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.
If you make $7.25/hr and you work 38 hours a week, that equates to $278/week gross, and your taxes would be pretty much negligible. That's about $1000 a month, with an extra paycheck every three months. Say you have a cash car and thus no car payment, your rent is say $500 (which is a lot, it's prob better to share an apartment with a roommate in this case), you have $50 in food each week, like $40 in gas each week (assume about one tank is used), and then $45 for a cell phone. Your electric bill would be pretty small, maybe $100 at the most for a one bedroom. Those, to me, are necessities.
Then you have luxuries like cable and Internet, which would add to about $100/mo.
Am I forgetting anything?
That all adds up to $965 in necessities and then another $100 if you want cable and Internet, which you wouldn't be able to afford in this case.
These expenses could be further reduced by choosing a place with utilities included, living with a roommate, conserving on gas by combining trips and not driving like a maniac, and making good food choices at the grocery store.
Thus, you COULD get by on min wage if it was just you (or if you're a couple who are both working full time at min wage and dividing your bills, you'd be even better off). You wouldn't have a nice life, you wouldn't really be able to get ahead, you wouldn't be able to save for retirement, but yeah, you could get by, you could LIVE just fine making min wage if you work full time and keep your expenses low.
I realize that many places have a higher COL but in all three cities I've lived in, housing could definitely be had for $500 a month or even less if you split a 2 bedroom apartment with someone. In municipalities where the COL is higher, min wage is often higher as well.
Tell that to the poor that the reason they are barely making it is because they are not managing their money. They is something off with you calculations and I think it has to do with you do not take out taxes.
If you make $7.25/hr and you work 38 hours a week, that equates to $278/week gross, and your taxes would be pretty much negligible. That's about $1000 a month, with an extra paycheck every three months. Say you have a cash car and thus no car payment, your rent is say $500 (which is a lot, it's prob better to share an apartment with a roommate in this case), you have $50 in food each week, like $40 in gas each week (assume about one tank is used), and then $45 for a cell phone. Your electric bill would be pretty small, maybe $100 at the most for a one bedroom. Those, to me, are necessities.
Then you have luxuries like cable and Internet, which would add to about $100/mo.
Am I forgetting anything?
That all adds up to $965 in necessities and then another $100 if you want cable and Internet, which you wouldn't be able to afford in this case.
These expenses could be further reduced by choosing a place with utilities included, living with a roommate, conserving on gas by combining trips and not driving like a maniac, and making good food choices at the grocery store.
Thus, you COULD get by on min wage if it was just you (or if you're a couple who are both working full time at min wage and dividing your bills, you'd be even better off). You wouldn't have a nice life, you wouldn't really be able to get ahead, you wouldn't be able to save for retirement, but yeah, you could get by, you could LIVE just fine making min wage if you work full time and keep your expenses low.
I realize that many places have a higher COL but in all three cities I've lived in, housing could definitely be had for $500 a month or even less if you split a 2 bedroom apartment with someone. In municipalities where the COL is higher, min wage is often higher as well.
Then why not $80 an hour? Then everyone would have more money to spend. No working person would be poor.
Or why stop at $80? If there are no downsides to minumum wages being brought up, why do it so piecemeal? Just hike them up high.
Why not a wage that can meet the cost of living at least? Sorry, but making less than a grand (on average) above the poverty level is quite low. In fact, that's below the actual poverty level (since the poverty level is a deflated figure).
Minimum wage legislation is one of the great civil wrongs perpetrated against the low-skilled who need the opportunities which middle-class workers, future professionals, and the self-employed can legally take for granted. What the minimum wage law does to the poor is to deny them the same freely chosen opportunities others follow for their own well-being.
A middle-class 20-year old college student, for example, can work part-time at $7.00 an hour (or whatever min wage is currently) for half the hours in a work week and attend classes to better his future employment prospects the other half. In effect, such a student is earning not $7 per hour for the full work week of 40 hours (20 hours on the job at $7 and 20 hours in class and study time at $0). He is legally earning $3.50 per hour. And if the costs of tuition, books, and gas are included the students is possibly earning an effective wage which is negative! This is done by the student voluntarily – a subminimum-wage effort is freely chosen as a civil right not denied by government.
