202 replies to this topic

[Eagles]

so you are suggesting that the minimum wage be raised in only major cities? Since you are saying they are the ones who cannot afford to "survive"

[Waser Lave]

So you're telling me everyone in everyone major city that has a minimum wage job is not receiving livable wages? Bullshit

 

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. The vast majority of single people working a minimum wage job will not be able to live in any major American city on just their wages. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

That isn't the case though. There are plenty of cities in America where $7/hr is enough. In big urban cities, it isn't close, but that is why those cities have higher minimum wage. 

 

EDIT: I just noticed the word major in your post. But major cities already have higher minimum wages. It is the smaller ones that would be screwed

 

Yes, I said major. If we take New York, for example, the average rent of a one-bedroom apartment within 10 miles of New York is $2,666 a month apparently, while the minimum wage is $8 an hour. That means you'd need to work over 80 hours a week just to afford the rent before any other basic living expenses.

[Eagles]

I'm not being obtuse, I just believe your "facts" arent true. How can you say that anyone with a minimum wage wage job in a city does not have livable wages? How the hell do these people live then? 

[DonValentino]

I congratulate you being able to overcome what you have. You are doing an exceptional job. But the bottom line is, youre surviving. Sure it might not be the greatest lifestyle yet, but you have a roof over your head and are working towards a better career. I certainly understand where the extra money in your situation would go to, but how can you say that you need more money if you know for a fact that people, any amount of people, will lose their jobs? How would you like to be in your situation without a job? 

 

I don't have a job right now, that was my point. I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of people that will lose their jobs. At my previous job, there were four employees besides the owner, and his mother (who still gets a paycheck). Oh, and the accountant that came in once a week to do payroll. Would you say that's a good example of a small business? I know for a fact that he could have afforded to pay me $10/hr, and business would not have suffered in any recognizable manner. (What I mean by that is that he would of course be profiting less, but it would be negligible, and the extra $2 I would have been making would have improved my life vastly compared to the amount it would negatively effect his). 

 

Now take a business like Walmart. Do you think they wouldn't be able to pay their employees $10/hr? In the United States, they have 1.4 million employees (1% of the entire working population!) and 2.1 million worldwide. Guess what their NET profit was last year. Here, I'll tell you: 17B (their gross income was 117B lol) If they paid all 1.4 employees $10 ($20,800) instead of $7.25 ($15,080/yr), they would be spending $8B more a year, assuming all their employees work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year for 7.25. Imagine the purchasing power of all those employees that could now afford better things. A majority of that money would go right back into Walmart's pockets anyway! The higher ups might not get such large salaries/bonuses, but from the perspective of the American economy, it's much better to put that money in the hands of all those people than a select few elites. 

[Eagles]

And the average rent includes some of the fanciest apartments in NYC to some of the cheapest. So that number is not nearly accurate. The expensive apartments for the upper class raise the average making it a poor representation of how much the lower class pay to live

I wish i could respond to what you posted but i must go to class. Ill be back later to reply

[talbs]

If we take New York, for example, the average rent of a one-bedroom apartment within 10 miles of New York is $2,666 a month apparently, while the minimum wage is $8 an hour. That means you'd need to work over 80 hours a week just to afford the rent before any other basic living expenses.

 

The people living in a $2600 apartment in New York are the ones that can afford it. I work in a major American city (16th largest, 2nd fastest growing), but I don't live here. Traffic, tax rates, etc. are all reasons why I choose not to, but the main reason is the high cost. A decent apartment downtown will run you $1200-$1400 a month while a nice one is probably in the $1800-$2000 range. Instead, I live 20 miles away and commute daily. Although it is a pain, my rent is half as much, my taxes are lower, there's less crime, etc.

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 08:45 AM.

[Waser Lave]

The people living in a $2600 apartment in New York are the ones that can afford it. I work in a major American city (16th largest, 2nd fastest growing), but I don't live here. Traffic, tax rates, etc. are all reasons why I choose not to, but the main reason is the high cost. A decent apartment downtown will run you $1200-$1400 a month while a nice one is probably in the $1800-$2000 range. Instead, I live 20 miles away and commute daily. Although it is a pain, my rent is half as much, my taxes are lower, there's less crime, etc.

 

It was just an example because I couldn't find any statistics for a value for lower cost, adequate housing. Even at half the average you're talking 40 hours a week on minimum wage just to pay for accommodation.

[Sweeney]

Right, because I chose not to live above my means. When I was 15 I worked 25 hours a week making $5.15 an hour. When I turned 16 I started working at a Subway making $6.25. I worked there for 2 years while I finished high school. I left making $7.50. In college I worked the same seasonal job (April-November) for all 4 years while attending a University full time. The job was normally 45-50 hours a week, and I started out making $8.00. By the time my last year of college/that job rolled around I was making $10.50. 
 
