|
Jesus Christ how does someone get by on $10 bucks an hour by themselves? I agree with the $18 to support one adult and one child but $10 bucks in my county seems pretty low.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Amergin posted:Can someone define for me, in a dollars per hour amount, what a "living wage" is? Well, let's try some math. I've been told that, in order to be financially stable, you shouldn't spend more than about a third of your money on housing. Where I'm from in Iowa, the average rent is about 500 a month. It's more in the bigger cities, but whatever. At 7.25 an hour, I'd make about 1160 a month before tax, with about 14% federal and state income tax for the lowest bracket last time I checked, that puts me at 997.60 in take home pay. So, if we assume some basic fiscal advice as a given, in order to be financially stable, as in able to actually save some money or pay off debt or whatever, I'd need to take home about 1500 a month working 40 hours, which I don't hit till about $11 an hour. Not quite double the current minimum wage in my state, which has a relatively low cost of living. Based on the cost of living calculators, I'm overshooting a little bit, but I'm also assuming a living wage means the ability to make progress towards financial stability and growth. Edit: Worth noting. I WAS able to live off of minimum wage full time. It wasn't fun, and I basically had to rely on a credit card for non-essential purchases, and that's turned into a debt issue along with student loan bullshit that basically means I'm stuck unless I get extremely lucky. It's depressing, although I'm not putting that on other folks. I just think any sane society would endeavor to have no one get into situations like mine. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Jesus Christ how does someone get by on $10 bucks an hour by themselves? I agree with the $18 to support one adult and one child but $10 bucks in my county seems pretty low. Wasn't that long ago minimum wage was $4.25. That's what I was making at my first job. Hell, I was making $7/hr after I became a manager and that was after minimum wage was raised to $5.50 or something. Service industry jobs suck and tend to be more work than white collar jobs, yet get paid as little as possible. That's why we all had roommates and noone wanted kids anytime soon. bobtheconqueror posted:Well, let's try some math. I've been told that, in order to be financially stable, you shouldn't spend more than about a third of your money on housing. Most people that say this will add that it's not supposed to be over 30% of your gross income, so federal/state taxes aren't relevant. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Jesus Christ how does someone get by on $10 bucks an hour by themselves? I agree with the $18 to support one adult and one child but $10 bucks in my county seems pretty low. Really, it depends on the location. I used to live in a place where I could live on like $600 to $700 a month. It wasn't exactly comfortable but not like impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Wasn't that long ago minimum wage was $4.25. That's what I was making at my first job. Hell, I was making $7/hr after I became a manager and that was after minimum wage was raised to $5.50 or something. Service industry jobs suck and tend to be more work than white collar jobs, yet get paid as little as possible. Oh cool, so like $10 an hour as a minimum would be pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Minorities and the disenfranchised tend to end up in service sector jobs, therefore white collar desk jobs are better due to their relative absence of said minorities and disenfranchised people. Its better to look at the rates of capital accumulation (firm ownership) than it is the demographics of employees. I know that there are good lifer jobs hiring right now, union, better than living wage, fully funded pension (has lowered retirement age recently due to too great a surplus of funds), nationalized healthcare plan, with additional 'unofficial' benefits. Lets take one type of job I'm familiar with: Railroad work. The issue HR has with hiring is that they have to have a minimum % quota of minority employees for federal funding, and not enough similarly-qualified minorities as non-minorities apply to these jobs. I am aware that a better education system is necessary in this case, and do not assign blame for a systemic failure (Carter's fault for opening the gateway to charter and re-segregated schools). With the high rate of on-job fatalities in this industry, this creates resentment among workers of other races towards minority and disenfranchised hires. It may originate as a system problem, however, I do not like hiring quotas which shift actuarial tables to increase odds of on-job death or permanent disability. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I can't believe I'm arguing with you, but it is not a stepping stone for everyone. Some people will spend years at a grill in a McDonald's or Burger King. Yeah, the thing about "stepping stones" and "bootstraps" is that it's kinda dependent on there being something to step to, some better job to bootstrap yourself to. Unfortunately,there aren't enough jobs period, never mind better jobs to move on to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:The simplest answer here is that reality doesn't work like you think it should (or does) - folks being stuck in jobs you consider "stepping stones" for a considerable period of time or even a large fraction of their careers is a thing which actually happens. Maybe it "shouldn't" happen, but it does and we need to react accordingly. But saying something "does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." This can lead to over-regulation. Sodas contribute to obesity. In some cases, having large sodas contributes to obesity. In some cases, the persistent consumption of large sodas is the main contributing factor to a person becoming obese. This doesn't mean that you should then ban large sodas because "it is a thing that happens." It reminds me of the argument in favor of banning marijuana (medical and recreational): If we legalize marijuana, the thinking is marijuana use among children will increase. Even though you need to be 21 to purchase it, adults selling marijuana to teens and children accidentally getting into their parents' edible stash is a thing that happens, but that doesn't mean you should react to it accordingly (in this case, banning marijuana outright). The idea that "poo poo happens and therefore we should provide everything in case poo poo happens" can easily lead to fraud and abuse (disability benefits), and what prevents us from simply printing enough money to give everyone $200,000 annually for doing nothing, since apparently it won't have any adverse economic effects? Because even if you give someone a living wage of $18/hr, "things can happen."