An up and coming 30-year old doctor chooses a similar route of economic well-being. The hours spent not only in undergraduate school as in the case of the 20-year old, but in medical school as well, pay no wage. In fact, both are paying to learn now in order to earn a much higher income later. Again the future doctor exercises this option as a civil right –there are no laws preventing him form doing so.
An enterprising individual starting his own business will often lose money for months, even years, prior to earning a profit on a new venture. Again, he is earning a wage much less than that mandated by minimum wage legislation. But, he is perfectly free, as an entrepreneur, to engage in such behavior –it is not illegal.
But what of the low-skilled citizen with no prospects of college training or a medical career or of starting his own business? Here the heavy hand of government literally outlaws an option freely chosen by others. A worker whose production is only worth $5 an hour to an employer is denied the opportunity to accept this low wage for the opportunity to learn, not in the formal setting of a college classroom or a training hospital or as an actual business owner, but in the workplace itself. It’s a safe bet that you made wage gains once on a job, not by way of formal training but by learning proving yourself on the job.
Anyone doubtful that minimum wage law is a civil rights issue only needs to look at unemployment data to see the truth of this matter. In January 2007 to overall unemployment rate was 4.6%. For 16-19 year olds it was 15%. For 16-19 year old blacks it was 29.1%. For people aged 25-54 the unemployment rate was 3.7%.
Why are effective wage-rights denied to some segments of society but not others? The answer is simple. There is no negative political consequence in denying such a right to low-skilled people. Unlike other groups, these people generally do not vote, don’t write letters to the editor, don’t contribute to campaigns and don’t make themselves heard politically. Therefore, they can be denied a civil right (the ability to obtain a job) because they simply do not count politically. Much the same way politicians treated the tramps in England as descibed by George Orwell in Down and Out in Paris and London.
The minimum wage law is a cruelty inflicted by government on a group of people who can afford it least, while politicians reap the benefits of appearing to be kinder and gentler. And liberals are so naive when it comes to economics they support this injustice and have the temerity to say people that oppose minimum wage laws are not looking out for the low-skilled.
Minimum wage laws are a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the name of all things good about America, it is time to abolish this blatant discrimination.
Last edited by OhioIstheBest; 01-01-2011 at 06:25 AM..
Reason: Changed font
Tell that to the poor that the reason they are barely making it is because they are not managing their money. They is something off with you calculations and I think it has to do with you do not take out taxes.
They didn't add in anything not a necessity.
Beer/wine/alcohol. Cigarettes, twinkies, brand new SUV/60" plasma tv, etc etc etc.
In 2004, I was laid off, after working 11 years for a single employer, (he needed to cut costs, and felt that keeping 3 junior computer engineers would equal a single senior systems engineer. He lost over 1/3 of his business in the year following that decision. LOL).
Anyways, I was out of full time work for 18 months. All I kept hearing was "Overqualified". I once asked, wouldn't you rather have overqualified rather than underqualified?". Worked 2-3 part time jobs, did side work all that time. NEVER went on the public dole. Made my mortgage payments, (mortgage from 1993) of 770$ paid the car note, insurance, gas, food, doctors and meds for my 2 children, (Single parent), never once asked ANYONE for anything, especially the government. OMG? HOW did I do it, making less than 250 a week? My Brother helped out once when we really needed it.
Did it by shopping at thrift stores. Going to farmers markets and ethnic food stores for vegetables. had LOTS of ramen, macaroni and cheese, tunafish, hamburgers, rice, etc. Getting my daughter's a Kid's Meal to microwave was a treat for them that I saved up for ever other month or so.
Finally got a job making $11.00 an hour, but only working 25-30 hours a week. No benefits. Still was able to afford to live.. Kids had nice clothes, school supplies, because of medical conditions, required daily medicine, and doctor checkups every 2 months, all out of my own pocket...
