The Most Dangerous Presidential Candidates

[Sarge+ 3,436]

$10/hour works out to about $20k per year ($20k= 2000 hours at $10/hour, 2000 over 52 weeks works out to almost 38.5 hours per week, since supervisors avoid letting hourly workers get overtime like the plague, meaning hourly workers rarely actually get to 40 hours in a week, I think that's a decent estimate)

 

- So even if people wanted to work more, which I hope we can agree is an honorable thing to do, they can't. I believe we could argue this makes it even more important to pay people for the work they are actually doing now.

 

From a quick googling the Department of Health and Human Services sets the poverty guideline for a three person family at $20,090 (Source) so I absolutely think a small family can get by on a $10/hour full time job, they're not going to be doing great, but they'll get by.

 

- For what areas does this number apply? Trying to support a wife and a child in Philly or DC or (insert big city here) on 20K per year just isn't going to happen. They will definitely be doing without some things they really need.

 

I also think it's fair to assume that people should be able to work their way out of minimum wage (even if only by virtue of staying in the same job and getting periodic raises) by the time they have multiple children. This also doesn't get into the potential for two workers in the house, even if one parent is just working part time that would increase earning potential.

 

- I don't think that's a fair assumption at all. Cost of living increases eat up small raises and then some, every single year. Also, two workers in the house actually increases the financial burden on most families due to paying for daycare services and babysitters. You won't get much further ahead with two workers.

 

I also don't think people should be able to live comfortably on minimum wage (there might be a better way to phrase that, but to clarify I simply mean that there shouldn't be an expectation that people making minimum wage should be able to afford a lot of luxury items, I definitely think anyone working full time should be able to afford to put a roof over their heads and feed themselves and their families) because I think there should be incentive to get out of the minimum wage job.

 

- Again I ask, where do these more skilled and higher paying jobs come from? It's a struggle for people who are well-educated and fully qualified to find better paying jobs. The average Joe has an even smaller chance.

 

My responses in bold.

[oochymp 2,393]

- So even if people wanted to work more, which I hope we can agree is an honorable thing to do, they can't. I believe we could argue this makes it even more important to pay people for the work they are actually doing now.

- For what areas does this number apply? Trying to support a wife and a child in Philly or DC or (insert big city here) on 20K per year just isn't going to happen. They will definitely be doing without some things they really need.

- I don't think that's a fair assumption at all. Cost of living increases eat up small raises and then some, every single year. Also, two workers in the house actually increases the financial burden on most families due to paying for daycare services and babysitters. You won't get much further ahead with two workers.

- Again I ask, where do these more skilled and higher paying jobs come from? It's a struggle for people who are well-educated and fully qualified to find better paying jobs. The average Joe has an even smaller chance.

Point 1: I tend to agree, it is unfortunate that people can't choose to work longer hours to increase their paycheck, but I think there are enough benefits to the 40 hour week to justify it. Beyond the benefits to the worker of their boss not being able to force them to work 70-80 hours a week, it does open up jobs for more people, if an employer could get people to work even 60 hours a week then he'd only need 2/3 of the workforce. I'm not sure how a limit on number of hours supports any contention on how much they should get paid. There's also always the option of getting a second job if you really want to work more than 40 hours a week.

 

Point 2: If you looked at the source that number is listed for the 48 contiguous states and DC. I have no idea where it comes from, so I assume it's some sort of an average, which means some areas are above it and some are below. But, as I pointed out earlier, the federal minimum wage just sets the floor, states and localities are allowed to set their own minimum wage above the federal minimum, and many already do. The point I'm getting at is that not every locality needs a $15 minimum wage, so the fact that some do (which if I haven't technically conceded yet I will here: some localities, primarily large cities, do need something at least close to a $15 minimum wage) doesn't undermine my argument against doubling the federal minimum wage.

 

Point 3: Some solid points in here regarding the increasing costs, I'll just say I think I was thinking more of families with school age children, but I think I would then have to concede that they would need to pay for child care until their school age. I still think one parent working full time with the other working part time is a viable option if they stagger shifts, though that creates other issues for families, I think there are also other policy measures that could ease some of this, stuff like better maternity leave policies and increased access to pre-K.

 

Point 4: I don't think there's an easy answer to that question and I don't think I know enough about the topic to provide the complex answer. I will say that I think there are a lot of well paying jobs available if you have the right skills, I think it can be hard to identify and develop those skills if you're just barely making enough to get by, but I do think it's possible.

