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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneR
It is common for proponents of minimum wage increases (primarily labor unions and their political allies) to imagine a large swath of workers struggling to make ends meet laboring in their oppressive places of employment. Perhaps a more accurate measure can be found in this item.
Please, with rental prices where they are now, if you make less than about $22k/yr in the valley, you are struggling don't kid yourself. I make $52k/yr and not exactly living the high life, all bills are paid, but living in a 1bd1bth apt and there's almost nothing left at the end of the month, then again, I'm basically supporting myself and my fiance while she goes to school and works part time, if it were just me, or she worked full time as well, might be doing better, who knows
I found it interesting that most of the respondees were either young or democrat. I worked a minimum wage job in KY while attending school. I survived off $7.50 an hour and loans. It can be done. I feel like if you increase the minimum wage you have to increase everyone's wage. I'm sure a nurse and a teacher deserve a raise as well.
Location: Escaped SoCal for Freedom in AZ!!!! LOVE IT!
394 posts, read 343,004 times
Reputation: 502
It's probably been mentioned already - so pardon the dupe if it has...
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's entry level work for kids getting started and/or while going to school... Or supplemental income for an individual or family.
If someone expects to raise a family on minimum wage, they didn't plan their life well - and that's not the responsibility of anyone else...
Something many people fail to understand is - when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of everything... Employers aren't going to lose revenue - so their prices go up... Ultimately the minimum wage earner ends up where they started - because it's not designed to be a living wage.
The government is about the only entity that benefits - since it gets more income tax... Otherwise it's a vicious cycle that benefits no one. Use a minimum wage job as designed, a stepping stone to a living wage.
Last edited by AZ_Rookie; 09-22-2016 at 11:18 PM..
It's probably been mentioned already - so pardon the dupe if it has...
Minimum wage is not meant to be a living wage. It's entry level work for kids getting started and/or while going to school... Or supplemental income for an individual or family.
If someone expects to raise a family on minimum wage, they didn't plan their life well - and that's not the responsibility of anyone else...
Something many people fail to understand is - when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of everything... Employers aren't going to lose revenue - so their prices go up... Ultimately the minimum wage earner ends up where they started - because it's not designed to be a living wage.
The government is about the only entity that benefits - since it gets more income tax... Otherwise it's a vicious cycle that benefits no one. Use a minimum wage job as designed, a stepping stone to a living wage.
You pretty much stated the reasons why I'm opposed to increasing the minimum wage ... and why I'm not really in favor of a minimum wage in general. When I think of a minimum wage job, the first thing that usually comes to mind is fast food. Go to any McDonalds, and who do you predominantly see working there? High school and college age kids. The few older people who work there are usually "managers", which aren't exactly that much better as far as salaries.
Proponents of raising the minimum wage constantly state that it will reduce welfare dependence, which never happens because the cost of living increases along with wage increases. At that point, the people earning minimum wage are back to square one: finding that their "increase" is going toward higher prices, and they have very little or nothing left for them. In addition, the middle class jobs which require more education and skill won't see a raise in wages ... so while the burger flippers are getting increases and while the cost of living increases, the middle class will find it more difficult to make ends meet.
You pretty much stated the reasons why I'm opposed to increasing the minimum wage ... and why I'm not really in favor of a minimum wage in general. When I think of a minimum wage job, the first thing that usually comes to mind is fast food. Go to any McDonalds, and who do you predominantly see working there? High school and college age kids. The few older people who work there are usually "managers", which aren't exactly that much better as far as salaries.
Proponents of raising the minimum wage constantly state that it will reduce welfare dependence, which never happens because the cost of living increases along with wage increases. At that point, the people earning minimum wage are back to square one: finding that their "increase" is going toward higher prices, and they have very little or nothing left for them. In addition, the middle class jobs which require more education and skill won't see a raise in wages ... so while the burger flippers are getting increases and while the cost of living increases, the middle class will find it more difficult to make ends meet.
