedicated sentences to obviously a typo. Congratulations! With this type of intellectual exchange we'll certainly progress in this conversation civilly!
I didn't just look for places that were most expensive, I went onto a well known site and searched lowest to highest. Then I showed more listings in other areas organized lowest to highest. There's nothing dishonest about what I posted.
Within the same response you even say that you don't recommend those who are poor to relocate to Boston because obviously it's too expensive. My point is good fricken luck finding a place within your budget in Boston or anywhere near it if you are living with $9/hr.
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.
