I think that the concept of minimum wage is a good one, but I think that it is currently set a little too high. In much of the country, $7.40/hour is more than enough for a full time worker with a small family (2-3 people) to live on with minimal comforts. For those parts of the country where this is not true, this can and should be adjusted by state or local laws. The problem with setting it too high is that it ultimately hurts low income workers by causing entry level low-skill jobs to be outsourced to countries that allow workers to be paid in a day less than what we demand in an hour. And, for many the choice is between scraping by on $5 or $6 an hour or not having a job at all; and current law makes it illegal for an employer to offer that choice -- but totally legal to hire a Chinese worker for $5 or $6 a day.
At least in the US, I can't imagine where $7.40/hr would be enough to live on for one person, let alone a small family. Now granted, where I live, the cost of living is very high, so $7.40/hr is an insulting amount of money to pay someone. It really is only good for the teenager who is only working just to learn about money, and to pay for their hobbies/social life. But even teens working their first job don't have to be working for long before they realize they're working their butt off for peanuts, while balancing school work, and extracurricular activities at the same time.
But I'd be interested to know where $7.40/hour stretches as far as you suggest. I would find that pretty amazing.
As far as the minimum wage driving jobs overseas, that's just greedy business owners for you. The goal of business is always to decrease production costs to maximize profit. There will always be people in some third world country willing to work for disgustingly low wages, slave wages, and workers in developed countries will never be able to compete with that. The cost of living is higher in those countries, and it's workers will not be demeaned by accepting such low wages. Those businesses sending work overseas are not concerned about their fellow countrymen who will be out of a job as a result. They only care about how much money they'll save. They remind me of a line from You've Got Mail: "If I knew you, you know what I'd find? Instead of a brain, a cash register. Instead of a heart, a bottom line."
In my opinion, the reason people work at all is to earn a living. It is debasing to force a man to work full time so he can earn poverty. Actually, if you make minimum wage, your earnings put you at below poverty level. I believe this is unjust. Certainly, with additional training, education, pay should increase. But the bare minimum should be that working earns one a livable wage.
Last edited by medieval_lady83; 10th May 2012 at 10:57 PM.
I think that the concept of minimum wage is a good one, but I think that it is currently set a little too high. In much of the country, $7.40/hour is more than enough for a full time worker with a small family (2-3 people) to live on with minimal comforts. For those parts of the country where this is not true, this can and should be adjusted by state or local laws.
Not sure you did the math. Let's look at what it would cost for just one single person to live in the good ole US of A for a year.
So we have $12810-$5640-$2060-$1000 = $4110 or $79 per week to live on after the bare minimum of living expenses. We do want him to eat don't we? One person eating three $3 meals/day per week leaves $16 excess for the week. And what if his minimum wage job doesn't provide health care? No problem, I'm sure Mr. Minimum wage can get excellent coverage with a just a fraction of that $16. Come to think of it, he better just pray for good health.
Now, of course, I forgot a few expenses that would actually move him way into the red. Things like utilities, clothes, laundry, toiletries, phone, renters insurance, etc. One might argue that he could ride the bus and save on gas and insurance. In that case we would have to move him out of that $470/month apartment to an area with mass transit. That will save him some on transporation, but it will be offset by his higher rent.
Basically, it's nearly impossible for someone to pay for all of their own living expenses if they are making minimum wage. And you suggested that one worker with a small family could do it? Pull the other one.
So we have $12810-$5640-$2060-$1000 = $4110 or $79 per week to live on after the bare minimum of living expenses. We do want him to eat don't we? One person eating three $3 meals/day per week leaves $16 excess for the week. And what if his minimum wage job doesn't provide health care? No problem, I'm sure Mr. Minimum wage can get excellent coverage with a just a fraction of that $16. Come to think of it, he better just pray for good health.
Now, of course, I forgot a few expenses that would actually move him way into the red. Things like utilities, clothes, laundry, toiletries, phone, renters insurance, etc. One might argue that he could ride the bus and save on gas and insurance. In that case we would have to move him out of that $470/month apartment to an area with mass transit. That will save him some on transporation, but it will be offset by his higher rent.
Basically, it's nearly impossible for someone to pay for all of their own living expenses if they are making minimum wage. And you suggested that one worker with a small family could do it? Pull the other one.
A few problems with your assumptions:
(1) You assume that a low-income person has no choice, but to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Assuming that a person is single, more often than not they will share a home with someone else. Families have fewer options, but low-income families can and often do find homes below market rent (e.g. Section 8 housing). I would also challenge your numbers, as I do not live in "one of the 5 cheapest cities" and I know that there are plenty of rentals available in my area for well under $470. My last apartment (that I moved out of about 6 months ago) was a nice, large two-bedroom for marginally more than that.
(2) A car is a luxury, not a necessity, for most people who live anywhere near even a small city or suburb. Thus, we can substitute your 2060 + 1000 for $1.50/day in bus tokens X 5 working days per week X 52 weeks per year = $390.
(3) You mistakenly account for taxes for income that is generally not taxable.
