# $15 minimum wage



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

Why shouldn't minimum wage prople get Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) just like everybody else does, including people on social security? ALL other groups of people get regular raises EXCEPT the Minimum Wage group.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

Prices have almost doubled during this time period....


----------



## Cdub2k (Nov 22, 2017)

minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


----------



## deycallmeyukmouf (Feb 22, 2021)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....

$2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
$2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.
*$2.71 TOTAL per day to spend on FOOD, Cell Phone, Gas, Health&#8230;&#8230;*is what a $15 minimum wage affords a human american citizen putting in 40 hours per week.

$15 an hour times 40 hours
$600 per week

Uncle Sam gotta take his cut without representation.

Call it $500 per week or $2000 per month.

February 2020, the *average monthly rent for an apartment in the United States was 1,468 U.S. dollars*.

If we call average rent $1000 change that 2.71 to $16 a day profit off your 40 hours a week sweat equity

minimum wage would be $24 if it kept up with inflation

ive owned cars for over 2 decades a decent one cost 15 a day all in

and average rent in my city is 1800 for a 1 bedroom, the 3 other cities it was 800 that was a 3 bedroom condo 5+ years ago, 750, 2 bedroom condo 15+ years ago, and 600 20+ years ago, never lived in cali or ny where its double of course


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

deycallmeyukmouf said:


> no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....
> 
> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
> $2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.
> ...


Who says minimum wage should support anything? I suggest it should support someone living with their parents rent free, food, utilities, and other expenses paid by their parents.

There are some jobs that the employee should be paying the employer! In my day job, there is a requirement of a 4 year college degree, 200 hours of specific education, and a 2 year internship. That 2 year internship will cost the trainer time to train the intern. Time is money. Should I be expected to increase the amount of time I have to spend on an assignment and pay someone to learn what I'm doing on top of it? Heck no! If I have to increase my time on a particular assignment, someone is going to pay for it. In this case, its the person causing the increase in time, the intern.

When I first entered the job market, I had to have 3 roommates for a 3 bedroom rental. That's 4 people in the 3 bedroom rental, sharing rent and utilities in the early 1980's. None of us could afford to eat fast foods. But I guess that's below the person that feels entitled to living alone toady.

If one applies for jobs that pay $50 an hour and gets no offers, chances are the person isn't worth $50 an hour or they are not applying the for the jobs that fits their skill level. In that case, the person must lower their requested wage, improve their skill set, or apply for jobs that fit their skill set.

If someone agrees that me paying them $5 an hour to fish at the local lake and give me reports of their success or failure, why should that not be allowed? He's happy getting paid while fishing. I'm happy paying for the reports. But no, he can't fish for that amount and I can't get the info for that amount. We both lose.

To the OP, the only people who get COL raises are the people who negotiated such increases. The vast majority of employees do not have a contract that guarantees such increases. You earn what you can negotiate. Congress has determined those receiving a fixed income from the government should be entitled to a COL increase.


----------



## teh744 (Apr 14, 2018)

Before I graduated high school in 1990, I used to wash dishes at a family restaurant. I started there shortly after I turned 16 making $3.50 hr. Eventually min wage was raised to $4.25. In August of that year I left that job to work at a bowling center, for $5 hr, with some overtime. Toward the end of the bowling season, I figured I need something better.... So I went to the Airforce recruiters office checked it out and signed up. Did 7 years active. 2 days before I was discharged, I transferred to the reserves, still doing the same job as when I was active. I moved back home after active duty and got a state job. It wasn’t easy but I balanced being a reservist and my regular job for 19 years until I retired from the reserves. Ended up with 26 years total, still working at my state job. With a pension from both places. 

Like others said, min wage jobs a starting point. If it gets raised, businesses will have to find ways to cover the increased labor costs or worse yet, cut staff. Then most likely, prices will go up. I feel it’s best to let the market determine what a starting wage is.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


There is no rule like that. Some people just aren't endowend with enough talent to progress beyond the minimum wage, and then there are retirees who take minimum wage jobs just to get out of the house. A job, at the minimum, should pay enough for life's basic necessities, plus a little extra for disposable income. Less than that, if the low wage forces an individual to seek public assistance, that assistance is a de facto welfare for the corporation who should have been paying a livable wage in the first place.



bsliv said:


> Who says minimum wage should support anything? I suggest it should support someone living with their parents rent free, food, utilities, and other expenses paid by their parents.
> 
> There are some jobs that the employee should be paying the employer! In my day job, there is a requirement of a 4 year college degree, 200 hours of specific education, and a 2 year internship. That 2 year internship will cost the trainer time to train the intern. Time is money. Should I be expected to increase the amount of time I have to spend on an assignment and pay someone to learn what I'm doing on top of it? Heck no! If I have to increase my time on a particular assignment, someone is going to pay for it. In this case, its the person causing the increase in time, the intern.
> 
> ...


You suggest wrong.


----------



## GarryDRT (Feb 9, 2021)

deycallmeyukmouf said:


> no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....
> 
> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
> $2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.
> ...


That's a realistic computation but these business owners keep reasoning they will not have profit to keep the business going if they increase the salaries.


----------



## bone-aching-work (Jul 12, 2020)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


Did you just pop out of a time machine from 1970? You're clueless.


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

deycallmeyukmouf said:


> no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....
> 
> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)


The problem here is the $1468 paid for rent. Folks working minimum wage should be living in low-cost locales.


----------



## 💎reditthraway (Jan 6, 2021)

I can't believe people are still talking about minimum wage as if it's ever a viable option. 


deycallmeyukmouf said:


> no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....
> 
> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
> $2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.
> ...


This doesn't even include retirement. Savings aside for emergencies. For future and present medical issues. Heck, it doesn't even account for a nice vacation which personally, I believe everyone should have at least minimum one a year to stay sane.

I've never worked at a job, or had a contract, where I was paid minimum wage. Not even as a teenager. My first job paid $10/hr cash. Not including quarterly bonuses as incentive to stick around.



GarryDRT said:


> That's a realistic computation but these business owners keep reasoning they will not have profit to keep the business going if they increase the salaries.


Some businesses legit have too many expenses compared to income however I find most actually have enough to pay more, they just prefer to invest back into the business to expand. Sitting on a few hundred thousand easily just waiting for the opportunity to make it work for them to bring in more $. Also they're not one to sacrifice their own "extras" like health care, retirement and that vacation or two a year.


----------



## KevinJohnson (Mar 23, 2020)

$15 seems reasonable


----------



## 💎reditthraway (Jan 6, 2021)

KevinJohnson said:


> $15 seems reasonable
> 
> View attachment 568297


Try $33.65/hr.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/business/gravity-increases-employee-minimum-salary-to-70k-trnd


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


Ever get a burger in the middle of the day or late at night? 
Yeah? 
Then quack off with that BS tired ass argument.

Do even a basic research into what "minimum wage" was about and you can't hold such an ignorant argument further.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


Your argument is bogus.
There aren't anywhere near enough teenagers who want to work to fill all minimum wage jobs. And what about jobs that require workers during school hours...which is the MAJORITY of minimum wage jobs.


----------



## Mash Ghasem (Jan 12, 2020)

DDW said:


> Why shouldn't minimum wage prople get Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) just like everybody else does, including people on social security? ALL other groups of people get regular raises EXCEPT the Minimum Wage group.


How else would the wealthy keep themselves nice and cozy in the 1% ??!!


----------



## Cdub2k (Nov 22, 2017)

DDW said:


> Your argument is bogus.
> There aren't anywhere near enough teenagers who want to work to fill all minimum wage jobs. And what about jobs that require workers during school hours...which is the MAJORITY of minimum wage jobs.


Before I went into the military when I was 16-19 I worked at Papa Johns and the majority of the people who worked there was either in college or high school. The ones who weren't were Delivery Drivers.


----------



## GarryDRT (Feb 9, 2021)

&#128142;reditthraway said:


> Try $33.65/hr.
> 
> https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/business/gravity-increases-employee-minimum-salary-to-70k-trnd


That's a crazy $70k salary.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

GarryDRT said:


> That's a crazy $70k salary.


If their business required the most productive employees in the industry, it is crazy. However, if they have competent competition with a lower cost of doing business, the long term outlook is not good. But it does make for a good story.


----------



## Donshonda (May 3, 2016)

Cheap labor is not skilled.... Skilled labor is not cheap.

Thats just how it works. The second you pay some kid $15 an hour to bag groceries? You just completely discarded all the hard work I've done for almost 30 years. My first job was for $3.85 an hour, working at a local convenience store. Zero skill involved. I didnt want that job for the rest of my life. I learned a trade, worked in a factory, learned machinery, learned the business, got into management and administrative work... busted my ass. Period. And they want to give $30,000 a year to some kid flipping burgers? Hell if thats the case? Sign me up. I'd rather have zero skill and zero responsibility and make 30-40k a year, And have a side gig....Than bust my ass and make 60-70k.

But thats the problem. No one wants to WORK anymore. Wheres my handout? When is my college debt gonna be cancelled?
I fear where we are headed. I have 25 more years before I retire and all I keep seeing is a bunch of kids outta college that need to be coddled, Who have no idea how to work. They want to do the least amount possible and get paid the most amount to do it.

Thats what we get for telling each kid they are special... and here's your participation trophy.
You wanna up the minimum wage? Fine. But dont double it.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Shouldn't this thread be filed in the Politics sub-forum?

Funny how opinions vary too one side or the other. I have split opinion. YES, minimum wage should be indexed to cost of living, just like everything else is. Otherwise why even have a "minimum wage"? According to the $1.75 /hr I made as a high school teen working in a gas station, indexed to inflation that would make for an $11-12 minimum wage.