The only problem with your reasoning is that, there's an equal amount of jobs available jobs that pays better than there are the workforce age-wise who needs those kinds of jobs. If you look at the distribution and even just thinking about it, you'll see the jobs are very skewed towards the minimum wage jobs (or at least skewed towards the lower end of the spectrum). For every one 1 accountant, I can point you to multiple lower-wage jobs. So then it begs the question, if not everyone can get a job like that, then what do they do when they're in their 30s and 40s and have a family to support? Not everyone has the willpower, aptitude, family situation, finances, to get through college and come out with a degree that has a high ROI...
The minimum wage situation is a tough problem cause you need to create decent jobs that don't require a college education and pays well enough to get the older folks out of the lower end positions to let the younger folks take those jobs. That's the problem.
Please, with rental prices where they are now, if you make less than about $22k/yr in the valley, you are struggling don't kid yourself. I make $52k/yr and not exactly living the high life, all bills are paid, but living in a 1bd1bth apt and there's almost nothing left at the end of the month, then again, I'm basically supporting myself and my fiance while she goes to school and works part time, if it were just me, or she worked full time as well, might be doing better, who knows
I'm sure you'd find it much different supporting one person instead of two, so I'm sure that's a big part of it. Congrats on your engagement, when's the wedding?
===
Regarding basic income: the fear I have with that is furthering the same, pre-existing "underclass" of people who don't want to work, or "can't" work for whatever reason, be it lack of jobs or lack of education or what have you. Isn't that the same problem we already have? I fear the risk of enticing more and more people into not working and not trying to better themselves.
The reality is that work gives people meaning and self-esteem and purpose, and if you just pay people to sit around, rather than working, you are fomenting dissatisfaction. In terms of ultra-liberal programs, would it not be better pay people to do jobs that may not be critically necessary, but that ultimately benefit society, rather than just hand them cash for no reason. E.g., the WPA projects of the Great Depression and things like that.
Why pay people to do nothing when this country has so many needs in areas like infrastructure and so forth? I just don't get it. If you're in favor of expanding government control, raising taxes, and so forth...why not get some things done at the same time?
Additionally, I feel it would raise prices because if all the people working undesirable minimum-wage jobs suddenly did not have to work at all ... how much would all those employers have to pay to get people to work for them? This could just feed the consumer-price inflation cycle.
==
Regarding minimum wage ... I agree that raising the minimum wage does little to help the vast majority of people who make more than minimum wage. It just squeezes the wage scale and in theory might make it harder for employers to reward their best employees because they are stuck overpaying their worst employees. Logically it makes no sense to push up the minimum all the time but make no other wage demands whatsoever of employers. How is that logical, in a vacuum? In any holistic system, you would raise everyone's wages, or at the least raise wages for everyone in the lower income brackets. Solely raising the minimum does little to address America's number one wage-related crisis, which any politician would tell you is the so-called "disappearing middle class" and ultimately just means more and more people working 20-30 hours a week on wildly varying schedules and split-shifts as employers try to maximize productivity since labor costs keep going up.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark
I'm sure you'd find it much different supporting one person instead of two, so I'm sure that's a big part of it. Congrats on your engagement, when's the wedding?
===
Regarding basic income: the fear I have with that is furthering the same, pre-existing "underclass" of people who don't want to work, or "can't" work for whatever reason, be it lack of jobs or lack of education or what have you. Isn't that the same problem we already have? I fear the risk of enticing more and more people into not working and not trying to better themselves.
The reality is that work gives people meaning and self-esteem and purpose, and if you just pay people to sit around, rather than working, you are fomenting dissatisfaction. In terms of ultra-liberal programs, would it not be better pay people to do jobs that may not be critically necessary, but that ultimately benefit society, rather than just hand them cash for no reason. E.g., the WPA projects of the Great Depression and things like that.