Finally got a nice full time job in Jun of 2006 and have been here ever since. Am I overqualified. Yes, I am seriously overqualified. However I take my knowledge and help others learn to do their part better. I can now afford to get some of the nicer things, no I don't make 35K or more, but I know how to spend money, and where to spend it.
If I can have done it as a single dad with 2 children, I am sure that it can be done by a single person, or a couple.
As for the whining it cannot be done.. Wrong, it can. But you have to WANT to do what it takes to live within your means, better yourself, and work towards that better job.
Minimum wage legislation is one of the great civil wrongs perpetrated against the low-skilled who need the opportunities which middle-class workers, future professionals, and the self-employed can legally take for granted. What the minimum wage law does to the poor is to deny them the same freely chosen opportunities others follow for their own well-being.
A middle-class 20-year old college student, for example, can work part-time at $7.00 an hour (or whatever min wage is currently) for half the hours in a work week and attend classes to better his future employment prospects the other half. In effect, such a student is earning not $7 per hour for the full work week of 40 hours (20 hours on the job at $7 and 20 hours in class and study time at $0). He is legally earning $3.50 per hour. And if the costs of tuition, books, and gas are included the students is possibly earning an effective wage which is negative! This is done by the student voluntarily – a subminimum-wage effort is freely chosen as a civil right not denied by government.
An up and coming 30-year old doctor chooses a similar route of economic well-being. The hours spent not only in undergraduate school as in the case of the 20-year old, but in medical school as well, pay no wage. In fact, both are paying to learn now in order to earn a much higher income later. Again the future doctor exercises this option as a civil right –there are no laws preventing him form doing so.
An enterprising individual starting his own business will often lose money for months, even years, prior to earning a profit on a new venture. Again, he is earning a wage much less than that mandated by minimum wage legislation. But, he is perfectly free, as an entrepreneur, to engage in such behavior –it is not illegal.
But what of the low-skilled citizen with no prospects of college training or a medical career or of starting his own business? Here the heavy hand of government literally outlaws an option freely chosen by others. A worker whose production is only worth $5 an hour to an employer is denied the opportunity to accept this low wage for the opportunity to learn, not in the formal setting of a college classroom or a training hospital or as an actual business owner, but in the workplace itself. It’s a safe bet that you made wage gains once on a job, not by way of formal training but by learning proving yourself on the job.
Anyone doubtful that minimum wage law is a civil rights issue only needs to look at unemployment data to see the truth of this matter. In January 2007 to overall unemployment rate was 4.6%. For 16-19 year olds it was 15%. For 16-19 year old blacks it was 29.1%. For people aged 25-54 the unemployment rate was 3.7%.
Why are effective wage-rights denied to some segments of society but not others? The answer is simple. There is no negative political consequence in denying such a right to low-skilled people. Unlike other groups, these people generally do not vote, don’t write letters to the editor, don’t contribute to campaigns and don’t make themselves heard politically. Therefore, they can be denied a civil right (the ability to obtain a job) because they simply do not count politically. Much the same way politicians treated the tramps in England as descibed by George Orwell in Down and Out in Paris and London.
The minimum wage law is a cruelty inflicted by government on a group of people who can afford it least, while politicians reap the benefits of appearing to be kinder and gentler. And liberals are so naive when it comes to economics they support this injustice and have the temerity to say people that oppose minimum wage laws are not looking out for the low-skilled.
Minimum wage laws are a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the name of all things good about America, it is time to abolish this blatant discrimination.
Your posts doesn't illustrate how a min. wage harms the lower class. It also assumes that poor people have the same opportunities, which is not true. I also liked how you threw in the unemployment data without showing any causation.
Min. wage laws have actually helped poor people and the economy.
Beer/wine/alcohol. Cigarettes, twinkies, brand new SUV/60" plasma tv, etc etc etc.
In 2004, I was laid off, after working 11 years for a single employer, (he needed to cut costs, and felt that keeping 3 junior computer engineers would equal a single senior systems engineer. He lost over 1/3 of his business in the year following that decision. LOL).
