Walmart on Welfare: We support their employees so they don't have to.

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.

I didn't make that argument sir. I merely said that the minimum wage had nothing to do with poverty levels.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

My God, can you imagine going to McDonalds for neurosurgery? LOL

 

[House]

That's a very tendentious argument. Given the relatively small number of workers who work for min wage,and the many other costs involved in food production, I do not think there is much correlation, much less causation.

Under the current minimum wage, this is true. However, jacking it up to $15/hour will put a lot of folks at minimum wage that were well above it before the raise, and employers will have to adjust costs accordingly.

 

[House]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.

I didn't make that argument sir. I merely said that the minimum wage had nothing to do with poverty levels.

And I pointed out that they are still involved as a cost/price factor.

Shall we continue rehashing?

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a very tendentious argument. Given the relatively small number of workers who work for min wage,and the many other costs involved in food production, I do not think there is much correlation, much less causation.

Under the current minimum wage, this is true. However, jacking it up to $15/hour will put a lot of folks at minimum wage that were well above it before the raise, and employers will have to adjust costs accordingly.

Huh? You'll have to explain that one.
If the min wage goes to 15/hr then some people making 7.5 or whatever it is will get a raise to 15/hr. Many more people currently earning 7.50 or whatever will get the pink slip and go one unemployment and then welfare because they will priced out of the job market. Many people who currently are not in the job market will not enter it it all.
Whatever it is, labor costs in total will not change dramatically as employers will cut labor costs, as well as costs for R&D etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

Or how about, "You're being disingenuous"

There is no shortage of jobs that pay well above the minimum wage if one finds living in the ghetto to be unacceptable. Many don't even require a high school diploma.

People are where they are because they choose to be there.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

Or how about, "You're being disingenuous"

There is no shortage of jobs that pay well above the minimum wage if one finds living in the ghetto to be unacceptable. Many don't even require a high school diploma.

People are where they are because they choose to be there.

There are obviously jobs that pay above the min wage. Otherwise everyone would be working for min wage.
So your point is negligible.
The people who will work min wage jobs are generally not eligible for those jobs that pay above min wage..
What difference does it make where people live? People commute to jobs all the time.

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

Or how about, "You're being disingenuous"

There is no shortage of jobs that pay well above the minimum wage if one finds living in the ghetto to be unacceptable. Many don't even require a high school diploma.

People are where they are because they choose to be there.

There are obviously jobs that pay above the min wage. Otherwise everyone would be working for min wage.
So your point is negligible.
The people who will work min wage jobs are generally not eligible for those jobs that pay above min wage..
What difference does it make where people live? People commute to jobs all the time.

The people who work minimum wage settle for minimum wage. Period.

Good luck commuting to North Dakota from Queens. Derp.

 

[The Rabbi]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

Or how about, "You're being disingenuous"

There is no shortage of jobs that pay well above the minimum wage if one finds living in the ghetto to be unacceptable. Many don't even require a high school diploma.

People are where they are because they choose to be there.

There are obviously jobs that pay above the min wage. Otherwise everyone would be working for min wage.
So your point is negligible.
The people who will work min wage jobs are generally not eligible for those jobs that pay above min wage..
What difference does it make where people live? People commute to jobs all the time.

The people who work minimum wage settle for minimum wage. Period.

Good luck commuting to North Dakota from Queens. Derp.

OK.
At one time I thought you were a reasonably intelligent poster with something of interest to say.
Now I see you are another brain dead moron masquerading as someone serious.
Go fuck yourself. Just do.

 

[House]

You aer a moron of the highest caliber. Who do you think is taking care of Walmart's payroll? Yeah, WalMart. That some of their employees qualify for government aid is irrelevant to Walmart. Any more than some of their employees are probably living rent free in their parents' home. Like you, no doubt.

That Walmart pays so poorly that their employees require government aid is BECAUSE of Walmart. That Walmart actively encourages its employees to rely upon government aid is ENTIRELY within their sphere of responsibility.

Wrong. It's because of the employees being willing to work for peanuts.

And why are they willing to work for those wages?

Ask them, I'm not that stupid.

But you're too stupid to answer the question.
The answer is that it represents the best deal they are going to get, given all the factors. If they could be earning 100k/yr as neurosurgeons I would guess most if not all of them would opt for that.

They have the opportunity to create whatever deal they want.

If the deal they want is entry level, minimum wage for 50+ years, more power to 'em.

No they dont. They can't demand whatever wage they want, whatever benefit they want and get it. That's nonsense.

I didn't say they could. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Go ahead, take another stab at it.

Why dont you explain what you mean then?
Because the answer is it is either obvious or irrelevant. Watch.

Or how about, "You're being disingenuous"

There is no shortage of jobs that pay well above the minimum wage if one finds living in the ghetto to be unacceptable. Many don't even require a high school diploma.