Edited August 12, 2015 by oochymp

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

Point 1: I tend to agree, it is unfortunate that people can't choose to work longer hours to increase their paycheck, but I think there are enough benefits to the 40 hour week to justify it. Beyond the benefits to the worker of their boss not being able to force them to work 70-80 hours a week, it does open up jobs for more people, if an employer could get people to work even 60 hours a week then he'd only need 2/3 of the workforce. I'm not sure how a limit on number of hours supports any contention on how much they should get paid. There's also always the option of getting a second job if you really want to work more than 40 hours a week.

 

- Another part time job would add on at least 20 hours, if not more. So now you're looking at 60 hours of working a week just to get by. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect people to have to do that, which is the entire point of an increased wage.

 

Point 2: If you looked at the source that number is listed for the 48 contiguous states and DC. I have no idea where it comes from, so I assume it's some sort of an average, which means some areas are above it and some are below. But, as I pointed out earlier, the federal minimum wage just sets the floor, states and localities are allowed to set their own minimum wage above the federal minimum, and many already do. The point I'm getting at is that not every locality needs a $15 minimum wage, so the fact that some do (which if I haven't technically conceded yet I will here: some localities, primarily large cities, do need something at least close to a $15 minimum wage) doesn't undermine my argument against doubling the federal minimum wage.

 

- What exactly is your argument against it? That it's not necessary... based on what grounds?

 

Point 3: Some solid points in here regarding the increasing costs, I'll just say I think I was thinking more of families with school age children, but I think I would then have to concede that they would need to pay for child care until their school age. I still think one parent working full time with the other working part time is a viable option if they stagger shifts, though that creates other issues for families, I think there are also other policy measures that could ease some of this, stuff like better maternity leave policies and increased access to pre-K.

 

- So families should totally destroy any chance of having time together just to work enough to survive? I don't like it. Also even if the government can regulate maternity leave policies, companies could jut find another reason to fire a mother who just had kids and wants time off.

 

Point 4: I don't think there's an easy answer to that question and I don't think I know enough about the topic to provide the complex answer. I will say that I think there are a lot of well paying jobs available if you have the right skills, I think it can be hard to identify and develop those skills if you're just barely making enough to get by, but I do think it's possible.

 

- Possible, perhaps. Likely, no.

 

[BwareDWare94 723]

I think $7.25 is fine for minors unless they have family situations dictating that they work to contribute and help pay bills. Anybody 18 and older shouldn't be expected to work for anything less than $10-12 an hour, though.

 

At the same time, there are SO many completely useless people out there who don't earn half of a shit wage. It's pathetic. But you can't regulate things you can't prove, I guess.

[oochymp 2,393]

Sarge, you're really making it obnoxious to quote, so I'm not going to bother:

 

Point 1: you were the one who brought up working extra hours to get more pay, and I did explain that I like the 40 hour week, so I'm not sure why you're getting on me about that one

 

Point 2: yes, $15/hour is not necessary in a lot of the country, there are a lot of places in the country where you can get by and support a family on $20k/year, places like DC and Philly (your examples, could also throw in NY, LA, Chicago, basically any major city) a $15/hour minimum wage makes sense, but that doesn't mean that should be the national minimum wage when there are places where you can live on less and the local economies would have trouble dealing with doubling the cost of labor, especially when major cities can adopt their own minimum wage standards that are higher than the national standard

 

Point 3: I agree, and said as much in my last post (though admittedly I did use vague languages, referring to "other issues for the family," sorry about that) but I think that gets back to my point that working a minimum wage job shouldn't put someone in their ideal living situation, which is not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be able to get by

[Sarge+ 3,436]

What about saving money? I think we can all agree, and the stats prove that it is so, that people don't save nearly as much as past generations did. And obviously the biggest reason for that is because we can't afford to save. And savings aren't just necessary for personal finances... What about starting funds for children to go to college when they get older? What if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and you have to support yourself and your family for a while until you can find a new job?

 

I think you have this idea that 100% of people that get more money would use it all on luxuries. But there are so many people on the brink of complete financial disaster due to working for such shit wages, that an increase in wages would just help them avoid disaster rather than afford luxuries.

 

At the end of the day, I can see why people disagree with a 15/hour minimum wage, but to hear some people talk, it's the most ridiculous idea ever constructed. I hope by now it can be seen that it's not the case at all.