On the other hand I was living on my own for about a year working at that gas station. But I had a ROOMMATE, no car (took bus), and lived frugally. Without complaint. When I decided to make some money I was motivated to educate myself better and get a better paying job.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

If WA can do COLA, then Feds can too....


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

Donshonda said:


> Cheap labor is not skilled.... Skilled labor is not cheap.
> 
> Thats just how it works. The second you pay some kid $15 an hour to bag groceries? You just completely discarded all the hard work I've done for almost 30 years. My first job was for $3.85 an hour, working at a local convenience store. Zero skill involved. I didnt want that job for the rest of my life. I learned a trade, worked in a factory, learned machinery, learned the business, got into management and administrative work... busted my ass. Period. And they want to give $30,000 a year to some kid flipping burgers? Hell if thats the case? Sign me up. I'd rather have zero skill and zero responsibility and make 30-40k a year, And have a side gig....Than bust my ass and make 60-70k.
> 
> ...


Uh, that kid bagging groceries would need to see a job market where getting a skill would pay him enough over that to make up for the time & tuition he had put in to gain the skill.


----------



## Donshonda (May 3, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> Uh, that kid bagging groceries would need to see a job market where getting a skill would pay him enough over that to make up for the time & tuition he had put in to gain the skill.


Thats a joke right? Try getting a plumber right now... for anything less than $75 an hour to come fix a leaky faucet. I'm sure people in Texas know exactly how that is right now... Or better yet? next time your car breaks down, try to find any mechanic to fix it for less than $100 an hour. I have a friend that owns his own HVAC company. He works all winter long and takes the summer off to play softball competitively... He just built a half million dollar home, taking 4 months off a year... All with a 2 year cheap degree at a tech college that I'm sure is paid off by now. Theres well paying jobs out there, they just dont always have a desk in front of them.


----------



## Alantc (Jun 15, 2018)

If minimum wage goes up to $15 it won't change anything and be just like it is now. Dollar menu will go up to $3 menu


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

If you wait for government to help you, you'll be waiting for a long time, doesn't matter if it is student loan, minimum wage, whatever.

In the mean time, get yourself a trade, degree, certification, connection, skill, or whatever you think can help you make more money. *Raising your worth and value, *that's how you'll earn more money.


----------



## GarryDRT (Feb 9, 2021)

amazinghl said:


> If you wait for government to help you, you'll be waiting for a long time, doesn't matter if it is student loan, minimum wage, whatever.
> 
> In the mean time, get yourself a trade, degree, certification, connection, skill, or whatever you think can help you make more money. *Raising your worth and value, *that's how you'll earn more money.


Sadly, many kids do not have that kind of mentality and just want a "live right now" lifestyle.


----------



## Gtown Driver (Aug 26, 2018)

Alantc said:


> If minimum wage goes up to $15 it won't change anything and be just like it is now. Dollar menu will go up to $3 menu


The minimum wage would have to go up to like 40 dollars before the dollar menu becomes 3 dollars. The most it would go up is a few cents. Poor people won't overheat the economy anymore than overly expensive fighter jets for the military will.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

GarryDRT said:


> Sadly, many kids do not have that kind of mentality and just want a "live right now" lifestyle.


If the parents failed to teach their children, the children most likely will fail at life.

Here's what my friend told me about his kids.



> Here's the thing all three of my kids all had to start working at 16 years old and all had to put a minimum of 20% away in they're savings account. When they turned 18 they had to pay all of their own bills. Both of my girls turn 21 in a couple of months each has over $15,000 in savings and has paid for their entire college career they're both Juniors about to be seniors zero debt, zero loans. My son will be 18 in April, has $5,000 in his savings account and makes 11 bucks an hour working three days a week because of high school. Media and damn near everybody else will tell you the American dream is dead they're full of s*** if you work hard it's plenty out there


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

amazinghl said:


> ... all three of my kids all had to start working at 16 years old and all had to put a minimum of 20% away in they're savings account.


Why become parents if you're going to be so cheap?  Also, there isn't enough work for adults, so how could kids get work?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> Why become parents if you're going to be so cheap?  Also, there isn't enough work for adults, so how could kids get work?


There's plenty of work to be had, if you are willing to work for low wages. I personally wouldn't do most jobs when being self-employed doing almost anything you can easily make more than the lowest wage jobs if you just try.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> Why become parents if you're going to be so cheap?  Also, there isn't enough work for adults, so how could kids get work?


Let me highlight it for you.



> Both of my girls turn 21 in a couple of months *each has over $15,000 in savings* and has* paid for their entire college career* they're both Juniors about to be seniors* zero debt, zero loans.*


It's not about being cheap. It's about teaching the children the value of money, how to use money, how to save money, the ethics of working, and so much more. If every children learn these skills at 16, there would be no student debt crisis.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Half the problem is that the true cost of living has skyrocketed over the decades. Since the government cannot control the cost of rent, food, most utilities, transportation, entertainment, insurance, etc they talk about raising min wage. It is the only thing they have some control over. 

The other half of the problem is overpopulation in too many areas. Too many workers means corporations can exploit labor. We have reached the extreme end of that economic reality with the rise of gig companies, sometimes paying the equivalent of pennies per hour and getting away with it. So many people are desperate for a few more $ that they put up with it.

Sadly, min wage is what a lot of people are making a "living" off of these days. It is what it is.


----------



## BunnyK (Dec 12, 2017)

amazinghl said:


> If you wait for government to help you, you'll be waiting for a long time, doesn't matter if it is student loan, minimum wage, whatever.
> 
> In the mean time, get yourself a trade, degree, certification, connection, skill, or whatever you think can help you make more money. *Raising your worth and value, *that's how you'll earn more money.


Yeah but that takes effort.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> so how could kids get work?


two words: FAST FOOD

Used to be only teens; now kinda scary, you see adults behind the counter who are not the managers.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Mista T said:


> min wage is what a lot of people are making a "living" off of these days


Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25. That represents 1.5% of all hourly paid employees. *1.5%!*

1979 was the first year the BLS kept detailed records. That year, 13.4% earned at or below the federal minimum wage at the time. It rose to 15.1% until dropping in 1985. *15.1%*

Let's break the current situation down a bit more. Although workers under 25 years old represent less than 20% of the workforce, they made up 48% of those paid the minimum or less. For those that were 25 or older, 1% earned the minimum wage or less. *1%!*

For all age groups, South Carolina had about 4% of its workforce at or below the federal minimum. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia had about 3% at or below the federal minimum. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington all had less *than 1% *of their workforce at or below the federal minimum.

Other than the deep south, most areas have an extremely low percentage of minimum wage employees. Raising the minimum from $13 to $15 will have some negative effects. It will probably be noticed only by those paying attention. Raising the minimum from $7.25 to $15 will have many more negative effects. It will cause depressed areas to become even more depressed. If there is to be a minimum wage, it is best deployed by the most local government (city, county, state, in that order). One size fits none.

There is an agency that reports directly to the US Congress on financial matters. Its called the Congressional Budget Office. In February, 2021, the CBO released its report to the congress concerning hiking the federal minimum wage to $15. The CBO estimates the hike would cause the US to lose 1.4 million jobs! And remember, there were only 1.1 million jobs paying at or below the minimum wage last year. What this means is if one is making slightly more than the current minimum or less, there is a very high probability they will lose their job.

In addition, prices will increase to cover the increased costs. Increased prices will cause less of the product to sold. The increased prices will not be noticed by millionaires. The increased prices will be noticed by the minimum wage employee, the unemployed, and those on a fixed, low income.

I'd like to hear Bernie Sanders promote increased unemployment for the low skilled worker and increased cost of living felt most by low income earners. But Bernie's a lifelong politician, he knows how to get votes. When it comes to economic matters, I think we should look more towards Col. Sanders.


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

deycallmeyukmouf said:


> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
> $2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.


I don't think you know the definition of profit.



deycallmeyukmouf said:


> ive owned cars for over 2 decades a decent one cost 15 a day all in


A car isn't a necessity; minimum wage employees can walk, bike, bus, have mom drop them off...



deycallmeyukmouf said:


> and average rent in my city is 1800 for a 1 bedroom


What city do you live in? Minimum wage employees don't get apartments in the average price range. The average takes the most expensive and the least expensive into the calculation. If your an adult making minimum wage you get the cheapest apartment and find roommates.



deycallmeyukmouf said:


> never lived in cali or ny where its double of course


I've lived in CA all my life. The mortgage on my 3 bedroom house is less than $1400.



Oscar Levant said:


> low wage forces an individual to seek public assistance, that assistance is a de facto welfare for the corporation who should have been paying a livable wage in the first place.


I disagree, the person should get a 2nd job.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25. That represents 1.5% of all hourly paid employees. *1.5%!*
> 
> 1979 was the first year the BLS kept detailed records. That year, 13.4% earned at or below the federal minimum wage at the time. It rose to 15.1% until dropping in 1985. *15.1%*
> 
> ...


You make a good point about the numbers, however, respectfully I submit that anyone getting paid within ~$2 of min wage is still making roughly min wage, and would not be counted in official numbers of min wage workers. I propose the number of "low paid" workers is much higher than officials claim.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Mista T said:


> I propose the number of "low paid" workers is much higher than officials claim.


I'd have to agree, the number of people employed at any a specific rate will increase from minimum up to median and decrease from median to maximum. A graph should show a (more or less) bell curve, although I can't find such a graph.

