A Just Minimum Wage

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it happens to help the those who aren't poor, so be it. it's still a just wage as it's worth what they pay.
we can't give credits as the poor don't pay taxes.

we might be able to devise a system of educating them to be competitive such that they don't need to stay at an unjust job for long, but we have ot be mindful of people struggling to advance. they at least deserve the pay they all should have gotten to begin with.

anyone who's against globalization might see the same flaws at least theoretically with teh no minimum. considitions for exploitation.

as for jobs, as i said in the other thread, the poor will be with us always. it's inevitable. we can at least have the standard be most poor are at 650 and the ones who can't get jobs, the class that wouldn't have ben able to get jobs anyway, are out of luck as they would have been out of luck anyway. better fewer get by on decent that many straggle along.

Edited August 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lounge Daddy]

The problem with min wage laws is that they tend to hurt the people they are supposedly designed to help.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1367970' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:00 PM']the government can at least set the wage such that the lowest state can be had at a mcdonalds sort of rate. the states that pay more as you said wont be bothered by it. the very few jobs that exist outside that should be paid less for various reasons can be made exceptions.
the system we have shows all minimums typicaly thought of desreve at least minimum.[/quote]
But the minimum is ARBITRARY. When you set the minimum wage, you thus also set the wages of all union jobs (who get paid based on a multiple of the minimum wage) and that allows the unions to drive prices of everything up.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1367970' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:00 PM']i believe you that your friend could have made it on that wage. you're actually making my point more than yours. she got by on that wage, but without the minium she woudnt have ad that opportunity. i'm not necessarily arguing that we should increase the wages, just that they should exist.
there's also the idea of disparity of wealth, such that if you could live off peanuts, to live off peanuts when you could live off the basics very basics of that society, such as basic medical care daily food decent shelter etc. we don't live in africa ya know.[/quote]
But, it's possible to live on the minimum wage, and no one actually does. NO ONE STAYS AT THE MINIMUM WAGE. Most of the people that take minimum wage jobs are high school students. Let the market set the minimum, not the government. The government has no right to set a minimum wage. None. Read the US constitution article 8, section 1, and the 9th and 10th ammendments. In light of those, how does the federal government have the right to set a minimum wage? Or prop up the FDA? Or the department of education. What the federal government is doing is blatantly illegal.

And who cares whether we live in Africa? At a very, very small wage, we can save for retirement, as I've proven. The idea of "disparity of wealth" is a stupid one. Who cares if the rich have luxuries, like TVs? The poor don't need them to live. They are, by definition, luxuries. If a person can, on a very, very small wage, have food, clothing, and shelter, have children, and still save for retirement, that's enough not to be poor.

[Era Might]

If the minimum wage is $7/hr. then that's $280 dollars a week (forty hours). After taxes it's probably about $230 dollars a week. That's $920 a month.

Depending on where you live, the smallest and cheapest apartment will cost about $700-$800 a month, and that's probably a one bedroom.

That leaves approximately $220 dollars for everything else. If you take the bus and train to work, that will cost approximately $60 a month, perhaps more, so that takes you down to $140 a month. If you live on bread and water (figuratively speaking), you may be able to get by with $30 worth of groceries a month. That brings you down to $110 a month. You need a phone in the house, in case your employer has to call you, so that takes you down to about $90 dollars a month. You haven't payed for heat yet, which is necessary, so that would take you down to $60 a month (if you're lucky). Then you have to add in electricity, which takes you down to about $40 dollars a month. You have to factor in small expenses, such as new clothes, so budget $20 dollars a month.

That leaves you with $20 dollars a month to raise a family, which would be impossible.