After I graduated, I went home and couldn't find a job for 3 months. Mainly because I was looking for jobs in my field, versus simply "jobs." I didn't collect unemployment those three months. Instead, my cell phone was turned off, I became delinquent on credit card payments, and I had a lapse in insurance coverage, but that's the nature of the beast. One day in February of 2012 I noticed that the same Subway I worked at during high school was hiring, so I went and turned in an application. Wallowing in self pity wasn't getting me caught up on my bills, and the lenders I had used to finance my education were going to start knocking on the door within a few short months. I got hired back at that same Subway and had only worked three weeks before I got a call for an interview. The successful interview led to the start of my career in local government, and now almost three years later, a career in state government. The point is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I've had to drink protein shakes as meals because it was the only thing I had at the time, I've had to peruse gas station parking lots for extra change in the mornings to make sure my car had enough gas to at least get me to class, so I've been poor. I'm just thankful/fortunate that is no longer the case.

 
I know them feels. When I enrolled in college my dad had a decent job, for someone without a high school diploma anyway. It was determined that his income was too high for me to receive aid, so I just had to borrow it all. He never saved his money, and still pretty much lived paycheck to paycheck. There was no fund for me or anything that had been accruing interest since I was a child, so I was kind of left high and dry. My parents were divorced, but my mom certainly wasn't in a position to help either. She is/was on disability and only receives $640 a month, so here I am, three years removed from graduation with about 30 grand debt to my name, feels bad man.

It's comical that you think living with someone else who pays at least the majority of all of your living costs, while you "don't have a cellphone" qualifies as being poor. That you had a support network capable of keeping you off teh streets while you were unemployed for three months. You had no disposable income - you weren't poor.

[Frizzle]

I know my job pays what's called London weighting which is the equivalent of around $10,000 due to the high living costs of working in a major city. Even though we have that and most of us are way above the country average for yearly wages (which I think is around $44,000) most live on the outskirts due to how inflated it is.

I don't think it's feasible for someone to live in a major city on minimum wage.

[Mizk]

How can you say that anyone with a minimum wage wage job in a city does not have livable wages? How the hell do these people live then? 

I know a few people whose parents didn't cover their college expenses, so while they were going to college they were working a minimum wage job... and selling drugs on the side, because minimum wage wasn't enough.

[talbs]

It's comical that you think living with someone else who pays at least the majority of all of your living costs, while you "don't have a cellphone" qualifies as being poor. That you had a support network capable of keeping you off teh streets while you were unemployed for three months. You had no disposable income - you weren't poor.

 

I never mentioned living with someone else. You can argue that it's implied, as I was a minor and a dependent for taxation purposes, but that was only pertaining to my response to Don when I spoke of the FAFSA. You don't know where I lived when I was unemployed. How do you know I wasn't at the local shelter, or on a bench at the local park? That's right, you don't. As far as comical, I suppose it is comical that I need documentation of all meals I skipped as a result of "insufficient funds" to qualify as poor, by your standards of course.

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[Sweeney]

I never mentioned living with someone else. You can argue that it's implied, as I was a minor and a dependent for taxation purposes, but that was only pertaining to my response to Don when I spoke of the FAFSA. You don't know where I lived when I was unemployed. How do you know I wasn't at the local shelter, or on a bench at the local park? That's right, you don't. As far as comical, I suppose it is comical that I need documentation of all meals I skipped as a result of "insufficient funds" to qualify as poor, by your standards of course.

Yeah, but you were living with someone else, weren't you?
Because if you hadn't been, you would have mentioned it to further your point - the omission of the information is just as important.

[Bone]

I never mentioned living with someone else. You can argue that it's implied, as I was a minor and a dependent for taxation purposes, but that was only pertaining to my response to Don when I spoke of the FAFSA. You don't know where I lived when I was unemployed. How do you know I wasn't at the local shelter, or on a bench at the local park? That's right, you don't. As far as comical, I suppose it is comical that I need documentation of all meals I skipped as a result of "insufficient funds" to qualify as poor, by your standards of course.

 

But you weren't.

[talbs]

 

Yeah, but you were living with someone else, weren't you?
Because if you hadn't been, you would have mentioned it to further your point - the omission of the information is just as important.

 

Well "the poor" seem to be afforded these amenities yet I am somehow different. So I guess you're right, I mean I was practically bathing in cash.

 

 

But you weren't.

 

I'm also not here harping about raising the minimum wage either. I was in a less than ideal situation and I opted to do something about it.

