Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[Jackinthebox]

Are you unable to see the absurdity in your own argument? You want to move single, minimum wage earners into the 74th percentile of single earners?

Correct. Especially considering the 90 percent of American workers make less than the min wage standard of 1950.

You are a moron. By what measure? Your consumption-based measure? Talk about comparing apples to pinwheels.

Does the guy currently earning $17.47/hr get a 140% raise as well to $42.10/hr?

Now you are putting the cart in front of the horse.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You keep swinging that wiffle ball bat around and I'll keep pointing out the absurdity of your sales pitch.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Tim Taylor said it best:

"Whatever one’s feelings about the good or bad effects of raising the minimum wage, it seems fair to say that those effects will be disproportionately felt by a relatively small share of the workforce, disproportionately young and part-time, and disproportionately in southern states."

The facts are these:

• 3.3 million American workers paid minimum wage or less
• Minimum wage workers represent 2.4% of the total workforce, 4.3% of the hourly workforce
• Minimum wage worker tend to be younger:
  • 24.2% are ages 16-19
  • 26.2% ages 20-24
• Roughly 2/3 or 2.1 million were part-time

And Tim Taylor is a moron. As I have already said at least a dozen times in this thread, that doesn't account for all the rest of the workers making more than min wage, but less than a living wage.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ADVANCED UTILITIES - $150

While some may argue that things like internet access, cellphones, and television are not necessities, they are still quite important to a productive member of society. Television may wind up as a worker's only form of entertainment,

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Not with 400 USD in misc charges it wont be the only entertainment.

This is absolutely the worst "thought out" debate for a living wage I've seen yet. This is simply pathetic and requires one to downgrade their own logic to participate.

I'm sorry I did it too.

Paying for tampons and renter's insurance is not entertainment.

No where did the authors indicate either of those items under "advanced utilities"

Maybe we should toss in a prostitute visit in advanced utilities too! Then we can really jack the numbers up!

 

[Jackinthebox]

It's amazing what these types will consider necessity when concocting a sales pitch for a living wage.

"TV is ver important to a productive member of society."



I cancelled cable service years ago it's such an unproductive endeavor.

Entertainment of some sort is a basic human necessity. Go ask any shrink. I don't watch TV myself very much, but I do have internet and I catch the Walking Dead. I also like to know that I can click on the tube and have some connection to the outside world in case of a major event like 9/11. I use that as an example because I actually didn't have TV at home that day. I had cut off the cable since I didn't watch much TV back then either. But I sure as hell wished I hadn't cut it off that day.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Cool story, bro. Not really but, since your sales pitch is such an abject flunky and all....

 

[Jackinthebox]

ADVANCED UTILITIES - $150

While some may argue that things like internet access, cellphones, and television are not necessities, they are still quite important to a productive member of society. Television may wind up as a worker's only form of entertainment,

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Not with 400 USD in misc charges it wont be the only entertainment.

This is absolutely the worst "thought out" debate for a living wage I've seen yet. This is simply pathetic and requires one to downgrade their own logic to participate.

I'm sorry I did it too.

Paying for tampons and renter's insurance is not entertainment.

No where did the authors indicate either of those items under "advanced utilities"

Maybe we should toss in a prostitute visit in advanced utilities too! Then we can really jack the numbers up!

You're just talking in circles now. Even starving people in Africa have cellphones. They are a necessity in the modern world. Or maybe you think the average worker doesn't "deserve" modern technology. Maybe they should go without indoor plumbing too, just shit in their hat and toss it out on the street.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ADVANCED UTILITIES - $150

While some may argue that things like internet access, cellphones, and television are not necessities, they are still quite important to a productive member of society. Television may wind up as a worker's only form of entertainment,

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Not with 400 USD in misc charges it wont be the only entertainment.

This is absolutely the worst "thought out" debate for a living wage I've seen yet. This is simply pathetic and requires one to downgrade their own logic to participate.

I'm sorry I did it too.

Paying for tampons and renter's insurance is not entertainment.

No where did the authors indicate either of those items under "advanced utilities"

Maybe we should toss in a prostitute visit in advanced utilities too! Then we can really jack the numbers up!

You're just talking in circles now. Even starving people in Africa have cellphones. They are a necessity in the modern world. Or maybe you think the average worker doesn't "deserve" modern technology. Maybe they should go without indoor plumbing too, just shit in their hat and toss it out on the street.

Appeal to emotion fallacy. Good work.

At least you didn't use tampons again in the advanced utilities argument. And you can get a prepaid cell phone that doesn't require a plan it is pay as you go. Again, you're a ******* flunky at being thrifty and shopping.