[Lounge Daddy]

Ya, I don't know about "living" on min wage - but really, anybody taking a min wage job and still making min more than a year later needs to ask what is wrong
I guess that's why I always found the term "living wage" a dishonest label. People don't "live" on it. People are not intended to. It's intended to be a starting wage for a starting job.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Lounge Daddy

[dairygirl4u2c]

someone who has peanuts cannot save for retirement, in the extreme. you're better to argue charity, and tough luck if charity doesn't exist (or government if you tendedthat way)

you have an interesting argument with the uninion bit. but, that's still one segment of society. as i said in the other thread, that's not pure inflation and the increase would be more proporitonally than otherwise.

who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.

whethr the minimum wage is legal or not is a different argument. i'm just talking policy in general.
incidentally i think you could argue it from the constitution too. they set the commerce clause. that clause allows fed regulation of commerce between states. it's often used to prevent states from competing to the poit of hurting each other, which is what would happen with the poor and minimum wages. now, you might argue tht it's to far off to base on the commerce clause the a new legislation should be enacted. but, i'd argue that many parts of the constitution states would rather do without and probably wouldn't have ratified if given the chance again. the point being, they intended something close enough that we're not going to expect them to enact something closer when they woudn't have enacted something existing now. the intent is clear enough.
or, if you think they should always be direct, tell that to women who used the equal protection lcause for blacks to advance. if you say tough luck, then i at least admire your consistency and candor.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:06 PM']who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.[/quote]

again- someone still making min after 12 months need to be asking what they are doing wrong.

[dairygirl4u2c]

why not be just to the persons who make the wage to begin with, instead of finding fault with the person who doesn't advance? they all deserve it. and

also one other very important point i didn't make that i made in past threads. sometimes i assume things are said.
even if the persons advance, and everyone did, it's still only advancing from 2 dollars to 3 dollars without the minimum. a mimum wage sets the floor frm which many people can grow. there are significantly more who fall in the 2-650 range who could otherwise fall in the 650-850 range.

it starts to get less reasonable that you expect so many to get ahead so much. it's just not gonna happen.

Edited August 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lounge Daddy]

because it should be decided by the employer and employee what the pay is. if someone feels that they are not payed what their work is worth, they have the freedom to look to another employer. that why we call it a free market.

consider this:
and why stop at just bumping min up a few bucks?
why not 50 or 100?
because when the government forces wages up markets dry up, employees are shut out of the system. this is even true when the wages are forced by government mandate to be raised even one or two dollars.

the people hurt the most by min wage mandates tend to be the unskilled, the young, the handicapped, etc

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've addressed all those issues.

it seems, do you agree, then that you'd rather see many who straggle along than a few who do decent?

[Lounge Daddy]

There are many more who are harmed by government mandating wage increases - and no one are truly helped by them.
You disagree?

[adt6247]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368013' date='Aug 22 2007, 03:59 PM']If the minimum wage is $7/hr. then that's $280 dollars a week (forty hours). After taxes it's probably about $230 dollars a week. That's $920 a month.

Depending on where you live, the smallest and cheapest apartment will cost about $700-$800 a month, and that's probably a one bedroom.

That leaves approximately $220 dollars for everything else. If you take the bus and train to work, that will cost approximately $60 a month, perhaps more, so that takes you down to $140 a month. If you live on bread and water (figuratively speaking), you may be able to get by with $30 worth of groceries a month. That brings you down to $110 a month. You need a phone in the house, in case your employer has to call you, so that takes you down to about $90 dollars a month. You haven't payed for heat yet, which is necessary, so that would take you down to $60 a month (if you're lucky). Then you have to add in electricity, which takes you down to about $40 dollars a month. You have to factor in small expenses, such as new clothes, so budget $20 dollars a month.

That leaves you with $20 dollars a month to raise a family, which would be impossible.[/quote]
First, you don't need a phone. I did without one for years. You do need heat, but you can crank it down to 60F -- which is a safe temperature -- and you don't pay that every month. In college, I spent about $20 a month on food, and ate better than bread and water.

Read this:

[url="http://www.hobbitmanor.com/thesoapbox/?p=1179"] http://www.hobbitmanor.com/thesoapbox/?p=1179[/url]

My friend who wrote this is an actuary.

His calculations are based on two people averaging between them 100 hours a week, a 10% tithe, and 6% contributions to 401K. And yes, you can raise a family in a small 2-bedroom apartment. I just visited Italy last year, and saw the tiny house that my great-grandparents raised my grandfather and his 6 siblings in -- it's about 1/4 the total square footage of my house (if you include my finished basement). And they did not consider themselves poor! My great-grandfather was a tradesman.