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Giving people a living wage is like banning bootstraps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But saying something "does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." This can lead to over-regulation. Literally eat the rich. (This includes you)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But saying something "does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." This can lead to over-regulation. But we can tailor existing regulations, such as the minimum wage, to try and prevent people slipping through the cracks. You don't need to add regulation for that. Also, poverty is associated with a lot of other social ills, like crime and drug use and obesity due to the fattening stuff also being the cheapest, such that eliminating or reducing poverty in society is absolutely something we should do. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just fatigued from libertarian thread nonsense but when people start using phrases like quote:This can lead to over-regulation. Over regulation, in America, riiiiight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Amergin posted:
What I hate is that you're so close to the conservative fiscal answer, yet do not have the framework to epiphanize how so. It would be less expensive on the Federal to implement a guaranteed minimum income which allows individuals to purchase healthcare, food security, rent, etc. You don't need to phase out current programs. You do need to implement this program in a way which has the income disqualify individuals from benefits. E: RuanGacho posted:Over regulation, in America, riiiiight. Most over-regulation is the result of unintentional consequences. For instance, during the 70s the EPA implemented regulations to reduce water pollution and run-off, which incentivized tearing down city cores to create parking lots. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Amergin posted:But saying something "does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." This can lead to over-regulation. That's a crap argument. Let's look at that how that argument works in industry  "Does happen" doesn't necessarily lead to "and we should do something about it." therefore "This can lead to over-regulation" Flawed line of reasoning. "Does happen " should lead to "we should and can do something about it" therefore "we get good regulation that prevents crazy bullshit from happening again." maybe that's better? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Because even if you give someone a living wage of $18/hr, "things can happen." $18 x 40 hrs x 4 weeks x 12 months = $34,560 quote:and what prevents us from simply printing enough money to give everyone $200,000 annually  You gotta be willing to break out a calculator once in a while or else the troll falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:But we can tailor existing regulations, such as the minimum wage, to try and prevent people slipping through the cracks. You don't need to add regulation for that. Also, poverty is associated with a lot of other social ills, like crime and drug use and obesity due to the fattening stuff also being the cheapest, such that eliminating or reducing poverty in society is absolutely something we should do. It's incredibly difficult to tailor, reduce or specify existing regulations as every time you do so, a bunch of D&D goons throw up pictures of West Virginia saying "if you touch regulations other than to bolster/expand them, this will be the result." It's like trying to curb the costs of Medicare and being met with political ads of sad grannies on hospital beds. My Imaginary GF posted:What I hate is that you're so close to the conservative fiscal answer, yet do not have the framework to epiphanize how so. It would be less expensive on the Federal to implement a guaranteed minimum income which allows individuals to purchase healthcare, food security, rent, etc. My point is why not go for broke and make your "minimum income" $200,000 annually, "in case poo poo happens because we need to take care of all citizens for all possible circumstances." EDIT: Raskolnikov38 posted:$18 x 40 hrs x 4 weeks x 12 months = $34,560 I'm not saying the $18/hr = $200,000, I'm saying by the same logic why not guarantee everyone six figure incomes? BrandorKP posted:
In both cases you're saying "Does happen" should lead to "and therefore we should do something about it," then you simply change the last to assume we will regulate perfectly with no unintended consequences and no over-regulation. You're basically assuming a competent government here along with what I'm arguing against, "poo poo does happen sometimes therefore we should set large blanket rules to take care of it." Amergin fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Know what? gently caress playing fair. Kill the rich, take their money. It's my turn to stand on top of the pile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Isn't this a little too on the nose? Like it wouldn't be any less revealing if Perry was in diapers with a huge erection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I'm not saying the $18/hr = $200,000, I'm saying by the same logic why not guarantee everyone six figure incomes? Because there's literally an order of magnitude difference between the two?