But that doesn't invalidate my point that the number of minimum wage workers is declining. It doesn't invalidate my point that as one gains experience, one gains an increase in wage. It doesn't invalidate my point that one minimum wage isn't right for every part of the country. It doesn't invalidate my point that the US will lose a lot of jobs with the increase in federal minimum wage. It doesn't invalidate my point that the cost of living will increase which hurts low wage earners the most.

My main point was that increasing the federal minimum wage is not a win for all. In fact, its a losing proposition for many, especially the low skilled and low wage earners, the very people the increase is supposed to help! If helping the low wage earner is the goal, there are better alternatives.

A free market, including labor, works to create the most good for the most people. However, it does leave behind the least skilled, least educated, and least abled. The least skilled will develop more skill with experience. The least educated will develop more education with training. There is no reason to penalize the entire economy for these two groups. Those least able to advance may need public assistance.

Enhancing the earned tax credit would do more to reduce poverty, at a less cost, than increasing the minimum wage. But this concept is more difficult to sell to an uninformed public. Give me the colonel not Bernie, when it comes to economics. Give me Bernie, not the colonel, when trying to collect votes and increase my power in national politics.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> But that doesn't invalidate my point that the number of _*FEDERAL *_minimum wage workers is declining.
> 
> My main point was that increasing the federal minimum wage is not a win for all.


Fixed that for you.

The number of workers earning _*FEDERAL*_ minimum wage is declining because STATES and CITIES are raising their minimum wage.

TWENTY NINE states and DC already pay more than the _*FEDERAL*_ minimum wage.

Some pay more than double the _*FEDERAL *_minimum wage.


bsliv said:


> There is no reason to penalize the entire economy for these two groups. Those least able to advance may need public assistance.


There are already millions that need public assistance because the _*FEDERAL *_minimum wage is too low.

When the _*FEDERAL *_minimum wage was last raised it was raised in ALL locations, those with higher costs of living and those with lower costs of living, EQUALLY.

The cost of living had no bearing on the amount then and it has no bearing on the amount now.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> The number of workers earning _*FEDERAL*_ minimum wage is declining because STATES and CITIES are raising their minimum wage.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to provide a lunch, someone is going to pay for it. Should a forced collection take place among the families that receive the lunch? Or would forcing the federal taxpayers to pay for it be more equitable? Keep in mind, only the top 50% of earners pay federal taxes. Keep in mind the the families that receive the free lunch are in the bottom 50% of earners.

Why would you like to adopt a policy that puts 1.4 million low skilled employees out of work? Why would you like to adopt a policy that raises the cost of living, a situation which effects low wage earners the most? Why would like to adopt this policy when there are better alternatives?

Why make the poor bear the cost when helping the poor is the goal?



observer said:


> The number of workers earning _*FEDERAL*_ minimum wage is declining because STATES and CITIES are raising their minimum wage.


Who knows what's best for a specific location, a group of full time politicians in Washington DC or part time politicians that live in the communities they're legislating for? If there is to be a mandated minimum wage, it is best deployed by the local government.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> There is no such thing as a free lunch.


There is to corporations and investors that pay low wages.


bsliv said:


> If you want to provide a lunch, someone is going to pay for it.


Exactly, employers should be paing for it. Not taxpayers.


bsliv said:


> would forcing the federal taxpayers to pay for it be more equitable? Keep in mind, only the top 50% of earners pay federal taxes.


Taxpayers already paying for it. The burden should be put back where it belongs, on employers.


bsliv said:


> Why would you like to adopt a policy that puts 1.4 million low skilled employees out of work?


It *may* put them out of work temporarily but it will benefit 20-30 million other workers.


bsliv said:


> Why would you like to adopt a policy that raises the cost of living, a situation which effects low wage earners the most?


It also raises the standard of living. Especially those low wage earners you all of a sudden love.


bsliv said:


> Why would like to adopt this policy when there are better alternatives?


Where have those "alternatives" been for the last 30 years and why haven't they been implemented?


bsliv said:


> Why make the poor bear the cost when helping the poor is the goal?


Again with your "helping the poor is the goal". &#128514;


bsliv said:


> Who knows what's best for a specific location, a group of full time politicians in Washington DC or part time politicians that live in the communities they're legislating for? If there is to be a mandated minimum wage, it is best deployed by the local government.


Apparently, the group of full time politicians since many local politicians have done nothing.

Again, the cost of living has ZERO to do with the FEDERAL minimum wage, never has.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> There is to corporations and investors that pay low wages.
> 
> Exactly, employers should be paing for it. Not taxpayers.
> 
> ...


Your understanding of how business works seems to be lacking. Most businesses operate on a thin margin. A business that makes $1 million a year may seem good but it may not be enough to continue. If that business has $100 million invested that's only a 1% roi. An FDIC insured savings account pays more. That business will close, even with its $1 million a year profit.

Your understanding of how economics works seems to be lacking. Do you know how a price of a commodity is set in a free market and why? I'll give a clue, its not by force. Do you understand what happens when someone is forced to pay above or below market price? I'll give a clue, its not good.

Raising the minimum wage to $50 is not good. Raising it to $50 is not good for exactly the same reasons.

Lowering the minimum wage to $5 is good. Lowering it to $0 is good for the same reasons.



observer said:


> Again with your "helping the poor is the goal"


What is your goal?



observer said:


> Where have those "alternatives" been for the last 30 years and why haven't they been implemented?


Ask your politicians. I believe its because they want to get votes, not help the poor.



observer said:


> Apparently, the group of full time politicians since many local politicians have done nothing.


You're saying California knows what's best for Alabama.



observer said:


> The burden should be put back where it belongs, on employers.


The burden should rest with those who make the demands.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

bsliv said:


> Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25. That represents 1.5% of all hourly paid employees. *1.5%!*


Yeah, so how many were at $7.26 ...or just a little better than 7.25. You really need to look at the entire number that earned $10 or less, not just at the ones that earned EXACTLY $7.25

'A free market, including labor, works to create the most good for the most people"

BS.....Slave market was a free market and the workers didn't fair well....


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

DDW said:


> Yeah, so how many were at $7.26 ...or just a little better than 7.25. You really need to look at the entire number that earned $10 or less, not just at the ones that earned EXACTLY $7.25


That statistic isn't just people making exactly 7.25, it's people making 7.25 or less.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

The fact is there are too many people in society that would happily take advantage of other people Even if they didn't need the extra money.....this is why we absolutely need a minimum wage law to protect vulnerable people from scoundrels, of which there are many, especially of the Republican persuasion.



Bbonez said:


> That statistic is just people making exactly 7.25, it's people making 7.25 or less.


Like I said, any little bit more than 7.25 is not counted in your numbers, and there are LOTS of people making just a hair more, invalidating your premise


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

DDW said:


> Like I said, any little bit more than 7.25 is not counted in your numbers,


They weren't my numbers and I didn't even post them here, I was just clarifying them for you since you misinterpreted them.



DDW said:


> and there are LOTS of people making just a hair more


Now you want to be vague, how many is "Lots" and how much is a "hair?"


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

bsliv said:


> Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25. That represents 1.5% of all hourly paid employees. *1.5%!*
> 
> 1979 was the first year the BLS kept detailed records. That year, 13.4% earned at or below the federal minimum wage at the time. It rose to 15.1% until dropping in 1985. *15.1%*
> 
> ...


Your numbers are wrong...skillfully worded in a way to support your viewpoint, but completely wrong and misleading...the real number of low wageworkers is in the 20 to 30 million range....

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...han-minimum-wage-but-less-than-10-10-an-hour/


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

DDW said:


> Slave market was a free market


A slave market is exactly the opposite of a free market. A free market has two or more voluntarily agreeing upon a transaction, no force involved on or by any party. This is a very basic concept. If one can't comprehend the basics, the more complex ideas are probably beyond comprehension.



DDW said:


> Your numbers are wrong


My numbers are not wrong. They are accurate. Again, basics ...



DDW said:


> Your numbers are wrong


My numbers are not wrong. They are accurate. Again, basics ...


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

bsliv said:


> A slave market is exactly the opposite of a free market. A free market has two or more voluntarily agreeing upon a transaction, no force involved on or by any party. This is a very basic concept. If one can't comprehend the basics, the more complex ideas are probably beyond comprehension.
> 
> 
> My numbers are not wrong. They are accurate. Again, basics ...
> ...


The slave seller and owners engage in a free market....the workers (slaves) just get F'ed .... pretty much like min wage businesses moving around workers from one to another....because they all price fix at min wage, creating collusion, workers have no choices of wage....

If there was a true free market, hardly anyone would be paying min wage because there would aways Bids at all different price levels. Min wage bizs price fix wages at min wage, just like slave's wages were price fixed at zero.

And yes, your numbers ARE WRONG....I see you are using Republican tactics of deny and lie to debate....


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

DDW said:


> The slave seller and owners engage in a free market....the workers (slaves) just get F'ed .... pretty much like min wage businesses moving around workers from one to another....because they all price fix at min wage, creating collusion, workers have no choices of wage


Again, free markets don't use force. Everyone involved in a free market transaction is there voluntarily and expect to benefit from the trade. Employees have freedom to work or not. Slaves have no options. Slaves are forced to work. Force cannot be used in the US, except by the government. Government is the one to fear. Government can force you to pay money to them. Government can force you to end your freedom. Government can force you to lose your life. All legally. An individual or private business cannot force anyone to do anything. Get it straight.

It seems your are asking for force. I'm asking for freedom. Economic freedom encourages political and personal freedom. Force begets more force. Force someone to pay a certain price for a certain product and they don't comply, someone with guns will exert forced upon the non-compliant.



