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.
They should especially since their anti-labor rhetoric is counter productive. The richest, most industrialized states in the nation are heavily unionized, high-wages, liberal states like New Jersey, Connecticut or New York.
Pushing low-wage economic models leads to poverty, like in case of Texas, where whopping 38.5% of residents did not have ANY tax liability vs. 29.2% in New Jersey. Conservative ideas simply don't work.
They should especially since their anti-labor rhetoric is counter productive. The richest, most industrialized states in the nation are heavily unionized, high-wages, liberal states like New Jersey, Connecticut or New York.
Pushing low-wage economic models leads to poverty, like in case of Texas, where whopping 38.5% of residents did not have ANY tax liability vs. 29.2% in New Jersey. Conservative ideas simply don't work.
You're not even taking demographics into play here.
Texas has nearly 2 million illegals living and working here.
And the illegals aren't well educated or skilled for that matter.
Go ahead and tell me that doesn't play any part in those tax figures for Texas....
Then start to drill down in Texas and you'll see the border counties are some of the poorest in the nation.
The CBO estimates that 500,000 workers will lose their jobs if the minimum wage jumps to $15. Some workers will be better off, while others will find themselves permanently unemployed. While a business might be able to justify keeping low productivity employees on staff at $7.25, they won't be able to swing that if the minimum wage doubles.
So what do we do with these hundreds of thousands of people who are now unemployed, and have to compete against more productive people applying for a smaller number of minimum wage jobs? They'll be trapped in poverty and government assistance forever, since they can no longer find a job. What about people trying to get some work experience? They're at a serious disadvantage. It seems like the minimum wage hike would help out some, while permanently trapping others in poverty.
??? If teenagers lose minimum wage jobs, how will they be trapped in poverty and government assistance? Are they gonna sign up for welfare?
??? If teenagers lose minimum wage jobs, how will they be trapped in poverty and government assistance? Are they gonna sign up for welfare?
More older people are turning to minimum wage jobs due to skills gap. Also, some college graduates use them to tide them over until they get hired in their field.
How many people do you want on welfare? 50%? What number is good for you?
$10 an hour isn't exactly liveable either, especially if you are single. What kind of housing can you afford at $10/hr? Car? Utilities? Food? Insurance? What if an unexpected expense comes up?
$10 an hour isn't exactly liveable either, especially if you are single. What kind of housing can you afford at $10/hr? Car? Utilities? Food? Insurance? What if an unexpected expense comes up?
I see you are "bored at work"......with this attitude you are lucky there IS a minimum wage.
To answer your question......you are not supposed to live on minimum wage.....you should move up.
Sadly, minimum wage laws themselves makes it harder to move up.
Look, what you need to try to understand is, what exactly is a livable wage? Or maybe, what exactly is poverty? Why does the minimum wage keep needing to go up? What causes inflation? What happens when the minimum wage goes up? What percentage of workers are even making minimum wage now? And why does it seem so expensive to live anyway?
There is a difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is where you can't afford very basic necessities(IE food, shelter, clothing). Relative poverty is the definition we use in developed countries. It is an arbitrary value that doesn't relate to basic necessities. Rather, relative poverty is about your relative access to goods and services in relation to your peers. When we look at poverty rates in developed countries, it isn't a measure of actual poverty, it is a measure of inequality.
Now, if you want to adjust for livable wages, you need to make a list of living expenses. I discuss these things quite often. I usually use five categories, then look at specifics.
The primary expenses are housing, food, transportation(car/insurance/tag/maintenance or mass transit), utilities(electric/gas, water, phone, internet), and misc(toiletries, clothes, appliances, cleaning supplies, etc). All remaining money just goes to entertainment.
The problem with the minimum wage, is the difference between people who live at home and those who live on their own.
Look at it like this. From 2006 to 2009, I made about $700 a month. That was more than than sufficient for my needs at the time. I lived at home with my mother, I paid $300 a month in "rent". Which included all utilities, most toiletries, a cell phone(my mothers plan), and most of my food. I did not have a car, I didn't need a car. So I had about $350 a month remaining to basically just spend on whatever I wanted.
On the other hand, you might have someone who makes $2,000 a month. But who has to pay $700 a month in rent, $50 a month in rental insurance, throw in another $100 in electric, $50 a month internet, $50 a month for cell phone. Maybe they pay $200 a month on a car payment, $70 a month on car insurance, then maintenance and tag($30 a month), and gas $100. Another $200 in food, and then $50 in toiletries and cleaning supplies and other basic misc expenses. That is $700 + 50 + 100 + 50 + 50 + 200 + 70 + 30 + 100 + 250 = $1600. They end up with roughly the same money "left-over" as what I did with nearly 1/3rd their income.
Keep in mind, at $15 an hour, your bring-home should be around $2,100 a month. And the current minimum wage would mean a take-home of about $1,000 a month. Someone making the current minimum wage and either living at home, or living with friends/roommates could have significantly more real disposable income than someone who makes $15 an hour and lives alone.
Furthermore, when I was 18-years old. All of the people my age who were working, just blew every dime they made. Mostly on drugs, alcohol, eating out, going to the bar/club, or on their car(IE an audio system for their car). Even if you could somehow provide them with more money, it is highly unlikely they wouldn't just waste it. The only people who would really benefit, might be landlords. Who might see a surge in demand for rental property, thus enabling them to jack up their rental income.
With that said. It doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for some people who make minimum wage. Such as older people with families who don't have the skills to demand a higher pay(for whatever reason). The question then is, would jacking up the minimum wage actually help them? Well, it could, but it is unlikely that it will in the way you would want it to for two reasons.
First, raising business costs means business will charge more for their services. If you argue that they should pin the minimum wage to cost-of-living. We need to recognize that cost-of-living varies greatly around the country. It is three times more expensive to live in San Francisco than it is in rural Oklahoma. And cost-of-living is hard to quantify. For instance, they refuse to tie the cost of energy in with cost-of-living(because energy costs vary so much). Which means cost-of-living calculations are wildly inaccurate anyway.
So what should be done? I would say if anything actually needed to be done. We should go in one of two directions. Either A) We should find ways to reduce cost-of-living(especially housing and transportation) or B) We should look for ways to provide the truly needy with targeted charity.
I don't think raising the minimum wage would accomplish what you want it to accomplish. And without constant adjustments, I think it is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive.
When landlords raise the rent - which they often do in the absence of inflation (because they can), minimum wage workers don't care what causes inflation.
I don't see health or disability insurance in your list of primary expenses - surely it isn't entertainment!
I've been saying for years that what minimum wage workers need most is a reduction in the cost of housing, but nobody likes my specifics.
More older people are turning to minimum wage jobs due to skills gap. Also, some college graduates use them to tide them over until they get hired in their field.
How many people do you want on welfare? 50%? What number is good for you?
My premise here is that the minimum wage workers who lose their jobs will generally be teenagers, who generally are not breadwinners and generaly do not have children and who, therefore, will not be signing up for welfare.
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.