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Further adding to the need for a GMI is the fact that mechanization and globalization are reducing the needs for low-skill workers outside of the service industry. What's left is a shrinking number of low-paying, low-skill jobs that are often the only thing even skilled workers can find. Eventually, even service sector jobs will become more phased out, and that's when poo poo will really hit the fan. As soon as they automate fast food service and employment, low-skill jobs that aren't scrubbing toilets or sweeping streets will be almost non-existant. What are people living in inner cities supposed to do then? Put on their work boots for the non-existant construction jobs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I'm not saying the $18/hr = $200,000, I'm saying by the same logic why not guarantee everyone six figure incomes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's incredibly difficult to tailor, reduce or specify existing regulations as every time you do so, a bunch of D&D goons throw up pictures of West Virginia saying "if you touch regulations other than to bolster/expand them, this will be the result." Amergin regulation of heavy industry comes from: "Very Bad poo poo happened" and people died. Why do shipping containers used for explosive hazardous materials have strict selection criteria : Very Bad poo poo happened and people died. Why do hazardous materials have to be shipped marked and packaged according to 49 CFR? "Very Bad poo poo happened" and people died. When you argue that we should "touch" reduce, roll back, tailor, regulations, you ignore that "Very Bad poo poo happened" and people died so that we can free job creators and shareholders can make more money. You are arguing we should kill more people (by inaction) so we can make more money and you should have your nose rubbed in it. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:It seems like the major hurdle is ownership of the physical equipment, which in your model you're going to, what, gift to the third-party? Plus if the fundamental concern of the township board is that they won't have control over their fire services, this model gives them even less control, and leaves a lot of ways for the other municipalities to screw you (by negotiating a better contract, for instance). I'm not saying it's not a good idea, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to address the stated concerns of the other supervisors. My Imaginary GF posted:Why not start a nonprofit with the chairs of the other town boards and then vote to sub-contract a 'coordination management' role or somesuch, merging the 3 departments into a nonprofit, lowering costs, and taking the difference as a cut?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:In what loving universe do you live that $200K/year is the minimum necessary to support yourself and a family?  They just want a yacht like the Davenports next door just purchased, should they be punished for that? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
why even pay people at all? for too long useless assholes dressed up their job as 'skilled work' and that shouldn't fly anymore! The only people that should get paid are those that create companies. The rest were brought in by hard work and determination and thus aren't owed a god drat dime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Are those the homophobic assholes whose home renovation show got turned down?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Amergin posted:You're basically assuming a competent government Yes, what I see from the large sections of the CFRs (33 and 49 especially) that I interact with, ( and I'll give you that they are poorly written and hard to read) is that they are pretty reasonable and produced by a competent government appropriately reacting to disasters and considering the repercussions on industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Amergin posted:My point is why not go for broke and make your "minimum income" $200,000 annually, "in case poo poo happens because we need to take care of all citizens for all possible circumstances." I cannot rule out whether you post to troll, out of ignorance, or are purposefully dense. I will presume it is out of ignorance and address as so: $200,000 is not equal in this country. $200,000 for 2 parents, married, working in Jersey and Manhattan, with 10 children in Brooklyn, is not the same as $200,000 for a single male in Alabama with no children. It is better to set a minimum which phases out other benefit programs, as that is the only one which would have political will due to its immediate and actual cost-savings. Please, I thought this issue was addressed in lovely 'Intro to Economics' courses in highschool. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's incredibly difficult to tailor, reduce or specify existing regulations as every time you do so, a bunch of D&D goons throw up pictures of West Virginia saying "if you touch regulations other than to bolster/expand them, this will be the result." It's like trying to curb the costs of Medicare and being met with political ads of sad grannies on hospital beds. Dude, I'm literally a socialist, like crazy far out socialist that thinks that having to work for needs (food, housing, information access) is unjust in a modern society and capitalism can function solely on wants alone. That said, governing without revolution must be incremental, and while I might agree with those D&D posters ideologically, I doubt anybody is going to turn down "How about we just make businesses give their lowest employees more money." That's a step in the right direction, certainly, as it allows everyone to survive and thrive more easily, and why the hell wouldn't you want that? Amergin posted:My point is why not go for broke and make your "minimum income" $200,000 annually, "in case poo poo happens because we need to take care of all citizens for all possible circumstances." Well, you wouldn't be printing it, you'd be taking it from someone else. That's probably a bit overkill, though. We've already got entitlement programs that serve as a safety net. We just need to actually fund and support them without hating the people who need them. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:In what loving universe do you live that $200K/year is the minimum necessary to support yourself and a family? The same universe where I apparently need enough money to cover every possible bad thing that could happen to me and cost money. $18/hr might not cover that, so why not $50,000 a year? Why not double that, and double that again, just to be sure we're keeping people well-funded enough to take care of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Radish posted:
How will we possibly support ourselves and four children on a meager $453,717 income after taxes?  That's only $37,800 a month! We'll have to start buying imitation Coach bags, limit ourselves to one new BMW a year, and cancel our third trip to the AI resort in the Bahamas. The horror! That graphic makes me so loving angry. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Look I make a lot of money, but I spend a lot of money too ok?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Should we mandate that every worker earn a living wage, or should we implement a GMI, I think we can reasonably expect an increase in entrepreneurship and innovation. The drive for either is some unforeseen or unfulfilled need, but the reason to do either is the existence of customers. If the 4-5% of workers who live on minimum wage get an increase, they spend almost all of it right away and provide a measurable boost to the economy. The next highest paid 15% of the workforce could expect to work more hours or earn raises as their respective employers need to expand to serve the increased demand from low wage workers. From there it cascades upward as each tranche of workers has more disposable income to feed business expansion and entrepreneurial business creation.a shameful boehner posted:Further adding to the need for a GMI is the fact that mechanization and globalization are reducing the needs for low-skill workers outside of the service industry. What's left is a shrinking number of low-paying, low-skill jobs that are often the only thing even skilled workers can find. 1) They have had the technology and incentive to automate fast food and other such "McJobs" since the mid-90s and haven't yet done so. The fact remains that consumers want to interact with a service employee, not a touch screen. Restaurants that have tried this have very quickly removed the automated tellers. These machines remain only in places where personal contact isn't needed, such as ATMs and gas pumps. 2) Too much emphasis is placed on "the rich creating jobs". What about the family that buys a convenience store, or the retired grandmother who starts a craft business in her kitchen. What about any other entrepreneurship, like home catering? These businesses aren't started by the Koch brothers. They're started by average middle class folks using disposable income to fulfill a niche. 3) All jobs should reward the worker with enough resources to continue peddling their labor. Otherwise that job shouldn't exist to begin with and the labor should be freed up for another job. 4) Another argument for a living wage/GMI/social services is that more labor is freed for non-profit/volunteer work. Not just "volunteering" at a law firm, but, like, reading to kids and mentoring teenagers in at-risk environments. Not every activity which truly needs doing should be expected to be profitable to some already-wealthy oval office. In short, by impoverishing so many workers, we restrict the supply of beneficial activities. anonumos fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The same universe where I apparently need enough money to cover every possible bad thing that could happen to me and cost money. $18/hr might not cover that, so why not $50,000 a year? Why not double that, and double that again, just to be sure we're keeping people well-funded enough to take care of themselves. i'm just real glad your back bby i was lonely without u
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Should we mandate that every worker earn a living wage, or should we implement a GMI, I think we can reasonably expect an increase in entrepreneurship and innovation. The drive for either is some unforeseen or unfulfilled need, but the reason to do either is the existence of customers. If the 4-5% of workers who live on minimum wage get an increase, they spend almost all of it right away and provide a measurable boost to the economy. The next highest paid 15% of the workforce could expect to work more hours or earn raises as their respective employers need to expand to serve the increased demand from low wage workers. From there it cascades upward as each tranche of workers has more disposable income to feed business expansion and entrepreneurial business creation. GMI is just universal welfare, right? Like, if you make less than X, it gets bumped up or a certain flat increase? That'd be awesome but won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Should we mandate that every worker earn a living wage, or should we implement a GMI, I think we can reasonably expect an increase in entrepreneurship and innovation. The drive for either is some unforeseen or unfulfilled need, but the reason to do either is the existence of customers. If the 4-5% of workers who live on minimum wage get an increase, they spend almost all of it right away and provide a measurable boost to the economy. The next highest paid 15% of the workforce could expect to work more hours or earn raises as their respective employers need to expand to serve the increased demand from low wage workers. From there it cascades upward as each tranche of workers has more disposable income to feed business expansion and entrepreneurial business creation. But big macs will be $50 each and our burger based economy will collapse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
What are the compelling arguments behind not providing a GMI? I'm assuming the standard American trifecta of malice, ignorance and greed, but maybe I missed something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What are the compelling arguments behind not providing a GMI? The standard argument against any kind of government program is abuse and that lazy people will just sit around and sponge while hard working Americans pay for them to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What are the compelling arguments behind not providing a GMI? It's absolutely that. People think it'll be too expensive, or it'll benefit the wrong sort of people. It'll enable political participation by undesirables, as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What are the compelling arguments behind not providing a GMI? Inflation, usually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