DDW said:


> If there was a true free market, hardly anyone would be paying min wage because there would aways Bids at all different price levels. Min wage bizs price fix wages at min wage, just like slave's wages were price fixed at zero.


If there was a free market, there would be no force involved. The government would not force an employer to pay a minimum wage.



DDW said:


> And yes, your numbers ARE WRONG


My number came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Congressional Budget Office. Which are wrong?



DDW said:


> I see you are using Republican tactics of deny and lie to debate


If a candidate in the most recent election had a D or an R next to their name, they didn't get my vote. Partisan politics is wrong. The fact that congress votes as their party suggests is not the way it should be. By the way you mention Republicans, I think you may be the type that believes D's are always right and R's are always wrong. If so, you are very wrong.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

DDW said:


> The slave seller and owners engage in a free market....the workers (slaves) just get F'ed .... pretty much like min wage businesses moving around workers from one to another....because they all price fix at min wage, creating collusion, workers have no choices of wage....
> 
> If there was a true free market, hardly anyone would be paying min wage because there would aways Bids at all different price levels. Min wage bizs price fix wages at min wage, just like slave's wages were price fixed at zero.


Hmm, I actually have a hard time finding jobs that pay only minimum wage. The only jobs I can easily find that are advertised at the federal minimum wage are tipped jobs like waitress. All the warehouse jobs start at around $14/hr. Local factory jobs start at $17/hr. Food services jobs start at least $1 over minimum wage and are usually $2 over. My first job paid me $9.50 an hour, $2.25 more than minimum wage... and that was nearly 10 years ago. It was an entry level phone job at a hotel. I have heard they are hiring at over $12/hr now for most of the basic jobs at the hotel/casino.

Far from businesses creating collusion to fix prices for labor at minimum wage, it actually seems that almost nobody actually pays anyone as low as the minimum wage. I worked a job that paid $25/hr. Despite my college degree, I worked alongside people with the exact same job title who held a prestigious GED as their highest level of education. No one is colluding to fix prices for labor. Labor is priced at a wide variety of prices in my local area. Labor is in fact bid on. I was offered a job back at an old company I worked. I refused it. They offered a higher amount each time, and I still refused it each time. Yes, I turned down offers of over $30/hr even though right now I make $12.50/hr at one job, $13.50 at a second job, and somewhere around $10-20/hr driving for Uber. Why? Because I'm doing work I want to do in a place I want to live, instead of moving to a place I don't like, to do work that doesn't really interest me. The cost of living is also lower in my area, so actually I'm probably literally able to save more money making $13.50 an hour where I currently live than moving to a city to make $30/hr where rent is sky high.

I am opposed to minimum wage being $15/hr. If I can make it while working the jobs I do, I expect others to figure out how to do it too. If it is a cost of living difference that makes it impossible for you to survive on $12.50/hr, why not pass a local law instead of imposing a federal law?

I personally never buy a double pump super frappe. Unfortunately I am convinced that people today feel entitled to at least two a day to not be considered in poverty.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

bsliv said:


> Again, free markets don't use force. Everyone involved in a free market transaction is there voluntarily and expect to benefit from the trade. Employees have freedom to work or not. Slaves have no options. Slaves are forced to work. Force cannot be used in the US, except by the government. Government is the one to fear. Government can force you to pay money to them. Government can force you to end your freedom. Government can force you to lose your life. All legally. An individual or private business cannot force anyone to do anything. Get it straight.
> 
> It seems your are asking for force. I'm asking for freedom. Economic freedom encourages political and personal freedom. Force begets more force. Force someone to pay a certain price for a certain product and they don't comply, someone with guns will exert forced upon the non-compliant.
> 
> ...


When I say your numbers are wrong, I am referring in the context of low wage employees, not just ones making exactly min wage on the penny. Your saying there are only 1.5 million mon wage workers is a gross misrepresentation of the low wage group of 25 million. Same hoes gor your 1.5% comment.

You know exactly what I am talking about and you just cherry picked the published numbers that would support your narrative. Your narrative makes no sense when you look at the numbers within the full context low low wage workers.

If you wanted to actually give a meaningful statement you could have looked at all the people making less that 15 an hour to decide what percentage of people would be helped by a 15 min wage.....far far far different than your bogus 1.5% narrative justification statistics



Trafficat said:


> Hmm, I actually have a hard time finding jobs that pay only minimum wage. The only jobs I can easily find that are advertised at the federal minimum wage are tipped jobs like waitress. All the warehouse jobs start at around $14/hr. Local factory jobs start at $17/hr. Food services jobs start at least $1 over minimum wage and are usually $2 over. My first job paid me $9.50 an hour, $2.25 more than minimum wage... and that was nearly 10 years ago. It was an entry level phone job at a hotel. I have heard they are hiring at over $12/hr now for most of the basic jobs at the hotel/casino.
> 
> Far from businesses creating collusion to fix prices for labor at minimum wage, it actually seems that almost nobody actually pays anyone as low as the minimum wage. I worked a job that paid $25/hr. Despite my college degree, I worked alongside people with the exact same job title who held a prestigious GED as their highest level of education. No one is colluding to fix prices for labor. Labor is priced at a wide variety of prices in my local area. Labor is in fact bid on. I was offered a job back at an old company I worked. I refused it. They offered a higher amount each time, and I still refused it each time. Yes, I turned down offers of over $30/hr even though right now I make $12.50/hr at one job, $13.50 at a second job, and somewhere around $10-20/hr driving for Uber. Why? Because I'm doing work I want to do in a place I want to live, instead of moving to a place I don't like, to do work that doesn't really interest me. The cost of living is also lower in my area, so actually I'm probably literally able to save more money making $13.50 an hour where I currently live than moving to a city to make $30/hr where rent is sky high.
> 
> ...


Want to find min wage jobs....just check out the hospitality sector, or whole states in the south....


----------



## GarryDRT (Feb 9, 2021)

amazinghl said:


> Let me highlight it for you.
> 
> It's not about being cheap. It's about teaching the children the value of money, how to use money, how to save money, the ethics of working, and so much more. If every children learn these skills at 16, there would be no student debt crisis.


They surely are amazing parents. Sadly, not many parents are like that. God knows what percentage.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

DDW said:


> When I say your numbers are wrong, I am referring in the context of low wage employees


So my numbers are correct, they just don't fit your narrative. Provide your own analysis using a credible source.


DDW said:


> Same hoes gor your 1.5% comment.


My 1.5% is in concert with my 15.1% number. I'm comparing apples to apples.


DDW said:


> Your narrative makes no sense when you look at the numbers within the full context low low wage workers.


Why use $15? Why not $20? Why not $25? They're just arbitrary numbers someone pulled out from you know where. I used the minimum wage. No one can say exactly where the cutoff should be that classifies one as a low wage employee.

The minimum wage was started under questionable circumstances in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. Less than 40% of hourly wage workers were subject to the mandated minimum. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to $4.64. But today, 85% of employees are covered by the mandate.



DDW said:


> If you wanted to actually give a meaningful statement you could have looked at all the people making less that 15 an hour to decide what percentage of people would be helped by a 15 min wage.....far far far different than your bogus 1.5% narrative justification statistics


Not everyone making under $15 will benefit if the mandate is raised to $15. A large number will be unemployed. A person making double the minimum is Alabama will not make double the minimum with the increased mandated minimum, unless you think they will get a raise from $14.50 to $30. The significant increase in cost will not only put many out of work, but increase the price of goods and services, particularly at places where low income workers shop. Increasing the minimum wage provides a short term increase in income to some while removing income from others and driving up prices for all. The poor pay the price to increase the wage for the poor.

The people that will receive the most benefit from an increase will be politicians representing low information voters. There are better ways to reduce poverty among the working poor.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Why use $15? Why not $20? Why not $25?


I like your thinking.

Forget $15, lets make it $25.


bsliv said:


> The minimum wage was started under questionable circumstances in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to $4.64.


And ten years later, it was tripled, to .75 the equivalent today of $13.92.


bsliv said:


> Not everyone making under $15 will benefit if the mandate is raised to $15. A large number will be unemployed.


Yea, you already said that, 1.1 million, you left out the 20-30 million it will benefit.


bsliv said:


> The poor pay the price to increase the wage for the poor.


There you go again, you must really love the poor but guess what, they already pay the price.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Forget $15, lets make it $25.


Heck, let's go to $250. Any idea what would happen?



observer said:


> And ten years later, it was tripled, to .75 the equivalent today of $13.92.


The barn door was already opened. And it was in 1950, 12 years after first instituted and adjusted for inflation that was $7.63.
https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1950?endYear=2017&amount=0.75
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart



observer said:


> Yea, you already said that, 1.1 million, you left out the 20-30 million it will benefit.


Check your stats. 1.4 million unemployed and 0.9 million lifted out of poverty. My source is the Congressional Budget Office. What's your source?



observer said:


> There you go again, you must really love the poor but guess what, they already pay the price.


The lower 50% of wage earners pay 3% of the federal income tax. If the federal government subsidized low income earners, 97% of the subsidy would be paid by the top 50% of wage earners. If the minimum wage was eliminated, more jobs would be created. The cost of living would be reduced. The US would be more competitive in foreign markets. Businesses would not close due to increasing costs. Think about that alternative to more unemployment, higher cost of living, closing businesses, and reduced competitiveness.

Do you want to save money for the upper 50% of wage earners and lose jobs for the least skilled?

Socialism manipulates the means of production. Welfare attempts to help the needy. The two are not the same.