Anyways, I was out of full time work for 18 months. All I kept hearing was "Overqualified". I once asked, wouldn't you rather have overqualified rather than underqualified?". Worked 2-3 part time jobs, did side work all that time. NEVER went on the public dole. Made my mortgage payments, (mortgage from 1993) of 770$ paid the car note, insurance, gas, food, doctors and meds for my 2 children, (Single parent), never once asked ANYONE for anything, especially the government. OMG? HOW did I do it, making less than 250 a week? My Brother helped out once when we really needed it.
Did it by shopping at thrift stores. Going to farmers markets and ethnic food stores for vegetables. had LOTS of ramen, macaroni and cheese, tunafish, hamburgers, rice, etc. Getting my daughter's a Kid's Meal to microwave was a treat for them that I saved up for ever other month or so.
Finally got a job making $11.00 an hour, but only working 25-30 hours a week. No benefits. Still was able to afford to live.. Kids had nice clothes, school supplies, because of medical conditions, required daily medicine, and doctor checkups every 2 months, all out of my own pocket...
Finally got a nice full time job in Jun of 2006 and have been here ever since. Am I overqualified. Yes, I am seriously overqualified. However I take my knowledge and help others learn to do their part better. I can now afford to get some of the nicer things, no I don't make 35K or more, but I know how to spend money, and where to spend it.
If I can have done it as a single dad with 2 children, I am sure that it can be done by a single person, or a couple.
As for the whining it cannot be done.. Wrong, it can. But you have to WANT to do what it takes to live within your means, better yourself, and work towards that better job.
So you had a house, assuming some savings, credit cards, a brother that helped out...most of these things (esp. owning property) is out of the reach of the poor. If worse got to worse, you could have sold your house for money. You could have tapped into credit cards at a reduced rate than a poorer person. You could have asked your brother more.
Your story is good in illustrating how being middle class during a recession is better than being poor.
Your posts doesn't illustrate how a min. wage harms the lower class. It also assumes that poor people have the same opportunities, which is not true. I also liked how you threw in the unemployment data without showing any causation.
Min. wage laws have actually helped poor people and the economy.
Your post doesn't illiustrate how a mim. wage law helps the poor or the economy. You show no cuasation that unemployment is casued by anything other than min. wage.
My post doesn't assume the poor have the same oppotunites. It assumes the exact opposite. That is the entire premise of my post. If the poor don't have the same chances then we need not make laws that limit their chances even further.
I have seen first hand how min wage eliminate jobs. Same as other government regulations.
So you had a house, assuming some savings, credit cards, a brother that helped out...most of these things (esp. owning property) is out of the reach of the poor. If worse got to worse, you could have sold your house for money. You could have tapped into credit cards at a reduced rate than a poorer person. You could have asked your brother more.
Your story is good in illustrating how being middle class during a recession is better than being poor.
He was poor at this time and there was no recession on either.
Your post doesn't illiustrate how a mim. wage law helps the poor or the economy. You show no cuasation that unemployment is casued by anything other than min. wage.
My post doesn't assume the poor have the same oppotunites. It assumes the exact opposite. That is the entire premise of my post. If the poor don't have the same chances then we need not make laws that limit their chances even further.
I have seen first hand how min wage eliminate jobs. Same as other government regulations.
Your post does assume. Increased min. wage helps combat against the rise in wage stagnation/decrease for the very poor. Economically, there is no incentive for employers to pay a living wage. Employers want to make more money. That's why you have wage decreases for the poorest segments of society. CEO pay versus employee pay has increased. All this is due to the fact that employers want to make more money. Having a government mandate allows for a more livable wage. Prior to a min. wage, we had a huge gulf between rich and poor. Though we have a widening gulf, this gulf is not as bad as in the turn of the century. In fact, the current gulf is due to the fact that min. wage increases have not kept up with cost of living.
Let's also bear in mind that the poor spend more as a percentage of their earnings. Having more consumers is good for the economy. Hence why we have unemployment benefits.
If Berkeley professors, Harvard professors, and other top professors who have more data than you all conclude that a min. wage is not a job killer then I would go with that.
So what is YOUR argument in illustrating that a min. wage is "bad"?
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.
Actually