So, let's take a more realistic example of a subsidized or shared apartment for which "Mr. Minimum wage" is making about $15,000, paying about $3600 per year for housing, and $390 for necessary transportation.
$15,000 - 3600 - 390 = $11010/year or $211/week for food, utilities, and enjoyments.
I don't know about anyone else, but my food budget for a family of 5 is about $100/week. When it was just my wife and me, we ate well on $60/week. Heat and electricity for a small apartment if used wisely shouldn't run more than $100/month (except perhaps for the most bitter cold months).
As for insurance, many low income people qualify for Medicaid, but let's not forget that medical insurance is not a necessity (I don't have it and haven't for a couple of years -- my kids have it because they qualify for Medicaid -- and we are a middle income family).
Thus, Mr Minimum Wage has to make some tough choices, but he can more than scrape by if he has to.
Unfortunately, the problem right now is that we have many people who are unable to find even minimum wage jobs, many of whom would be quite happy to make less than minimum wage if the opportunity were available to them. So this begs the question, what hurts the poor more: No available jobs or jobs that pay $5 or $6 per hour, which make life VERY difficult, but often manageable for low-income people?
ETA: I see now where the $470 figure comes from: high end apartments in low-cost-of-living areas. Let's not insist that our hypothetical minimum wage must have "golf and country club" access.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A Nicaraguan woman, named Ivania, helping to build her new home in Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua. Please pray for the people of Santa Lucia and Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.
At least in the US, I can't imagine where $7.40/hr would be enough to live on for one person, let alone a small family. Now granted, where I live, the cost of living is very high, so $7.40/hr is an insulting amount of money to pay someone. It really is only good for the teenager who is only working just to learn about money, and to pay for their hobbies/social life. But even teens working their first job don't have to be working for long before they realize they're working their butt off for peanuts, while balancing school work, and extracurricular activities at the same time.
But I'd be interested to know where $7.40/hour stretches as far as you suggest. I would find that pretty amazing.
As far as the minimum wage driving jobs overseas, that's just greedy business owners for you. The goal of business is always to decrease production costs to maximize profit. There will always be people in some third world country willing to work for disgustingly low wages, slave wages, and workers in developed countries will never be able to compete with that. The cost of living is higher in those countries, and it's workers will not be demeaned by accepting such low wages. Those businesses sending work overseas are not concerned about their fellow countrymen who will be out of a job as a result. They only care about how much money they'll save. They remind me of a line from You've Got Mail: "If I knew you, you know what I'd find? Instead of a brain, a cash register. Instead of a heart, a bottom line."
In my opinion, the reason people work at all is to earn a living. It is debasing to force a man to work full time so he can earn poverty. Actually, if you make minimum wage, your earnings put you at below poverty level. I believe this is unjust. Certainly, with additional training, education, pay should increase. But the bare minimum should be that working earns one a livable wage.
I wonder: is it greedy business owners or is it greedy consumers who demand quality goods at unrealistically low prices? Or is it a little of both?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A Nicaraguan woman, named Ivania, helping to build her new home in Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua. Please pray for the people of Santa Lucia and Bello Amanecer, Nicaragua.
I wonder: is it greedy business owners or is it greedy consumers who demand quality goods at unrealistically low prices? Or is it a little of both?
I would say it falls squarely on the shoulders of the business owners, as they set the price. Most consumers want the lowest prices because they can't afford to pay more for it. Their inadequate wages dictate their buying choices. It's not greed to try to live within your means by stretching your paycheck as far as it will go. And since most people don't know how to produce the things they need, they are at the mercy of manufacturers and businesses to provide them with their needs at affordable prices.
(1) You assume that a low-income person has no choice, but to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Assuming that a person is single, more often than not they will share a home with someone else. Families have fewer options, but low-income families can and often do find homes below market rent (e.g. Section 8 housing). I would also challenge your numbers, as I do not live in "one of the 5 cheapest cities" and I know that there are plenty of rentals available in my area for well under $470. My last apartment (that I moved out of about 6 months ago) was a nice, large two-bedroom for marginally more than that.
Sorry, but I think it's only fair that we use proof of rental prices rather than self-serving antedotes. If you find some average rental costs for specific cities, I'll consisder your sources. Additionally, I see you mentioned "Section 8" housing as a means for low income people to find affordable housing. Why does the government have to subsidize a minimum wage earners housing? Are you conceding that someone can't afford housing on minimum wage? Either a minimum wage earner stands on his own two feet without govt. handouts or your premise dies on the vine.
Originally Posted by dies-l
(2) A car is a luxury, not a necessity, for most people who live anywhere near even a small city or suburb. Thus, we can substitute your 2060 + 1000 for $1.50/day in bus tokens X 5 working days per week X 52 weeks per year = $390.
You need to use realistic figures. Look at this bus pass example from the same cheap apartment rental city as before.
Bus Passes 30-day Good for unlimited rides (including transfers) for the designated time period, which begins the first time you swipe the card on the bus. Price $90.00
Your 2-3 people could all have fit in the car from my pervious post and they could also use it on the weekend for shopping for food. I find it disingenious on your part to try to lowball the bus prices. The bus cost $90 per month per person. 3 people buying monthly bus passes for one year totals $3240. Which is about the same as a the cost of a car for one year.