Check how the Earned Income Tax Credit works. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-earned-income-tax-credit
Another idea floated by a Democratic candidate for president was a basic income for all.
Another idea used by other countries is a guaranteed minimum income. 
Raising the minimum wage, while have some positive effects for some poor, has too many negative effects as compared to these alternatives.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Heck, let's go to $250. Any idea what would happen?


Now, you're getting outrageous. I'm fine with 15-25.


bsliv said:


> The barn door was already opened. And it was in 1950, 12 years after first instituted and adjusted for inflation that was $7.63.
> https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1950?endYear=2017&amount=0.75
> https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart


How could .25 equal 4.64 and .75 equal 7.63?

Twenty five cents equals 4.64 according to you.

"The minimum wage was started under questionable circumstances in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. Adjusted for inflation, that comes to $4.64."

Those are your numbers.


bsliv said:


> Check your stats. 1.4 million unemployed and 0.9 million lifted out of poverty. My source is the Congressional Budget Office. What's your source?


My stats are your stats.

"Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25."

Again, your numbers.

What about the amount of people making between 7.25 (the current Federal Minimum Wage) and 15.00 (the proposed Federal Minimum Wage?)

How many would benefit?


bsliv said:


> Check how the Earned Income Tax Credit works. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-earned-income-tax-credit
> Another idea floated by a Democratic candidate for president was a basic income for all.


So, you're saying we need UBI instead of increasing minimum wage?

How much will that cost?

Who will pay for it?

Taxpayers.

Again.


bsliv said:


> Another idea used by other countries is a guaranteed minimum income.


Increasing minimum wage IS a guaranteed minimum income.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> How could .25 equal 4.64 and .75 equal 7.63?






















Using 2021 instead of 2017 would lead to $0.75 in 1950 to be $8.14. $0.25 in 1938 would be $4.64. That fact that you question this makes me wonder about your math ability. But that's OK, we all make mistakes. The principle is more important than the exact
number, in this case.

Be aware of the thinking in 1938. Most believed the US Constitution had meaning. FDR changed that. Since then, every one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights has been violated. Neither political party is blameless.



observer said:


> Now, you're getting outrageous. I'm fine with 15-25.


Explain to me the effect of increasing it to $250. Hint: the effects are the same as increasing it to $15, just to a different degree. The laws of economics applies to all wage levels, from $0 per hour to $1 trillion per hour.



observer said:


> My stats are your stats.


1.1 million does not equal 1.4 million.



observer said:


> What about the amount of people making between 7.25 (the current Federal Minimum Wage) and 15.00 (the proposed Federal Minimum Wage?)
> 
> How many would benefit?


You tell me. I can't find a reliable source of those numbers. Then, for comparison purposes, find the same number for 1979, the first year the BLS began tracking minimum wage numbers.



observer said:


> So, you're saying we need UBI instead of increasing minimum wage?


I'm not saying we need anything. I'm saying an UBI would be preferable to a huge hike in the mandated minimum wage. I believe the best option among those discussed would be modifying the EITC. Then a guaranteed minimum. Then a UBI. Then a minimum wage hike. They all have positives and negatives. But they are not equal.



observer said:


> How much will that cost?


It will cost a lot. But its cheaper than a minimum wage hike, especially for the low wage earner.



observer said:


> Who will pay for it?


97% of it would be paid by the top 50% of wage earners, as I explained earlier.



observer said:


> Increasing minimum wage IS a guaranteed minimum income.


No it is not. Do a search for a guaranteed minimum.

Do a search of a EITC.

There is no free lunch. The cost to raise the income of a sector of the economy will be paid by someone. Under a minimum wage increase, the brunt of the cost will be paid by the poor. Under the three alternatives I've proposed, 97% of the cost will be paid by the upper half of the income earners. BIG difference, especially to the poor.

By the way, the federal poverty level for 2021 for a single adult is $12,880. Working full time, that's $6.19 per hour. So, $7.25 is 15% above poverty level, despite what the current president says.

Let me guess, you're in the upper 50% of the income bracket and you don't want to pay to help the poor. Do you think the poor should help themselves by pooling their money and dividing it, unequally, among themselves?

Why do you think Bernie Sanders hasn't quoted the Congressional Budget office report of the minimum wage increase. The sole job of the CBO is to inform congress of budgetary issues. Is he being disingenious? Do you think he's more skilled at getting votes or economic issues?


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

bsliv said:


> The lower 50% of wage earners pay 3% of the federal income tax. If the federal government subsidized low income earners, 97% of the subsidy would be paid by the top 50% of wage earners. If the minimum wage was eliminated, more jobs would be created. The cost of living would be reduced. The US would be more competitive in foreign markets. Businesses would not close due to increasing costs. Think about that alternative to more unemployment, higher cost of living, closing businesses, and reduced competitiveness.
> 
> Do you want to save money for the upper 50% of wage earners and lose jobs for the least skilled?
> 
> ...


OK, how's this? We make the minimum wage a round $7.50/hr, and give everyone $15K/yr in Guaranteed Income. See how it easy it is to give folks a livable wage AND keep the minimum wage low? :biggrin:


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> OK, how's this? We make the minimum wage a round $7.50/hr, and give everyone $15K/yr in Guaranteed Income. See how it easy it is to give folks a livable wage AND keep the minimum wage low? :biggrin:


That would allow business to continue unhindered. $29,100 of that $15,000 would be paid by the upper 1/2 of income earners leaving $900 to be paid by the bottom 1/2 of income earners. Would the bottom 1/2 be willing to pay $900 to get $15,000? Hmmmm.

The downside is if the upper half were not willing to have their taxes increased, there would be rapid inflation and a increase in the cost of living..

Another upside is a tremendous increase, percentage wise, to the low income earner. That would increase their spending, creating greater demand for goods and services, which creates more employment to satisfy the demand. More jobs would require businesses to increase the wage paid to their employees. This may be beyond the comprehension of the typical voter, tho. Does Bernie understand this? A UBI was part Andrew Yang's platform.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Using 2021 instead of 2017 would lead to $0.75 in 1950 to be $8.14. $0.25 in 1938 would be $4.64.


Ahhh, but .75 would be the equivalent of 13.92 "TEN YEARS LATER" (like I wrote).


bsliv said:


> Be aware of the thinking in 1938. Most believed the US Constitution had meaning. FDR changed that. Since then, every one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights has been violated. Neither political party is blameless.


That was not the thinking to the five Supreme Court Justices that voted it was constitutional.


bsliv said:


> Explain to me the effect of increasing it to $250.


You ask a question and then answer your own question.


bsliv said:


> Hint: the effects are the same as increasing it to $15, just _*to a different degree.*_


A 15 dollar wage would have less of an effect than your proposed 250 dollar per hour.



bsliv said:


> I'm not saying we need anything. I'm saying an UBI would be preferable to a huge hike in the mandated minimum wage.


A UBI would be way more expensive because it would be UNIVERSAL, everyone would get it not just low wage workers.

All 330 million Americans would get UBI.


bsliv said:


> It will cost a lot. But its cheaper _*for employers *_than a minimum wage hike.





bsliv said:


> 97% of it would be paid by the top 50% of wage earners, as I explained earlier.


Do you really think the top 50% are going to pay for it?


bsliv said:


> There is no free lunch.


We already agreed on that. _*Someone*_ will pay for it. Most likely taxpayers.


bsliv said:


> Under a minimum wage increase, the brunt of the cost will be paid by _*employers.*_


Not taxpayers.


bsliv said:


> Under the three alternatives I've proposed, 97% of the cost will be paid by the upper half of the income earners. BIG difference, especially to the poor.


You really think the upper half will roll over and pay 97% of the cost?


bsliv said:


> By the way, the federal poverty level for 2021 for a single adult is $12,880.


Which is a disgrace.

The Federal Poverty Level is not a living wage. That won't even pay rent.



bsliv said:


> Let me guess, you're in the upper 50% of the income bracket and you don't want to pay to help the poor.


Obviously, not.


bsliv said:


> Do you think the poor should help themselves by pooling their money and dividing it, unequally, among themselves?


No, I believe employers should be paying their employees a living wage.


bsliv said:


> Why do you think Bernie Sanders hasn't quoted the Congressional Budget office report of the minimum wage increase. The sole job of the CBO is to inform congress of budgetary issues.


I don't know if he has or hasn't, he may have but this isn't just his fight.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Ahhh, but .75 would be the equivalent of 13.92 "TEN YEARS LATER" (like I wrote).


Huh? Ten years after 1938 would be 1948. $0.75 would have been worth $8.14 in 2021's dollars. But minimum wage was still $0.25 so the minimum wage in 1948 was worth $2.71 in 2021's dollars. Please explain where you get $13.92.



observer said:


> That was not the thinking to the five Supreme Court Justices that voted it was constitutional.


The court was under pressure from FDR. FDR threatened to expand the court, packing it with judges that were in FDR's pocket. If the court would have stuck to their guns, they would have lost all power in future decisions. It was a slimy move by FDR.



observer said:


> You ask a question and then answer your own question.


If increasing it to $250 is bad, any increase is bad.



observer said:


> A 15 dollar wage would have less of an effect than your proposed 250 dollar per hour.


True, the damage would be less. But there would be significant damage going to $15. I did propose going to $250, I asked you what you thought the effects would be. You still haven't answered.



observer said:


> A UBI would be way more expensive because it would be UNIVERSAL, everyone would get it not just low wage workers.
> 
> All 330 million Americans would get UBI.


It wouldn't effect the federal deficit if taxes were increased to cover the cost. Yes, it would be expensive but at the it wouldn't be paid for by low income earners.



observer said:


> Do you really think the top 50% are going to pay for it?