[oochymp 2,393]

I've never said a $15/hour wage is ridiculous in certain ares (and I realize that comment may not have been directed at me) but just because it's necessary for one part of the country doesn't mean it should be a universal standard. Right now 29 states and DC have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage (Source that you won't click on) I suspect if the federal minimum were increased most (if not all) of those states would raise their state minimum wage in response and remain above the federal minimum. As I said earlier, I think an increase to the minimum wage is past due, but I don't think the federal standard needs to be doubled.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

The only reason 15/hour seems like a lot for a minimum wage is because it has been so low for so long. What should have been happening all along is a dollar increase every few years. Oh well. Too late to do that now. Time to give people what they deserve for working their lives away.

[BJORN 679]

 

I have a few problems with this line of thinking.

 

First off, the difference between your way of looking at it and mine is this: you think the job defines the person's worth. It's a common belief, but that really shouldn't be the case in our society. People don't deserve a living wage based on the skill level of their jobs. They deserve a living wage because they are human beings who are working 40+ hours per week. People who work in fast food don't always get everything right on your orders, but can you blame them? They get paid shit to work like animals. I don't expect anyone to understand this if they never worked in a restaurant before. Because they're not just filling your orders. They are also cleaning toilets, mopping floors, changing the grease in the fryers, re-stocking the supplies, helping to put away supply trucks that come in, cooking the food, dealing with rude, condescending people constantly, and other things.

 

And there's another issue I have with your line of thinking. Do you realize that only a small % of jobs are considered "skilled" jobs? "Unskilled" labor makes up the vast, vast, vast majority of labor anywhere, and the US is no different. We are finding this out right now. Most college graduates can't get "skilled" jobs anyway, so why should we punish them even further by continuing to pay them shit? All while having to pay back thousands of dollars of student loans based on promises made to them that were unrealistic and never kept.

 

And of course there are also people who never went to college. I can't blame them for that. Do you mean they don't deserve a livable wage? Even if they get an education, the chances of them finding a "skilled" job are slim. So does that mean they should be homeless on the street? Does that mean they need to take out credit cards and other loans to get them even further into debt just so they can buy food this month?

I work at a restaurant.. as a dishwasher, dining room person, or on the line. Would I love to be paid more? Sure; do I think I should get paid more for the job I do? To be frank...no. There is always opportunity to move up at these unskilled positions..if you work hard enough and play the politics at those jobs you can move up in the business. And I don't value a person's worth based on their job, I value a person's job based on the skills required to complete it. Quite frankly it wouldn't be fair to my employer to pay me a crazy wage like $15 a hour to wash dishes...anyone can do it, all it takes is hard work.

 

And as to your last point....how many unemployed college grads have degrees in shit like "liberal studies, etc" that don't translate to getting jobs?

Edited August 12, 2015 by BJORN

[oochymp 2,393]

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/

that's a graph of the federal minimum wage since 1938 (when the federal minimum wage was first established) until 2013 (which I'm assuming is when the graph was created) showing both the actual dollar amount and the amount adjusted for inflation to 2013, the highest that minimum wage has ever been in inflation adjust 2013 dollars is $10.71, which it hit in 1968

[Sarge+ 3,436]

The only thing I get from your post, BJORN, is that unskilled people don't deserve to have a good life. If that's not what you're saying, please speak up and correct me. Because if that is what you are indeed saying, that's a fundamental place where we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[BwareDWare94 723]

There are drastic differences in unskilled labor based on location, too. In North Dakota, most unskilled labor done by people 25+ is done by people with absolutely no work ethic. They're unemployable at better paying jobs because they not only have no work ethic, but also because many of them are alcoholics or methheads. Those people don't deserve $15 an hour.

[oochymp 2,393]

There are drastic differences in unskilled labor based on location, too. In North Dakota, most unskilled labor done by people 25+ is done by people with absolutely no work ethic. They're unemployable at better paying jobs because they not only have no work ethic, but also because many of them are alcoholics or methheads. Those people don't deserve $15 an hour.

those people don't deserve jobs, there's a difference

[BwareDWare94 723]

I do think Sarge has a great point about the Minimum Wage historically, though. It doesn't move with inflation, which it absolutely should. Can you imagine trying to pay for the 3 and 4 dollar gas we've seen prior to last fall and since?