People are where they are because they choose to be there.

There are obviously jobs that pay above the min wage. Otherwise everyone would be working for min wage.
So your point is negligible.
The people who will work min wage jobs are generally not eligible for those jobs that pay above min wage..
What difference does it make where people live? People commute to jobs all the time.

The people who work minimum wage settle for minimum wage. Period.

Good luck commuting to North Dakota from Queens. Derp.

OK.
At one time I thought you were a reasonably intelligent poster with something of interest to say.
Now I see you are another brain dead moron masquerading as someone serious.
Go fuck yourself. Just do.

No, I'm a former ghetto rat that decided I was tired of being one.

You are a presumptive pig that thinks you know something about a subject you are clearly ignorant on.

Follow your own advice.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.

I didn't make that argument sir. I merely said that the minimum wage had nothing to do with poverty levels.

And I pointed out that they are still involved as a cost/price factor.

Shall we continue rehashing?

You didn't point out shit. Minimum wage has NOTHING to do with the poverty level. You are trying to claim that food prices are relative to the minimum wage and they are not. Food prices in general are so far out of whack with the minimum wage over the last 20 years that a child could look at the numbers and say nope, food costs have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

 

[House]

Given that we aren't getting rid of welfare, and we're not going to, the only other realistic solution is force the minimum wage to a point where a single full time employee isn't qualified for welfare.

Flawed logic is flawed.

Welfare eligibility is determined by poverty level guidelines.

Poverty level guidelines factor the minimum wage into their calculations.

As long as the minimum wage is in the poverty level, jacking up the minimum wage will not affect welfare elegibility.

No sir, they do not.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

They absolutely have nothing to do with each other.

The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report.)

Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.

So, the poverty guideline relies on food costs. As the minimum wage increases, so goes costs.

Tomato, tomahto.

Just say the words

" I was wrong Bear"

Is that truly too fucking hard? Food costs rise INDEPENDENT of the minimum wage.

Want proof?

Let's look at ground beef prices

On Sep 30,2000 ground beef was $1.579 a lb.
Today it is at $3.884 a lb.

GROUNDBEEF Stock Price History Historical GROUNDBEEF Company Stock Prices FinancialContent Business Page

In 2000 the federal minimum wage $5.15 an hour. Today of course it is $7.25 an hour.

Now, because I like to compare apples to apples, we will adjust for inflation to actual dollars.

Corrected for inflation, in the minimum wage in 2000 would be worth $7.13 today, which tells you obviously that the minimum HAS went up slightly in 14 years.

The price of ground beef corrected, however is $2.21 a lb. What this tells us, OBVIOUSLY is that the price of ground beef FAR outpaced the raise in the minimum wage.

Let's see, in 2000 a person earning minimum wage could with their gross pay buy $7.13/$1.58 = 4.5 lbs of hamburger.

Today that person can take their $7.25 per hour /$3.88 per pound = 1.93 lbs of ground beef per hour worked.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you understand that that means that the price of ground beef has effectively QUADRUPLED since 2000?

Now, tell me again how the poverty level is tied to the minimum wage. Fool.

You simply can't argue the fact that as the minimum wage rises, so will the cost of providing food.

I didn't make that argument sir. I merely said that the minimum wage had nothing to do with poverty levels.

And I pointed out that they are still involved as a cost/price factor.

Shall we continue rehashing?

You didn't point out shit. Minimum wage has NOTHING to do with the poverty level. You are trying to claim that food prices are relative to the minimum wage and they are not. Food prices in general are so far out of whack with the minimum wage over the last 20 years that a child could look at the numbers and say nope, food costs have nothing to do with the minimum wage.

How thick are you, son? Have you never worked in production?

Food costs rely on labor. Labor costs rely on the minimum wage (as a floor). When the floor rises, so too do the food costs in order to recoup the higher production expenses.

Holy shit dude, you can't possibly be this dense.

 

[The Rabbi]

How thick are you, son? Have you never worked in production?

Food costs rely on labor. Labor costs rely on the minimum wage (as a floor). When the floor rises, so too do the food costs in order to recoup the higher production expenses.

Holy shit dude, you can't possibly be this dense.

That's the most simplistic thing I've seen on this site maybe ever. You clearly know nothing about this.

 

[House]

How thick are you, son? Have you never worked in production?

Food costs rely on labor. Labor costs rely on the minimum wage (as a floor). When the floor rises, so too do the food costs in order to recoup the higher production expenses.

Holy shit dude, you can't possibly be this dense.

That's the most simplistic thing I've seen on this site maybe ever. You clearly know nothing about this.

Your opinion stopped being relevant when I discovered you were a presumptive ass that assumed you knew more about what I've lived through than I do.