Do I think the top 50% of earners are paying 97% of the current federal income tax? Yes.



observer said:


> We already agreed on that. _*Someone*_ will pay for it. Most likely taxpayers.


Some one will pay for a UBI, the upper 50% of taxpayers. Some one will pay for a minimum wage, the low income earners. Which would be best for low income earners?



observer said:


> Not taxpayers.


Low income employees. I made a typo when I spelled employers. Employers will pass the cost along in the form of reduced jobs and higher prices.



observer said:


> You really think the upper half will roll over and pay 97% of the cost?


They're doing it now.



observer said:


> Which is a disgrace.
> 
> The Federal Poverty Level is not a living wage. That won't even pay rent.


It depends. I'm living on less than that right now due to being 100% permanently disabled. It can be done. Maybe you can't do it. Maybe no Californian's can do it. I've done it for a year now. I rent a house, not an apartment. I pay all utilities. I pay all my bills. I live alone. In the 1980's I had 3 roommates to cover costs. It could be done then too. Can I have beachfront property? No. Can I east steak every day? No. But it could and can be done. You can't say otherwise.



observer said:


> Obviously, not.


Then why do you insist the poor pay for a wage increase for the poor?



observer said:


> No, I believe employers should be paying their employees a living wage.


I believe the Cubs will win the World Series. So? Who decides what a living wage is? Is the cost of living the same all over this country? The higher the minimum wage, the higher the unemployment. The higher the minimum wage, the higher costs become. The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive to ship jobs to less costly markets. The opposite is also true. The lower the minimum wage, the lower the unemployment. The lower the minimum wage, the lower costs become. The lower the minimum wage, the less jobs will be shipped overseas or down south.



observer said:


> I don't know if he has or hasn't, he may have but this isn't just his fight.


It is his fight. He's the most vocal politician calling for it. He's the one that tried to add the amendment to the Covid Bill. He's the one trying to change Senate rules to get the Senate to vote on the wage increase. He's a life long politician through and through. Talk about disgusting.

I don't think a $15,000 UBI is a good idea but its better than stifling the economy with a huge cost of doing business, increasing unemployment, and increasing the federal deficit. I'm more of a fan of the earned income tax credit. The EITC encourages people to work. A family of 4 making above poverty levels can get nearly $6000 of cash, free and clear. Unfortunately, a single adult can only get about $500. The current EITC needs modifying. A guaranteed minimum wage is related to the EITC. All three of these alternatives are 97% paid by the upper 50% of wage earners.

It seems cruel to have low income workers pay for their wage increase. If the goal is to lift the most out of poverty, a higher minimum wage is a bad idea.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

observer said:


> Now, you're getting outrageous. I'm fine with 15-25.
> 
> How could .25 equal 4.64 and .75 equal 7.63?
> 
> ...


No, because you have to work to min wage but not to get UBI


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


NOT true. 54% of minimum wage workers are over the age of 25.



deycallmeyukmouf said:


> no one says it should, it should cover a 1 bedroom and a car though....
> 
> $2000 Minimum wage - $1918 ($1468 average rent + $450 transportation)
> $2.71 x 30 = $82 per month profit from working 40 hours per week.
> ...


NOT a one bedroom and a car. A studio apt and bus fare and enough for basics plus save a little.


----------



## Cdub2k (Nov 22, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> NOT true. 54% of minimum wage workers are over the age of 25.
> 
> 
> NOT a one bedroom and a car. A studio apt and bus fare and enough for basics plus save a little.


I'm talking about 20-30 years ago not now.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> NOT true. 54% of minimum wage workers are over the age of 25.


Got a source?

I got one, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, published February 2021, "*Age.* Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented just under one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up 48 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm#table-1

The BLS also said on the same page, "workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.5 percent of all hourly paid workers." That means 1% of 1.5% of the workforce are over 25 and earning at or below the federal minimum wage. That is a very small segment of the wage earning population.

Who would experience the most negative affects of raising the minimum wage? Low wage earners. How? 1.4 million jobs lost according the the Congressional Budget Office and increased prices at businesses that use low wage employees. Who is least affected by a minimum wage increase? High wage earners. People making big bucks don't care if prices go up at Walmart and McDonalds while people scraping to get by have to do with less buying power at these places.

Raising the minimum wage get votes for politicians and has a short term gain for a portion of low income earners. But there are negatives which wipe out many of the gains for the low income earners. Then there is the welfare cliff. Low income earners can get food stamps, aid to dependent children, housing and utility subsidies, etc. Was their wage and these benefits disappear. Ending welfare is good for the upper 50% of income earners because they pay 97% of the taxes that fund these welfare programs.

On the other hand, the Earned Income Tax Credit encourages work employment, doesn't penalize low income earners, and keeps businesses thriving.

The question boils down to who should fund lifting low income workers out of poverty, the poor or the rich?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The question boils down to who should fund lifting low income workers out of poverty, the poor or the rich?


There is no question.

Employers should pay.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> There is no question.
> 
> Employers should pay.


Maybe you should be a politician. Saying, "employers should pay," is easy and would get you votes. Unfortunately, business doesn't work like that.

Labor is a cost to do business just like any other cost. The cost of labor isn't special, it is not exempt from basic principles. Employers may write a bigger check of the labor but they won't eat that higher cost for more then a short period of time.

For example, if there is a world wide coffee shortage and the price of coffee beans doubles, Folgers will pay more for the beans. But will they eat that cost? No, they will raise their prices. In this case, its the consumer that will pay for the coffee shortage. A side effect will be a reduction in the amount of coffee purchased by the consumer due to the higher prices. So, the result is higher prices to the coffee consumer and fewer employed in the coffee industry.

Increased cost to do business are borne by the consumer. Again, the question is which consumers are to pay for the cost?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Labor is a cost to do business just like any other cost.


Exactly.


bsliv said:


> The cost of labor isn't special, it is not exempt from basic principles.


Exactly.


bsliv said:


> Employers may write a bigger check of the labor but they won't eat that higher cost for more then a short period of time.


They should.


bsliv said:


> For example, if there is a world wide coffee shortage and the price of coffee beans doubles, Folgers will pay more for the beans. But will they eat that cost? No, they will raise their prices. In this case, its the consumer that will pay for the coffee shortage. A side effect will be a reduction in the amount of coffee purchased by the consumer due to the higher prices. So, the result is higher prices to the coffee consumer and fewer employed in the coffee industry.


Come on, that again.

If an employer has to let people go, THEY HAD TOO MANY EMPLOYEES TO BEGIN WITH, not yelling just emphasizing.


bsliv said:


> Increased cost to do business are borne by the consumer. Again, the question is which consumers are to pay for the cost?


Consumers already pay the cost with our taxes.

I write two sentences and you answer with a book. Most of it having nothing to do with my two sentences.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> ...


I tried to make you understand that although the employer MAY write a bigger check, they don't pay the cost of a higher minimum wage. Low wage earners pay the cost of a higher minimum wage.

Just like a politician, when faced with facts that don't fit their narrative, they ignore the facts.

Raising the minimum wage will bring 0.9 million out of poverty at the cost of 1.4 million jobs and higher prices.

Jobs are lost because prices to the consumer go up. Higher prices equals less demand. Less demand means fewer jobs. That's one source of lost jobs. Another way jobs are lost are by the use of technology, that's a euphemism for automation. A third source of lost jobs are shipping them to less costly markets (down south or overseas). These are facts that should not be ignored.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

bsliv said:


> I tried to make you understand that although the employer MAY write a bigger check, they don't pay the cost of a higher minimum wage. Low wage earners pay the cost of a higher minimum wage.
> 
> Just like a politician, when faced with facts that don't fit their narrative, they ignore the facts.
> 
> ...


Understand this: You are wrong as wrong can be.

So if rich prople shouldn't have to pay higher costs for goods and services
because minimum wage went up, then why should minimum wage workers have to keep paying higher and higher costs for stuff purchased from rich prople that are getting raises and causing THEIR goods and services to cost more?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The is NO DEFENSE for a person subscribing to a system that screws the poor so the rich can still get stuff cheap while they make more and more money.

ANY person that subscribed to this unfair system and tries to justify it is a HORRIBLE PERSON and a detriment to humanity.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I tried to make you understand that although the employer MAY write a bigger check, they don't pay the cost of a higher minimum wage. Low wage earners pay the cost of a higher minimum wage.


Yea, you've already mentioned how you love low wage earners enough that you don't want them to be unemployed.

You fail to mention the millions of those that will get a raise.


bsliv said:


> Just like a politician, when faced with facts that don't fit their narrative, they ignore the facts.


Fact is, you keep mentioning the FEDERAL minimum wage when you know that the majority of states have a higher minimum wage.

You love painting up your bananas to look like oranges. They are not oranges.


bsliv said:


> Raising the minimum wage will bring 0.9 million out of poverty at the cost of 1.4 million jobs and higher prices.


So, we are talking about 500k jobs?. What about the millions that would go from 7.25 an hour to 15 an hour?

Automated jobs are coming wether minimum wage goes up, down or sideways, wether we like it or not.

It's just a matter of time.

You have been touting how great the EITC is, who pays for that?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

DDW said:


> Understand this: You are wrong as wrong can be.


Understand this. My numbers are supported by very good sources. You have nothing to share except your feelings.



DDW said:


> So if rich prople shouldn't have to pay higher costs for goods and services


Huh? A cost of living increase is felt less by the wealthy and more by the poor.



DDW said:


> What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


You don't make sense.