Originally Posted by dies-l
(3) You mistakenly account for taxes for income that is generally not taxable.
One still has SSI and medicare removed from their paychecks which is part of the reduction in take home pay. One may or may not get back the federal withholding, but one still has to pay it out of their paycheck every month. Thus, one doesn't have it at their disposal until the next year (if ever).
Originally Posted by dies-l
So, let's take a more realistic example of a subsidized or shared apartment for which "Mr. Minimum wage" is making about $15,000, paying about $3600 per year for housing, and $390 for necessary transportation.
$15,000 - 3600 - 390 = $11010/year or $211/week for food, utilities, and enjoyments.
I don't know about anyone else, but my food budget for a family of 5 is about $100/week. When it was just my wife and me, we ate well on $60/week. Heat and electricity for a small apartment if used wisely shouldn't run more than $100/month (except perhaps for the most bitter cold months).
$100 a week for food? Let's see, 5 people for 7 days and I'll go out on a limb here and say that you eat 3 meals daily. That's 105 meals on $100! Care to try again?
Originally Posted by dies-l
As for insurance, many low income people qualify for Medicaid, but let's not forget that medical insurance is not a necessity (I don't have it and haven't for a couple of years -- my kids have it because they qualify for Medicaid -- and we are a middle income family).
You're a republican so I understand how you can think that health insurance is a luxury item. Does your wife ever get a mamogram or pap smear? You ever go to the doctor for a checkup? Those are normal routine procedures that every family has to get. And saying that "I'm on medicaid" once again supports my position that if the govt. is subsidizing your minimum wage earnings, you can't live on minimum wage. Also, you can't discount the fact that someone in your family of 5 is going to break a bone or have to rush to the emergency room at least once. That's you bankrupt if you only make minimum wage.
Originally Posted by dies-l
Thus, Mr Minimum Wage has to make some tough choices, but he can more than scrape by if he has to.
Unfortunately, the problem right now is that we have many people who are unable to find even minimum wage jobs, many of whom would be quite happy to make less than minimum wage if the opportunity were available to them. So this begs the question, what hurts the poor more: No available jobs or jobs that pay $5 or $6 per hour, which make life VERY difficult, but often manageable for low-income people?
ETA: I see now where the $470 figure comes from: high end apartments in low-cost-of-living areas. Let's not insist that our hypothetical minimum wage must have "golf and country club" access.
Yeah, that was a bit misleading. It was more of a "look how cheap and you get golf too" kind of article. It made the article appear slanted. Here's others that show average rentals in cheap cities. If you check the prices you'll see that my first article actually had cheaper rentals and that's why I used it. 5 Cheapest Places To Live in America - Yahoo! Real Estate Wichita Apartments for Rent - Wichita Apartments Reviews and Ratings
Keep in mind the cheapest one bedroom is about $500/month and your 2-3 member family would need a 2 bedroom. I think reasonable people would agree that $550/month for a 2 bedroom is a very low figure, but I'll agree to use it for this discussion. If you have links that show otherwise, post 'em.
Minimum wages do not work. There is a built in inflationary force in fiat currency partial reserve lending monetary systems, and large oligopolies basically price around the wage to reduce the total share of expense being laid out on the workers back to the original levels.
Even if the economy were designed differently than it is now, for example if it were centrally planned, the wages of the typical working person could be artificially manipulated. Thus socialism or communism are not cures for this condition.
In order to prevent inequalities in living conditions, you have to establish minimum living standards, not minimum wages.
You point out the huge problem with any minimum wage. $7.50 an hour is enough to border on price someone just starting out who has minimal to no skills of the market. Too High a wage.
It is too low for someone raising a family, so one could argue too low.
And there is no quick and dirty fix I can think of. The idea that a minimum wage is allowable for only a fixed period of time sound good at first glance, until one realizes that the outcome in any exploitive situation will be that the minimum wage worker loses their job at that point, rather than gets a raise.
One of the "fixes" for minimum wage has been the EITC, the EITC basically subsidizes employment. I believe a minimum wage is essentional, and that it probably needs to be higher, but I think when you look at the minimum wage you also have to take into account how many people who are getting that rate of pay also are getting the EITC which substantially increases their income for the year.
Like you I agree that proposals such as a required increases for minimum wage will only result in people losing their jobs quite suddenly, currently employers get tax breaks for hiring people off of public assistance, amazingly the minute the person has worked long enough for them to get the tax credits and/or subsidized wages the company often decides the person "couldn't learn the job" On the other hand, when you have great people having a hard time finding a new job the subsidy/tax break method
some of them do end up with an employer who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to give them a chance and get a good career out of it.
It's pretty hard to engineer the tipping point for when something helps or hinders both the person trying to make a living and the employer.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
I don't see how any African-American with any inkling of history can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
No one should be telling you who you should love, no one should be telling you who you should be spending the rest of your life with.
When we start talking about equality and everyone being treated equally I don't want to to know an African-American who will say everybody doesn't deserve equality
Linear Mode