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 09:18 AM.

[Sweeney]

Well "the poor" seem to be afforded these amenities yet I am somehow different. So I guess you're right, I mean I was practically bathing in cash.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say.

[talbs]

I have no idea what you're attempting to say.

 

It's simply a chart, showing various amenities that certain percentages of "the poor" still find themselves blessed with. You seem to know enough about me to determine that I am not poor, nor have I ever been, so I'm curious as to how you came to such a conclusion.

 

Are the 99.6% of Americans living in poverty who have a refrigerator "not poor" either, just because you say they aren't? Just because I lived under someone else's roof for 3 months suddenly I don't meet your criteria. I gave up my cell phone "luxury" that even 54% of the poor find themselves with, but according to your standards, arguably the least important of them all, I don't qualify. 

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[Sweeney]

Are the 99.6% of Americans living in poverty who have a refrigerator "not poor" either, just because you say they aren't?

No?

I didn't say you weren't poor because you had a fridge...

[Bone]

It's simply a chart, showing various amenities that certain percentages of "the poor" still find themselves blessed with. You seem to know enough about me to decide that I am not poor, and never have been, so I'd like to know how you came to such a conclusion.

 

Are the 99.6% of Americans living in poverty who have a refrigerator "not poor" either, just because you say they aren't?

 

Ah, yes, the damn """poor""" owning refrigerators and ovens like eating food is some sort of right.

[talbs]

No?

I didn't say you weren't poor because you had a fridge...

 

It's comical that you think living with someone else who pays at least the majority of all of your living costs, while you "don't have a cellphone" qualifies as being poor.

Right. You said I wasn't poor, because I had a cell phone prior to becoming unemployed. If 55% of the impoverished have cellphones, why do you place me among the other 45%?

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 10:02 AM.

[Frizzle]

Because you're budgeting with the help of resourcing from your parents.

[talbs]

Because you're budgeting with the help of resourcing from your parents.

 

One parent, and it wasn't budgeting, it was cut off for non-payment. It's not like someone stepped in and paid my bills. They piled up, my credit took a hit, life goes on. I had a roof over my head, a place to use the bathroom, and some meals occasionally provided. And it was a three month period, around three percent of my "adult" life.

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Mishelle]

One parent, and it wasn't budgeting, it was cut off for non-payment. It's not like someone stepped in and paid my bills. They piled up, my credit took a hit, life goes on. I had a roof over my head, a place to use the bathroom, and some meals occasionally provided. And it was a three month period, around three percent of my "adult" life.

The point is you had help available to you. Not everyone has that. No one is saying you didn't struggle however we believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage as a social safety net for people who don't have others available to help them.

Edited by Mishelle, 18 September 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[Sweeney]

Right. You said I wasn't poor, because I had a cell phone prior to becoming unemployed. If 55% of the impoverished have cellphones, why do you place me among the other 45%?

Somehow, you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I wrote.

I said that giving up your cellphone doesn't mean that you were poor.

[Silver]

How about this viewpoint: Keeping the masses fed and housed (welfare) prevents any sort of successful uprising against those with private property/the government. Take away welfare, or make it so it's unlivable, and there's literally nothing to prevent widespread riots/loss of privately held assets.

 

That said, for my household, there have been times where it would have been more profitable to sit on my ass and collect welfare than to continue working. In Massachusetts, the average family of four on welfare collects more than 50k a year in benefits. At my old job where I worked myself literally to the extreme (physical work at 50-60 hrs a week), I made roughly 34k before taxes, which is 22k post tax, or $5/hr take home (best case scenario). Simply, I took home 2k/month. I was paying $775/mo for rent, around $500 for groceries for the month, banking $725 before gasoline, vehicular expenses, and other expenditures. Student loans take away another $350, and insurance took away another $300 or so (estimated, can't remember tbh). At the end of the month, I have $75 to spend how I please. That's barely enough to make ends meet, never mind get ahead. So yeah, working as hard as I was, in stressful conditions, not really worth it when the alternative is free food, housing, and unlimited free time.

 

My point is thus: We've gotta make it worth it for people to work, rather than just collect, if we want to raise our countries' standard of living. I can't imagine hoe hard it must be for families with children, since it's hard enough with just my wife to support.

[talbs]

Somehow, you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I wrote.

I said that giving up your cellphone doesn't mean that you were poor.

 

I know that's what you said. So if not being able to afford a "luxury" that even the poor seem to own (which was one of several examples I used to describe my financial situation at the time) doesn't mean I am poor, then what does? Obviously my examples don't suffice.

Edited by talbs, 18 September 2014 - 11:16 AM.