DDW said:


> ANY person that subscribed to this unfair system and tries to justify it is a HORRIBLE PERSON and a detriment to humanity.


You are suggesting the poor pay for a pay raise for the poor. I'm saying there are ways to have the wealthy pay for a pay raise for the poor. Understand?



observer said:


> Yea, you've already mentioned how you love low wage earners enough that you don't want them to be unemployed.


Where did I say I don't want people employed? If there were no employees there would be no USA as we know it. Don't make stuff up, it hurts your credibility.



observer said:


> You fail to mention the millions of those that will get a raise.


I repeatedly mentioned 0.9 million would be lifted out of poverty. I didn't make up that number. Where did you get yours?



observer said:


> Fact is, you keep mentioning the FEDERAL minimum wage when you know that the majority of states have a higher minimum wage.


We are talking about a FEDERAL minimum wage being raised to $15. Of course I'm sticking to the topic. I've repeatedly said if there is to be a minimum wage its best legislated at the local or state level. What's good for New York is not necessarily good for Mississippi.



observer said:


> So, we are talking about 500k jobs?.


No, we are talking about losing 1.4 million jobs. 0.9 million would be lifted above the poverty line. These are not new jobs, they retained their job. Many lifted out of poverty were making above minimum wage.



observer said:


> What about the millions that would go from 7.25 an hour to 15 an hour?


What about them? They will benefit at the cost of a higher cost of living and others that lose their jobs.

If helping the poor is the goal, there are better ways. Is the earned income tax credit too complicated? As it stands now, the EITC will give the poor up to $6000 per year if they earn between certain amounts. That number can and should be modified and expanded to cover more people. It would not hurt jobs. It would not substantially increase the cost of living. It would not accelerate the move to automation. It would not drive jobs overseas. It would be paid for by federal income tax payers. The upper 50% of taxpayers (the wealthy) pay 97% of federal income tax.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Understand this. My numbers are supported by very good sources. You have nothing to share except your feelings.
> 
> Huh? A cost of living increase is felt less by the wealthy and more by the poor.
> 
> ...


So, again, you are shifting the burden to TAXPAYERS instead of employers.

There are 25 MILLION people that claim the EITC each year to the tune of 60 some billion dollars. Plus another 12.5 MILLION that don't claim it but could.

All taxpayers that pay taxes wind up paying more for those that get the credit, wether you're part of the 97% or 3%.

You pay more taxes.

And you want to INCREASE that tax credit?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor...5 million eligible,workers do not claim EITC.
And no a FEDERAL minimum wage means it applies to ALL states equally, again the cost of living has zero to do with the FEDERAL minimum wage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Employers should pay.


should the employers eat the cost increase?

And what to do with consumers who whine, cry, have many tears when costs of 'stuff' goes up to pay for it?

Hum. Problem, meet details.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> should the employers eat the cost increase?
> 
> And what to do with consumers who whine, cry, have many tears when costs of 'stuff' goes up to pay for it?
> 
> Hum. Problem, meet details.


That's the debate.

Should employers pay more so their employees don't have to recieve more help from taxpayers?

Should taxpayers keep paying more and more taxes to support those on FEDERAL minimum wage?

Do you like your FEDERAL tax dollars going to support states that only have a FEDERAL minimum wage?

Of $7.25?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Should employers pay more so their employees don't have to recieve more help from taxpayers?


the debate is if they do, and then raise their prices to pay for it and then consumers whine, cry and generally act in a snowflake way, then what?

Keep going back to who is actually on minimum wage and for how long. A statically small group, yes? (rhetorical I already posted the stats)

So regardless the 'consumer' will pay for it either way. Higher prices, higher taxes. Once again the middle class is screwed both (all) ways.

I, for one, am glad it was removed from the 'bill'. do a standalone and force congress to vote on it.



observer said:


> Do you like your FEDERAL tax dollars going to support states that only have a FEDERAL minimum wage?


um, er, ah, ahem: I live in Calif. Calif is a net PAYER of taxes to the Federal gov. That answer your question?

Plus, you missed it, we pay either way. Via price increases, or tax increases. There is no 3rd option.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Got a source?
> 
> I got one, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, published February 2021, "*Age.* Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented just under one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up 48 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."
> 
> ...


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> So, again, you are shifting the burden to TAXPAYERS instead of employers.


No, I'm shifting the cost from low income earners to high income earners.



observer said:


> All taxpayers that pay taxes wind up paying more for those that get the credit, wether you're part of the 97% or 3%.
> 
> You pay more taxes.
> 
> And you want to INCREASE that tax credit?


97% of federal taxes are paid by the upper 50% of earners. The upper 50% of earners cannot collect on the EITC. That means the high income earners are subsidizing the low income earners. That's not ideal but its better than the low income earners subsidizing other low income earners.



observer said:


> again the cost of living has zero to do with the FEDERAL minimum wage.


Again, you are wrong. An increase in cost will cause an increase in price. Increasing prices cause an increase in the cost of living. Its not complicated.



observer said:


> FEDERAL minimum wage means it applies to ALL states equally


Correct but doesn't affect all states equally. Parts of California won't notice a rise to $15, they're already there, it would make 0 difference. It could cause parts of Mississippi to slip further behind economically. Businesses would close. Unemployment would go higher. Do you think we should set the speed limit the same everywhere? One size does not fit all.



observer said:


> Should employers pay more


Again, employers won't eat the cost increase. Most businesses run on a thin profit margin. They will attempt to minimize their costs and/or raise their prices.

Perhaps the coffee example was beyond you. Imagine a world where Uber drivers could set their own rates. The rates would be low due to the competition. Then imagine gasoline doubling in price. Would drivers eat that cost? No, they'd have to raise their rates. Higher prices means fewer riders.

When a barrel of oil goes up, do gas stations eat the cost increase? When the cost of beef goes up, do grocery stores eat the cost increase? When the cost of labor goes up, do businesses eat the cost increase? The answer in no to all these questions.



Oscar Levant said:


> View attachment 574755


I don't give the Economic Policy Institute much consideration. They publish data to support labor unions. Unions want higher minimum wages. Unions want to collect higher dues. Follow the money. And this data appears to be dated.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is a government organization. The Congressional Budget Office is a government organization. Neither of these two organizations have anything to gain by publishing questionable results.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> um, er, ah, ahem: I live in Calif. Calif is a net PAYER of taxes to the Federal gov. That answer your question?


Yepp, I know where you live. Where WE ALREADY pay a higher minimum tax. Our taxes here offset lower wages paid in states that pay the FEDERAL minimum wage.

If those states paid a higher minimum wage THEY would pay more taxes. WE are already paying higher taxes.


SHalester said:


> Plus, you missed it, we pay either way. Via price increases, or tax increases. There is no 3rd option.


Ahhh,but the price increases would be shifted to where they belong. States that pay a lower FEDERAL minimum wage. Not us.

Our higher taxes subsidize THEIR lower FEDERAL minimum wage.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Lets take a look at the numbers. According the the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2020, there were 1.1 million workers with a wage at or below the federal minimum of $7.25. That represents 1.5% of all hourly paid employees. *1.5%!*
> 
> 1979 was the first year the BLS kept detailed records. That year, 13.4% earned at or below the federal minimum wage at the time. It rose to 15.1% until dropping in 1985. *15.1%*
> 
> ...


There's a massive hole in your stats, which are the millions of workers making $7.26, $7.50, $8.00, etc per hour.

Technically they're "above" federal minimum wage and thus don't show up in your numbers, but nevertheless they're low income and qualify for public assistance.

Depending on the state they live in, many of them would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Our higher taxes subsidize THEIR lower FEDERAL minimum wage.


didn't I already say Calif is a net payer of Fed tax? Certainly that covers a lot what you just posted. It is, what it is.

On to other states: I'm sorry, if you increase the minimum wage to the point a company will have to increase their payrolls a few things will occur: less employees (maybe) higher prices (double double fer surrre). Some egg heads will say, oh that's all ok. Is it?

Increase the GD Fed minimum wage; index it so this shit doesn't keep coming up and be done with it.

And then come up with a plan to assist those FEW who are stuck on that wage because they have NO EXPERIENCE OR NO SKILLS.

Entry level jobs are called that for a REASON.

And while we are in fantasy speculation land add college to the K-12 system and be done with that too.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> No, I'm shifting the cost from low income earners to high income earners.
> 
> 97% of federal taxes are paid by the upper 50% of earners. The upper 50% of earners cannot collect on the EITC. That means the high income earners are subsidizing the low income earners. That's not ideal but its better than the low income earners subsidizing other low income earners.
> 
> ...


Another thing you have failed to mention is that those that are raised from a 15,000 dollar yearly pay at 7.25 would go up to 30,000 yearly pay at 15 dollars per hour.

An increase of 15,000 dollars per year. The average EITC is around 3,000 per year.

Which is higher 15,000 or 3,000?

Which pays taxes in to EMPLOYEES Social Security and Medicaid?

A higher minimum wage or the EITC?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

an


observer said:


> Another thing you have failed to mention is that those that are raised from a 15,000 dollar yearly pay at 7.25 would go up to 30,000 yearly pay at 15 dollars per hour.


any person remaining the actual minimum wage for an entire year is doing something really wrong. Counting the employer in there too.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> an
> 
> any person remaining the actual minimum wage for an entire year is doing something really wrong. Counting the employer in there too.


True but that shouldn't be held against them. Not everyone has the same advantages or capabilities in life.


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

SHalester said:


> an
> 
> any person remaining the actual minimum wage for an entire year is doing something really wrong. Counting the employer in there too.


