Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would love to see some stats on how many people enter the workforce and never get above min wage. It's gotta account for a very small percentage.
I mean come on !! You would have to be a complete dolt to stay at min wage.

And if min wage isn't enough to light a fire under your ass,you're hopeless anyway.

WOW, if they make it all the way to 9 bucks an hour, easy street is just around the corner.
And at 10 bucks an hour, well the 1%ers need to watch out. There's some new rich people in town.

I would say they were happy with their income.....or they would do something to increase it.
But thats just me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would love to see some stats on how many people enter the workforce and never get above min wage. It's gotta account for a very small percentage.
I mean come on !! You would have to be a complete dolt to stay at min wage.

And if min wage isn't enough to light a fire under your ass,you're hopeless anyway.

It something like 3%

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Thanks.
That just brings up another point. Why screw up every business in America for 3% of the population?
Because you know if the low wage workers get a raise everyone else will want one as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I would love to see some stats on how many people enter the workforce and never get above min wage. It's gotta account for a very small percentage.
I mean come on !! You would have to be a complete dolt to stay at min wage.

And if min wage isn't enough to light a fire under your ass,you're hopeless anyway.

It something like 3%

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011

Thanks.
That just brings up another point. Why screw up every business in America for 3% of the population?
Because you know if the low wage workers get a raise everyone else will want one as well.

Most of that 3% is under the age of 25 so it's safe to say they're not supporting a wife and 4 kids as well.

 

[francoHFW]

Australia was just named happiest country- their minimum wage is $15- NZ's is $13.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Australia was just named happiest country- their minimum wage is $15- NZ's is $13.

Move.

 

[DiamondDave]

Only a brain dead moron would think that a society can not grow in over 200 years and yes people starving in the streets can hinder a government, many governments have been overthrow due to such.

Only a fool thinks words don't have specific meanings...

Nobody ever said that a society does not 'grow' in whatever meaning you wish to associate to 'grow'

People starving effects the people starving.. it does not effect the running of the government between the states...

The government that have been overthrown kept taking from people while the starvation happened... the government did not get overthrown for taking less and ceasing spending on things it should not have.... it was not overthrown by taking less out of the hands of private society

I showed you, point by point, part by part, exactly what the section says.. and you just keep bobbing and weaving

There is part of the constitution that allows for growth and change.. it is the amendment process.. the very process that can add or remove a power from this federal government... there is no other way to assume or add a power, although our government has taken upon itself the ability to add whatever powers they want for the sake of power

Funny coming from a fool that thinks the word welfare had a different meaning 200 + years ago.

Welfare did not mean entitlement 200 years ago.. Welfare today also means programs or assistance on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the 'poor' individuals, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution....

And you, who cannot fathom that the clause did not end after the word welfare.. as SHOWN to you, you idiot, the punctuation leads to the list of VERY SPECIFIC POWERS the congress can actually support, spend on, etc...

 

[Foxfyre]

The weird thing is those Australians making that $15/hour are still mostly living at home with Mum and Dad, are flipping burgers, and fretting that they are in dead end jobs. Why is that do you think? Is it possible that a high minimum wage has unintended consequences that hamper the ability to move up much beyond that?

 

[noose4]

Only a fool thinks words don't have specific meanings...

Nobody ever said that a society does not 'grow' in whatever meaning you wish to associate to 'grow'

People starving effects the people starving.. it does not effect the running of the government between the states...

The government that have been overthrown kept taking from people while the starvation happened... the government did not get overthrown for taking less and ceasing spending on things it should not have.... it was not overthrown by taking less out of the hands of private society

I showed you, point by point, part by part, exactly what the section says.. and you just keep bobbing and weaving

There is part of the constitution that allows for growth and change.. it is the amendment process.. the very process that can add or remove a power from this federal government... there is no other way to assume or add a power, although our government has taken upon itself the ability to add whatever powers they want for the sake of power

Funny coming from a fool that thinks the word welfare had a different meaning 200 + years ago.

Welfare did not mean entitlement 200 years ago.. Welfare today also means programs or assistance on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the 'poor' individuals, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution....

And you, who cannot fathom that the clause did not end after the word welfare.. as SHOWN to you, you idiot, the punctuation leads to the list of VERY SPECIFIC POWERS the congress can actually support, spend on, etc...

Welfare does not mean entitlement now, imbecile.

 

[DiamondDave]

Funny coming from a fool that thinks the word welfare had a different meaning 200 + years ago.

Welfare did not mean entitlement 200 years ago.. Welfare today also means programs or assistance on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the 'poor' individuals, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution....

And you, who cannot fathom that the clause did not end after the word welfare.. as SHOWN to you, you idiot, the punctuation leads to the list of VERY SPECIFIC POWERS the congress can actually support, spend on, etc...

Welfare does not mean entitlement now, imbecile.

Good.. then we can get rid of entitlements in the federal government since welfare does not mean entitlement... and you should have no objection

 

[TemplarKormac]

The weird thing is those Australians making that $15/hour are still mostly living at home with Mum and Dad, are flipping burgers, and fretting that they are in dead end jobs. Why is that do you think? Is it possible that a high minimum wage has unintended consequences that hamper the ability to move up much beyond that?