A boat! I mean, everyone needs a boat in case the zombie apocalypse comes and we all need to escape! Or maybe you just hate poor people and want to see them turn into zombies!? Huh?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And I didnt bring up cell phones I brought up TV, you failure as a debate partner, you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A boat! I mean, everyone needs a boat in case the zombie apocalypse comes and we all need to escape!

This is a good one that the authors should have added. Just think of what we can do with transportation if everyone gets a boat. We need to nearly double that expense.

 

[dblack]

At least you're being straight up with the stupid. But it's surprising to hear a "successful businessman" make such an ignorant statement.

It's ignorant to say that I believe in an honest day's pay for an honest day of work?

No. It's ignorant to think that what you believe has any bearing on what jobs are worth. Some jobs just aren't worth that much to society. That won't change by passing hare-brained laws.

 

[dblack]

No, I'm arguing the opposite. People should be free to accept any job they want, regardless of what it pays. I'm simply saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to profit from the labor of people who are supplemented by welfare.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be allowed to offer jobs that pay less than what welfare can provide. Because even those jobs are valuable to some people, and some of them would continue to be filled, even if welfare "paid more". Some people would still work those jobs because often there's more to be gained from a job than a wage. Some people are more interested in the learning or future opportunities a given job might provide. Some don't need to earn an "honest living" to get by (you really should re-read that Bucky Fuller quote a couple more times and think about what it implies). And other people will work the low-paying jobs because they can't find anything better and don't qualify for welfare, or choose not to utilize it for various reasons. .

Finally, many would choose to go on welfare rather than work a shitty job for low pay, and that's fine. Those businesses who are truly surviving on "socialized labor" would either change their business model, or go out of business. But by outlawing low wage jobs as a blanket policy you put everyone above out of work, essentially punishing them when they're harming no one.

So rather than getting people off of welfare, you are going to support even MORE illegal immigration to fill those positions.

What? Are you just trying to ignore the points in my post?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

 

[Jackinthebox]

A boat! I mean, everyone needs a boat in case the zombie apocalypse comes and we all need to escape!

This is a good one that the authors should have added. Just think of what we can do with transportation if everyone gets a boat. We need to nearly double that expense.

Um, the last time I checked, a boat was considered transportation.

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, I'm arguing the opposite. People should be free to accept any job they want, regardless of what it pays. I'm simply saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to profit from the labor of people who are supplemented by welfare.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be allowed to offer jobs that pay less than what welfare can provide. Because even those jobs are valuable to some people, and some of them would continue to be filled, even if welfare "paid more". Some people would still work those jobs because often there's more to be gained from a job than a wage. Some people are more interested in the learning or future opportunities a given job might provide. Some don't need to earn an "honest living" to get by (you really should re-read that Bucky Fuller quote a couple more times and think about what it implies). And other people will work the low-paying jobs because they can't find anything better and don't qualify for welfare, or choose not to utilize it for various reasons. .

Finally, many would choose to go on welfare rather than work a shitty job for low pay, and that's fine. Those businesses who are truly surviving on "socialized labor" would either change their business model, or go out of business. But by outlawing low wage jobs as a blanket policy you put everyone above out of work, essentially punishing them when they're harming no one.

So rather than getting people off of welfare, you are going to support even MORE illegal immigration to fill those positions.

What? Are you just trying to ignore the points in my post?

Ban people from welfare from having those jobs, and then those jobs will be filled by illegals, the mentally handicapped, and people who don't actually need jobs.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A boat! I mean, everyone needs a boat in case the zombie apocalypse comes and we all need to escape!

This is a good one that the authors should have added. Just think of what we can do with transportation if everyone gets a boat. We need to nearly double that expense.

Um, the last time I checked, a boat was considered transportation.

No shit, sherlock. The point - it went way over your head.

No argument.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is ******* moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. ******* gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is ******* moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. ******* gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hey, dblack. How's things?

The OP doesnt have a valid argument,

There is nothing invalid about being paid a living wage, or the positive effects of market liquidity.

If your definition of living wage is a ad hoc, flimsy budgeting sales pitch there most certainly is. To make matters worse, your authors didn't even adjust for taxation.either local, state or federal. So your entire argument is ******* moronic, son. Im talking 'tard level. Like brain dead. ******* gone. Smoke another pie of meth type shit.

Except they actually did:


Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty.

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Then why are they advocating the 17.47 per hour number?

This is ******* moronic, son. Dumb. Stupid. Retarded.
The argument has no bearing. You think we're going to have a national minimum wage at 17.47 per hour and these individuals will pay no taxation because it will jeopardize their living wage?






Earth to the OP.
Well, at that budget with that income and not having to pay taxes, I'm in. The government on the other hand is not. Nor will they ever invent a min. wage with tax exempt status. But day dreaming is fun.

The least the authors could do is the proper math regarding taxation instead of an ad hac call to not have them texed.

This is just lousy.