Why pay people to do nothing when this country has so many needs in areas like infrastructure and so forth? I just don't get it. If you're in favor of expanding government control, raising taxes, and so forth...why not get some things done at the same time?
Additionally, I feel it would raise prices because if all the people working undesirable minimum-wage jobs suddenly did not have to work at all ... how much would all those employers have to pay to get people to work for them? This could just feed the consumer-price inflation cycle.
==
Regarding minimum wage ... I agree that raising the minimum wage does little to help the vast majority of people who make more than minimum wage. It just squeezes the wage scale and in theory might make it harder for employers to reward their best employees because they are stuck overpaying their worst employees. Logically it makes no sense to push up the minimum all the time but make no other wage demands whatsoever of employers. How is that logical, in a vacuum? In any holistic system, you would raise everyone's wages, or at the least raise wages for everyone in the lower income brackets. Solely raising the minimum does little to address America's number one wage-related crisis, which any politician would tell you is the so-called "disappearing middle class" and ultimately just means more and more people working 20-30 hours a week on wildly varying schedules and split-shifts as employers try to maximize productivity since labor costs keep going up.
Up in the air at this point. Doesn't help that she recently lost her $2,400 engagement ring It's going to be a year before I can afford to replace it
Up in the air at this point. Doesn't help that she recently lost her $2,400 engagement ring It's going to be a year before I can afford to replace it
Ouch!! That's really brutal, I'm sorry brother.
I might recommend finding a temporary replacement on the cheap just so she has something that looks nice but won't cost a lot that she can wear in the interim. Then, there's less pressure to replace it ASAP.
One thing you might consider doing is looking at pawn shops for used rings, the retail value of a new engagement ring is like five or ten times what it'd be worth if you went to sell it or pawn it. So, you can get a lot more ring for your money in that sense. In terms of resale, it is only large diamonds that seem to command any value on their own independent of the gold.
Another cheaper alternative that would be new, not used, would be to buy her a cheaper new ring, doesn't even have to be a diamond, just something she can wear for a while. Overstock dot com sells a TON of jewelry at pretty cheap prices, I have bought my wife a variety of gemstone rings/jewelry from there since they have so much selection and it's not too expensive. They tend to be available in a variety of ring sizes, too, more so than other sites I've found. Prices from next to zero on up to whatever.
Amongst traditional retailers, I like Shane Co. the best. I felt they were a little better/smarter/more professional than all the national chains I've dealt with. YMMV of course, but those are my thoughts.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,592,398 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsdaleMark
Ouch!! That's really brutal, I'm sorry brother.
I might recommend finding a temporary replacement on the cheap just so she has something that looks nice but won't cost a lot that she can wear in the interim. Then, there's less pressure to replace it ASAP.
One thing you might consider doing is looking at pawn shops for used rings, the retail value of a new engagement ring is like five or ten times what it'd be worth if you went to sell it or pawn it. So, you can get a lot more ring for your money in that sense. In terms of resale, it is only large diamonds that seem to command any value on their own independent of the gold.
Another cheaper alternative that would be new, not used, would be to buy her a cheaper new ring, doesn't even have to be a diamond, just something she can wear for a while. Overstock dot com sells a TON of jewelry at pretty cheap prices, I have bought my wife a variety of gemstone rings/jewelry from there since they have so much selection and it's not too expensive. They tend to be available in a variety of ring sizes, too, more so than other sites I've found. Prices from next to zero on up to whatever.
Amongst traditional retailers, I like Shane Co. the best. I felt they were a little better/smarter/more professional than all the national chains I've dealt with. YMMV of course, but those are my thoughts.
I bought the ring she lost from Shane Co, it was $1,500 for the diamond and $600 for the setting/ring. Rest was tax
I think Predictit has the prediction market probabilities around 87% in favor of prop 206. Still not a guarantee.
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.
It's going to be a year before I can afford to replace it