Is this how I WANT to live? No. I frankly live a very decadent lifestyle. I own a 3-bedroom house, have high-speed internet access (necessary for my job; I'd do without otherwise), indoor plumbing, and air conditioning, and own my own car, and I eat out a few times a week (which I need to stop doing). What I don't have: don't own a cell phone, don't own a TV, don't have cable. I can afford all these things, but I don't see the point; I'd rather pay off my mortgage earlier or something. I do consume a good bit of beer, but I brew more than I buy (which costs me less than $0.50 a bottle for better quality than any American brew) and plan on doing the same with wine soon.

[Era Might]

Even if you don't have a phone (and I disagree that you don't need one, but for the sake of argument) that saves you $20 off my budget. If you keep the heat on 60 degrees it will still cost you $20-$30. If you live off $20 in groceries, that saves you $10. A two-bedroom apartment around here will cost you about $1200 if you're lucky.

So that leaves you with approximately $60 (not factoring the extra rent if you're living in anything but a one bedroom or studio apartment) to raise a family instead of my estimated $20. I don't disagree that a single man can live off minimum wage if he lives like a monk, but he cannot raise a family and save for retirement, unless he either has many hours overtime or he has more than one job (and his wife will need to work, which will require the further expense of daycare if they have children).

[adt6247]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368088' date='Aug 22 2007, 05:31 PM']Even if you don't have a phone (and I disagree that you don't need one, but for the sake of argument) that saves you $20 off my budget. If you keep the heat on 60 degrees it will still cost you $20-$30. If you live off $20 in groceries, that saves you $10. A two-bedroom apartment around here will cost you about $1200 if you're lucky.

So that leaves you with approximately $60 (not factoring the extra rent if you're living in anything but a one bedroom or studio apartment) to raise a family instead of my estimated $20. I don't disagree that a single man can live off minimum wage if he lives like a monk, but he cannot raise a family and save for retirement, unless he either has many hours overtime or he has more than one job (and his wife will need to work, which will require the further expense of daycare if they have children).[/quote]
Then move to a cheaper area! I can get a two-bedroom apartment for about $900/month here if I shop around, and Jersey's expensive! Again, follow the link I gave you. Work somewhere where you can walk to work.

And again -- you're basing raising a family on ONE income, not two, which is the norm nowadays. If your wife works, you double your income. That's enough to raise a family on.

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']someone who has peanuts cannot save for retirement, in the extreme. you're better to argue charity, and tough luck if charity doesn't exist (or government if you tendedthat way)
...
who cares if not many stay at the minimum. some do, and we need to be mindful of them. if the ones who can advance happen to actually get paid justly, so be it.[/quote]
Nope. If you'd followed the link I gave, and actually read what was written, you'd see how you can raise a family on the minimum wage, and still save for retirement. It's not easy, but it can be done. It could also be done for less than the minimum wage to start, assuming you got regular raises. If you stay at such a low wage for life, you're lazy.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']you have an interesting argument with the uninion bit. but, that's still one segment of society. as i said in the other thread, that's not pure inflation and the increase would be more proporitonally than otherwise.[/quote]
Actually, no. It does affect inflation. Directly. EVERYTHING manufactured winds up costing more. So everyone who buys anything needs more money. The only two things that would have a bigger role in reducing inflation is going back to the gold standard and outlawing usury.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1368021' date='Aug 22 2007, 04:06 PM']or, if you think they should always be direct, tell that to women who used the equal protection lcause for blacks to advance. if you say tough luck, then i at least admire your consistency and candor.[/quote]
That's a non-sequitur, but I do believe that the government has no business regulating such things. If I, as a business owner, want to hire nobody but blond males under 5'2", I should be able to do so. If I want to hire only Catholics, I should be able to do so. It's my money, and I should be able to do anything I want with it (within reason -- I shouldn't be able to, say, contract a hit on someone, but that's because murder is illegal).

Anti-discrimination laws wind up discriminating, as we're seeing in the church today. In MA, Catholic Charities is talking about shutting down because the state has decided that they have to allow sodomites to use their adoption services.