No matter how high the minimum wage goes, there will always be folks who contend that it is never enough. People complain that they aren't making it in this world, and complain about those who are, and they would rather not succeed, but be rewarded for mediocrity.

 

[JRK]

Funny coming from a fool that thinks the word welfare had a different meaning 200 + years ago.

Welfare did not mean entitlement 200 years ago.. Welfare today also means programs or assistance on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the 'poor' individuals, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution....

And you, who cannot fathom that the clause did not end after the word welfare.. as SHOWN to you, you idiot, the punctuation leads to the list of VERY SPECIFIC POWERS the congress can actually support, spend on, etc...

Welfare does not mean entitlement now, imbecile.

really?
and exactly what does it mean?

 

[JRK]

The weird thing is those Australians making that $15/hour are still mostly living at home with Mum and Dad, are flipping burgers, and fretting that they are in dead end jobs. Why is that do you think? Is it possible that a high minimum wage has unintended consequences that hamper the ability to move up much beyond that?

No matter how high the minimum wage goes, there will always be folks who contend that it is never enough. People complain that they aren't making it in this world, and complain about those who are, and they would rather not succeed, but be rewarded for mediocrity.

I agree
but at the end of the day by having a minimum wage of about 14.00 an hour eliminates abot 50% on the "poverty list"
Federal Poverty Guidelines
I keep stating the same
we the consumer or we the tax payer are paying for both
we the people would get far more from the consumer side

 

[DiamondDave]

The weird thing is those Australians making that $15/hour are still mostly living at home with Mum and Dad, are flipping burgers, and fretting that they are in dead end jobs. Why is that do you think? Is it possible that a high minimum wage has unintended consequences that hamper the ability to move up much beyond that?

No matter how high the minimum wage goes, there will always be folks who contend that it is never enough. People complain that they aren't making it in this world, and complain about those who are, and they would rather not succeed, but be rewarded for mediocrity.

I agree
but at the end of the day by having a minimum wage of about 14.00 an hour eliminates abot 50% on the "poverty list"
Federal Poverty Guidelines
I keep stating the same
we the consumer or we the tax payer are paying for both
we the people would get far more from the consumer side

Prices, COL, etc will not stay the same with a higher minimum wage.. you expect current 14 an hour managers of restaurants to only make the same as the burger flipping unskilled workers?? The scale only shifts.. and those in poverty will still be in poverty with more money that is able to buy less

Nothing more than the Die Hard II scenario of raising sea level for the planes...

 

[Foxfyre]

The weird thing is those Australians making that $15/hour are still mostly living at home with Mum and Dad, are flipping burgers, and fretting that they are in dead end jobs. Why is that do you think? Is it possible that a high minimum wage has unintended consequences that hamper the ability to move up much beyond that?

No matter how high the minimum wage goes, there will always be folks who contend that it is never enough. People complain that they aren't making it in this world, and complain about those who are, and they would rather not succeed, but be rewarded for mediocrity.

I agree
but at the end of the day by having a minimum wage of about 14.00 an hour eliminates abot 50% on the "poverty list"
Federal Poverty Guidelines
I keep stating the same
we the consumer or we the tax payer are paying for both
we the people would get far more from the consumer side

But that is assuming everything stays the same. If the minimum wage is inflationary, the poor can wind up with little more buying power than they had before. So what happens? The government feels obligated to raise the poverty threshhold. It has happened every single time they've raised the minimum wage so far. No reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

For instance a gallon of milk costs us about $2 to $2.25. here in Albuquerque The average cost of a 2 liters (just under a half gallon) of milk in Australia is $3 to $4 in American dollars or $6 to $8 a gallon.

And THAT is the legacy of a high minimum wage.

 

[JRK]

No matter how high the minimum wage goes, there will always be folks who contend that it is never enough. People complain that they aren't making it in this world, and complain about those who are, and they would rather not succeed, but be rewarded for mediocrity.

I agree
but at the end of the day by having a minimum wage of about 14.00 an hour eliminates abot 50% on the "poverty list"
Federal Poverty Guidelines
I keep stating the same
we the consumer or we the tax payer are paying for both
we the people would get far more from the consumer side

But that is assuming everything stays the same. If the minimum wage is inflationary, the poor can wind up with little more buying power than they had before. So what happens? The government feels obligated to raise the poverty threshhold. It has happened every single time they've raised the minimum wage so far. No reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

For instance a gallon of milk costs us about $2 to $2.25. here in Albuquerque The average cost of a 2 liters (just under a half gallon) of milk in Australia is $3 to $4 in American dollars or $6 to $8 a gallon.

And THAT is the legacy of a high minimum wage.