[oochymp 2,393]

I do think Sarge has a great point about the Minimum Wage historically, though. It doesn't move with inflation, which it absolutely should. Can you imagine trying to pay for the 3 and 4 dollar gas we've seen prior to last fall and since?

that's true, but:

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/

that's a graph of the federal minimum wage since 1938 (when the federal minimum wage was first established) until 2013 (which I'm assuming is when the graph was created) showing both the actual dollar amount and the amount adjusted for inflation to 2013, the highest that minimum wage has ever been in inflation adjust 2013 dollars is $10.71, which it hit in 1968

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I am not saying that minimum wage should not increase, I'm just saying that $15/hour is too high for the national minimum, it might be right in some areas (and probably is) but it's too high for a large portion of the country

[oochymp 2,393]

let's get this thread back to making fun of Trump: Who Said It: Ron Burgundy Or Donald Trump? | PlayBuzz

I got 15/16 mostly because I know most of Ron Burgundy's quotes, I also guessed a lot of Trump's quotes right based on the logic of "that's too ridiculous for Ron Burgundy"

[Vin+ 3,121]

12/16

 

I feel like #10 has likely been said by both.

[oochymp 2,393]

12/16

 

I feel like #10 has likely been said by both.

yeah, same with #13 (which is basically the same)

[BwareDWare94 723]

As pathetic he is as an individual, Trump's campaign is brilliant. Not only will it get the massive amount of uneducated white people to come out of the woods and stand behind him, there are a lot of Christian Conservatives who have similar beliefs about things like illegal immigration. He's got a great shot at winning the Republican nomination. None of the Christian nutjobs have a legitimate chance except perhaps Scott Walker, so all of the hateful Christians out there will likely side with Trump.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

inb4 someone says Yale is a private school. Of course, but you can make tables like this for any school, and the results won't be any less staggering.

[oochymp 2,393]

For comparison, The University of Virginia (UVa) (which I'm using only because it was the first public school I could find tuition information for that went that far back) charged in state students $12,998 in tuition and fees for the 2014-2015 school year, for the 1970-1971 school year the cost of tuition and fees was $484 for in state students. For those that don't want to do the math, that means in state tuition at UVa now costs almost 27 times what it did in 1970, which is actually a more drastic increase than that graphic shows for Yale, which has increased to about 18 times the size.

 

If you look at out of state tuition it's even more drastic rising from $1,069 for 1970-1971 to $42,184 for 2014-2015. In other words, UVa has gone from costing half the price of Yale even for out of state students to now costing nearly the same as Yale for out of state students.

 

If anyone's wondering, my source is the school's own website: UVa - Student Costs

 

For what it's worth, I'm actually not surprised that the increase is more dramatic for public schools because the state has cut funding to higher education a lot more than it's increased it. What that means is that public schools have had to account for a decrease in funding from a source that was never available to private schools

[RazorStar 4,025]

Keep in mind that's 17 hours... for every single day of the year working at minimum wage. Which is... well impossible.

[BwareDWare94 723]

High tuition fees are just another sign that the 1% and corporations control everything. Puts people so far in debt that the middle class is their ceiling. Force them to take jobs that pay just enough for them to have a slight chance of paying off their loans in 10 or so years, so long as they don't start a family, buy a house, have to pay their own healthcare (everything--dental, vision, etc), buy new cars (this one is self-inflicted, but still), or in other words have a normal goddamn American life.

 

In America, you have to practice minimalism and sacrifice lifestyle if you're going to have a family AND pay off your loans as a member of the middle class.

 

We are set up to succeed just enough to have just enough. There is no "reaching for the skies" with the way tuition is right now. There is only "keep your head above water." We can't save any significant amount of money without overworking. We can't make lump sum payments for anything anymore, forcing us to use credit cards and extra loans to even furnish our houses.

 

The good old boy conservatives say, "Study harder! Work harder!" but when we had to "work harder" just to be able to support ourselves during college, our futures are sabotaged financially. It's a fucking joke. Not every kid can be a 4.0 high school student and do great on SATs and ACTs so they get a tuition waiver or their tuition paid for by an outside source.

 

Ideally, in the future tuition will be paid for for students who have a 3.0 or better. Anything less than 2.5 and the entire bill's on you. Free tuition sounds great but it shouldn't apply to chronic class-skippers.

There's a pretty simple solution to this, and the states need to take it into their own hands. No more tax evasion for immensely wealthy individuals or corporations. If they actually pay their taxes, there's a lot of money we can invest in our future generations.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

^ Bernie Sanders for Pres!

[blotsfan 2,112]

Oregon is implementing a plan that if you can't afford the school and don't want to take out loans, you can just promise to pay them a percentage of your salary for like 20 years after you graduate. I think that's a great, fairly realistic compromise.