Lots of immigrants come here who are families and they have to immediately start earning to pay bills and try to set their kids up for a better future. Tbey don't have the luxury or extra time to improve themselves. Just providing for their family takes all their time and energy. They didn't have the luxury that all these entitled people on America had. It is easy for someone young and single who has their parents support to better themselves. ....and don't give that BS about those few people you know that pulled off a miracle (similar to the person that counters the smoking kills you argument that they know someone who smoked 3 pack a day and lived to 100).

Please put aside your personal bias and actually think about all the different circumstances of many different people. Anyone who makes black and white one thing fits all statements is a mentally challenged non-thinker, most likely deluding themselves into thinking they are smart.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

DDW said:


> Please put aside your personal bias


my wut? I stand by my opinion that if one is 'stuck' a bare minimum wage for an extended period of time, some is wrong with them and their employer.

Noodle that.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> OK, how's this? We make the minimum wage a round $7.50/hr, and give everyone $15K/yr in Guaranteed Income. See how it easy it is to give folks a livable wage AND keep the minimum wage low? :biggrin:


Cost of $15K/yr UBI...

$15K*320,000,000 people = $4.8 Trillion.

Annual tax revenue is less than $4 Trillion.

Would you be cool with doubling taxes? If so, we can pass a $15K UBI.

And that assumes that tax revenue actually doubles by doubling the tax rate. It would actually probably have a big effect on how much tax is collected, because as the tax rate goes up, taxable production tends to go down, meaning tax revenue is maximum at a certain point on the Laffer curve and eventually you get to a point where increasing taxes can decrease tax revenue.

Although if it only just elevated people making less than $15K up to $15K, it wouldn't be nearly as expensive... except who would work a minimum wage job ($15,600 in 40 hour weeks at $7.50/hr) if they could make $15000 by not working? No one wants to work 40 hours a week for an extra $600 per year.

The good thing about the UBI is that people are still rewarded for working, the bad thing is that it is expensive. The good thing about "guaranteed income" is that it is cheaper. (Only $200 billion (based on this https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/11/15/states-where-the-most-people-make-under-15000-2/) assuming no one quit their job to collect it, which they would in huge numbers, instead of $5 trillion). The bad thing is that it disincentives working more because the marginal return for a job is much lower. It would probably cause the bottom of the labor market to fall out.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

If the goal is to increase the income of low income workers, including independent contractors, I like the Earned Income Tax Credit concept the best. Below is a chart of how much credit is given based on the earnings and number of children. While I like the concept, I don't like the incentives for number of children and being married. As a single person with no children, my max credit would be about $500 and that's only if I earned between about $8000 and $10,000 per year.

I like how it incentivizes earnings and has a tailing slope instead of a cliff.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

bsliv said:


> for number of children


....any idea how much it costs to 'raise' a child 0 - 18yrs old? Hum.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

SHalester said:


> ....any idea how much it costs to 'raise' a child 0 - 18yrs old? Hum.


Too much. Poor people should not have kids.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> Poor people should not have kids.


well, I sorta agree. But, there is some logic to the issue. No job, poor & bored and there is a willing partner.....well, nature occurs....right?


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

bsliv said:


> If the goal is to increase the income of low income workers, including independent contractors, I like the Earned Income Tax Credit concept the best. Below is a chart of how much credit is given based on the earnings and number of children. While I like the concept, I don't like the incentives for number of children and being married. As a single person with no children, my max credit would be about $500 and that's only if I earned between about $8000 and $10,000 per year.
> 
> I like how it incentivizes earnings and has a tailing slope instead of a cliff.
> 
> View attachment 575251


You know, the graphs corresponding to having children could make it in an ant's best interest to NOT write off expenses, since the extra SE income on the income up would be worth a lot more than the 15.3% SE tax - so long as he's in the 0% bracket. And heck, you could even include "cash tips" to optimize your credit. :coolio:



Trafficat said:


> There's plenty of work to be had, if you are willing to work for low wages. I personally wouldn't do most jobs when being self-employed doing almost anything you can easily make more than the lowest wage jobs if you just try.


Yes, if I offered to mow everyone's lawn in my town for free, I'd have PLENTY of work.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> Yes, if I offered to mow everyone's lawn in my town for free, I'd have PLENTY of work.


You might surprise yourself if you really tried setting up a lawn mowing service. You could probably best $15/hr without too much trouble. First service I googled charged $30/lawn for the smallest lawn they do.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

JeanOcelot0 said:


> optimize your credit


That's a fact, Jean. Although I think earning a lot and deducting enough to drop the gross into the sweet spot of the EITC would maximize the benefit to the ant. And its perfect legal (as long as the deductions are legal). Its another advantage of being self employed.

On the other hand, a minimum wage increase offers no benefit with several negatives to the typical rideshare ant. Increased unemployment to low skilled workers would swell the number of drivers. Increased prices at places that hire low wage earners would increase the cost of living to those that frequent places like Walmart, McDonalds, etc.

There are costs and unintended consequences to all legislation. Is the EITC a perfect solution to reduce poverty? No, there are a few negatives associated with it and the rates should be modified. But its the best solution suggested so far.



SHalester said:


> any idea how much it costs to 'raise' a child 0 - 18yrs old?


I have a general idea, that's a big reason I don't have any. And since I don't have any, I don't want to support and encourage those that don't have the forethought of their cost.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Trafficat said:


> You might surprise yourself if you really tried setting up a lawn mowing service. You could probably best $15/hr without too much trouble. First service I googled charged $30/lawn for the smallest lawn they do.


I made 40 bux an hour 27 years ago cutting lawns.

Like most things you have to be smart about it and maximize your time.


----------



## bethswannns (Mar 22, 2020)

I am all for min wage increase or permanent 2k monthly UBI. In the future, I think UBI is more plausible.

$15 min wage increase is not enough imo.. $25-30/hr is a livable wage.

The government should offer some kind of income match bonus.. You earn 2k, you get 2k extra from the treasury/fed. Things are expensive, they need to be dealt with..


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

bethswannns said:


> I am all for min wage increase or permanent 2k monthly UBI. In the future, I think UBI is more plausible.
> 
> $15 min wage increase is not enough imo.. $25-30/hr is a livable wage.
> 
> The government should offer some kind of income match bonus.. You earn 2k, you get 2k extra from the treasury/fed. Things are expensive, they need to be dealt with..


A $2K monthly UBI for 320 million people is nearly $8 trillion annually.
Currently the US government collects less than $4 trillion annually total in taxes.

So a $2K monthly UBI would require a minimum tripling of tax revenue. Does that seem plausible to you?


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> Too much. Poor people should not have kids.


Problem is, it works in the opposite way. Most poor/educate people have the most children.


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

Trafficat said:


> You might surprise yourself if you really tried setting up a lawn mowing service. You could probably best $15/hr without too much trouble. First service I googled charged $30/lawn for the smallest lawn they do.


This reminds of an old engineer-ant colleague of mine. He was hitting the Sunday afternoon bar scene, and he got talking to a recently divorced gal that was complaining about how with her ex gone, she's got to figure out how to keep her grass cut. So he came up with the line:


> Hey, I could mow your lawn.


 :coolio: :thumbup:


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

CNBC: Leaving a tip is an American custom. Why that's a problem.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/leaving-a-tip-is-an-american-custom-why-thats-a-problem.html


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Business Insider: A higher federal minimum wage is not sufficient. It is time for companies to share profits with workers..
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-minimum-wage-not-enough-companies-must-share-profits-2021-3


----------



## FLKeys (Dec 27, 2018)

observer said:


> Business Insider: A higher federal minimum wage is not sufficient. It is time for companies to share profits with workers..
> https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-minimum-wage-not-enough-companies-must-share-profits-2021-3


And what happens when a company loses money one year do all the employees write the company a check?

I accept a job for the pay offered. I do my job and collect my pay. I expect to be treated fairly by my employer. If I am un happy with the pay or how I am treated I move on.

This entitled way of thinking is stupid. You don't deserver anything more than what you agreed to. You don't deserve a living wage, you don't deserve profit sharing if it was not originally agreed upon or offered.

The more our government gets involved the worse things get. Mandatory insurance for full-time employees = less people working full-time. Now people are not making enough money to survive = living wage = more taxes for someone to pay = higher prices for everyone = needing more living wages = a circulating flow to hyper inflation and a never ending need for more money or socialism, which time has proven does not work.

Hopefully after we destroy this country and fall into dark times the inevitable uprising will reset us on the proper path and not make the same mistakes we made over time. We will all be long gone however I am sure the time will eventually come.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Cdub2k said:


> minimum wage jobs are meant for 16-21 year olds getting their feet wet into the workforce. It was never meant to raise a family off of.


False, look at what was actually being argued when it was implemented.
Those "16-21" jobs you think were "a thing" didn't even exist in any meaningful way (or at all in the case of 'fast food').


----------



## Cdub2k (Nov 22, 2017)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> False, look at what was actually being argued when it was implemented.
> Those "16-21" jobs you think were "a thing" didn't even exist in any meaningful way (or at all in the case of 'fast food').


back in 1984 the average salary in the US was $16,135

Minimum wage in 1984 was $3.35 an hour. Let's do some quick math $3.35 an hour x 80 Hours bi weekly x 26 pay bi-weekly pay periods = $6,968 for your yearly salary before taxes. 7K a year was poverty level. You had to work 2 of those types of jobs just to survive and people did do that or they went to school or learned a trade to get out of the "no skill" minimum wage jobs. I plucked 1984 out of thin air but every other year was the same. Min wage jobs was never enough to "earn a living".


----------