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree
but at the end of the day by having a minimum wage of about 14.00 an hour eliminates abot 50% on the "poverty list"
Federal Poverty Guidelines
I keep stating the same
we the consumer or we the tax payer are paying for both
we the people would get far more from the consumer side

But that is assuming everything stays the same. If the minimum wage is inflationary, the poor can wind up with little more buying power than they had before. So what happens? The government feels obligated to raise the poverty threshhold. It has happened every single time they've raised the minimum wage so far. No reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

For instance a gallon of milk costs us about $2 to $2.25. here in Albuquerque The average cost of a 2 liters (just under a half gallon) of milk in Australia is $3 to $4 in American dollars or $6 to $8 a gallon.

And THAT is the legacy of a high minimum wage.

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

Food will not be the only price that rises... This just recalculates 'bottom'.. the poor will still be poor with just higher numbers of less valuable money

 

[JRK]

But that is assuming everything stays the same. If the minimum wage is inflationary, the poor can wind up with little more buying power than they had before. So what happens? The government feels obligated to raise the poverty threshhold. It has happened every single time they've raised the minimum wage so far. No reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

For instance a gallon of milk costs us about $2 to $2.25. here in Albuquerque The average cost of a 2 liters (just under a half gallon) of milk in Australia is $3 to $4 in American dollars or $6 to $8 a gallon.

And THAT is the legacy of a high minimum wage.

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

Food will not be the only price that rises... This just recalculates 'bottom'.. the poor will still be poor with just higher numbers of less valuable money

In reality what else would and why?
building a home with illegal aliens is common
all we can do there is enforce the laws we have in place
people who bring us fuel do not make 7.25 an hour

food would be the hardest hit unless those who farmed it and harvested it went to a 1099 type of labor
That is in some cases the way it is done now

 

[DiamondDave]

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

Food will not be the only price that rises... This just recalculates 'bottom'.. the poor will still be poor with just higher numbers of less valuable money

In reality what else would and why?
building a home with illegal aliens is common
all we can do there is enforce the laws we have in place
people who bring us fuel do not make 7.25 an hour

food would be the hardest hit unless those who farmed it and harvested it went to a 1099 type of labor
That is in some cases the way it is done now

The price and size of government increases.. hence spending increases.. and taxes increase..

Jobs in all areas now have to contend with a lower wage being $14/hr... your previous ones who were making $9/hr compared to $7.50 are not going to want to make the same as the least skilled and lowest tenured... managers of those making $16 an hour don't just want to make $16 or $18 an hour now.. prices raise across the board... hence the price of goods and supplies rise.. this will not just stick to the food industry.. this hits retail.. this hits construction.. this hits service... this hits distribution and warehousing... this hits EVERYTHING

You are doing nothing more than raising the floor while the curve of advancement, ability, achievement, etc still stays in effect.. this hurts more than it helps.. and teh poor stay poor with just different numbers describing their level of poverty

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is assuming everything stays the same. If the minimum wage is inflationary, the poor can wind up with little more buying power than they had before. So what happens? The government feels obligated to raise the poverty threshhold. It has happened every single time they've raised the minimum wage so far. No reason to think it wouldn't happen again.

For instance a gallon of milk costs us about $2 to $2.25. here in Albuquerque The average cost of a 2 liters (just under a half gallon) of milk in Australia is $3 to $4 in American dollars or $6 to $8 a gallon.

And THAT is the legacy of a high minimum wage.

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

Food will not be the only price that rises... This just recalculates 'bottom'.. the poor will still be poor with just higher numbers of less valuable money

Yes. And so far, raising the minimum wage has only INCREASED the numbers of people on welfare. I haven't seen any statistics anywhere except in very short term regional areas, in which raising the minimum wage reduced the number of people receiving public assistance.

What did reduce the number of people on public assistance was limiting the length of time people were allowed to be on it. In my opinion requiring work for welfare - either get a paying job or do community service in return for the welfare check--along with policy and regulation to encourage economic growth rather than inhibit it as is happening now--would eliminate all welfare other than the most hard core needy who are literally unable to help themselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

there is some truth in that thread
Those items would bear the most harm
food
and the libs would scream that 25k a year would not be enough then
if the price of an average food bill rose from 100 a week to 150 a week, but the minimum wage went from 290 a week to 481 a week
I see that being an issue that has no legs to stand on, even if it did you would still be cutting the monies the tax payer dished out by 30-50% based on the current poverty level(s) used

Food will not be the only price that rises... This just recalculates 'bottom'.. the poor will still be poor with just higher numbers of less valuable money

Yes. And so far, raising the minimum wage has only INCREASED the numbers of people on welfare. I haven't seen any statistics anywhere except in very short term regional areas, in which raising the minimum wage reduced the number of people receiving public assistance.

What did reduce the number of people on public assistance was limiting the length of time people were allowed to be on it. In my opinion requiring work for welfare - either get a paying job or do community service in return for the welfare check--along with policy and regulation to encourage economic growth rather than inhibit it as is happening now--would eliminate all welfare other than the most hard core needy who are literally unable to help themselves.

People who are demanding a higher minimum wage are like children spoiled on sugar. No matter how much they get, the need for it is insatiable, unquenchable.