07 Jan 17
1 edit
I don't think anyone (especially those yelling that minimum wage is a socialist abomination that should be set to 0) has actually made a budget for that amount.
So let's play "Survive on minimum wage".
With 8$/h and assuming a 15% tax you earn 7$ an hour (6.8).
Working for 48hours a week that means 7x48x4=1344.
Let's make it a round 1400$
Please make a budget for this amount considering we are talking about an adult (let's call him Bob) not living with his parents, not having children (heaven's forbid, children on a minimum wage? preposterous).
You must first pay rent, utilities, groceries. Then see how many of the "luxuries" can you fit in : internet, phone, car payment and insurance, gas for the car, saving money(sometimes you need clothes, shoes, the car breaks down, you have a tooth cavity). Healthcare? Sure, get Bob some healthcare if you have money left.
After you finish the budget, post it here but also think how living in Bob's shoes might feel like. Do you think Bob might get married someday and have children on this budget? How would he raise them? if the landlord suddenly decides to kick him out for whatever reason, do you think Bob would have enough money saved to immediately get another apartment? If he gets sick, how bankrupt will he get?
07 Jan 17
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have lived most of my life on less than that, and currently earn about that. So not too difficult really. (and when I was in Zambia, I was among the rich).
Let's make it a round 1400$
So, given that your OP is an attempt to suggest that it is immoral to pay anyone less, I ask you whether or not you realise that the vast majority of the goods you buy are made by people earning well below the minimum wage you quote, and that you almost certainly are not campaigning for them to earn more and you only care about those in your own rich nation.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by ZahlanziDo we all owe Bob something, other than our well wishes?
I don't think anyone (especially those yelling that minimum wage is a socialist abomination that should be set to 0) has actually made a budget for that amount.
So let's play "Survive on minimum wage".
With 8$/h and assuming a 15% tax you earn 7$ an hour (6.8).
Working for 48hours a week that means 7x48x4=1344.
Let's make it a round 1400$
Pleas ...[text shortened]... ugh money saved to immediately get another apartment? If he gets sick, how bankrupt will he get?
When I was starting out, I always had a minimum of two jobs--- sometimes three--- and wasn't foolish enough to believe the luxuries were essential.
Now that I can readily afford all of the luxuries (as listed)... they're still not essential.
Only those who live a Spartan existence are truly free.
Those trappings are so-called because of how they trick you into thinking you must have [this] in order to be really living.
Owning things inevitably gets turned around.
Bob might not have the appearance of a life enjoyed--- as acted out by slaves of debt--- but these will be the happiest days of his life.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheaddude i am talking about the minimum wage in the US. i am talking about the people that say there shouldn't be a minimum wage in the US. of course you can live on 1400$ a month in romania. You know what the minimum wage is here? about 200euros (less than 300$).
I have lived most of my life on less than that, and currently earn about that. So not too difficult really. (and when I was in Zambia, I was among the rich).
So, given that your OP is an attempt to suggest that it is immoral to pay anyone less, I ask you whether or not you realise that the vast majority of the goods you buy are made by people earning w ...[text shortened]... are not campaigning for them to earn more and you only care about those in your own rich nation.
how about you realize that it is very relevant to the discussion where you live.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHaha, there it goes.
Do we all owe Bob something, other than our well wishes?
When I was starting out, I always had a minimum of two jobs--- sometimes three--- and wasn't foolish enough to believe the luxuries were essential.
Now that I can readily afford all of the luxuries (as listed)... they're still not essential.
Only those who live a Spartan existence are truly free. ...[text shortened]... fe enjoyed--- as acted out by slaves of debt--- but these will be the happiest days of his life.
so you admit that minimum wage is not enough to live on because you can always get a second and third job.
thanks, your honesty is appreciated.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThen you should be all for highly taxing the highest wage earners and taking away most of what the wealthy own - so they too are not deprived of "liv[ing] a Spartan existence [that is] truly free" - and redistributing it to the lowest wage earners and the least wealthy.
Do we all owe Bob something, other than our well wishes?
When I was starting out, I always had a minimum of two jobs--- sometimes three--- and wasn't foolish enough to believe the luxuries were essential.
Now that I can readily afford all of the luxuries (as listed)... they're still not essential.
Only those who live a Spartan existence are truly free. ...[text shortened]... fe enjoyed--- as acted out by slaves of debt--- but these will be the happiest days of his life.
With that kind of redistribution of earnings and wealth, everyone should be able to live something better than a Spartan existence.
Works for me.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI know. 'first world problems'.
dude i am talking about the minimum wage in the US.
i am talking about the people that say there shouldn't be a minimum wage in the US. of course you can live on 1400$ a month in romania. You know what the minimum wage is here? about 200euros (less than 300$).
So why aren't you talking about the poor Romanians? Why are you trying to help US people get cars etc when your fellow citizens are poorer?
Seriously now, you mentioned 'car payments' as if a car is a basic human right. Most of my friends back in Zambia will never own a car in their life.
how about you realize that it is very relevant to the discussion where you live.
So explain why americans are more deserving than Zambians and Romanians. Explain why americans should care more about the poor in their own country and not give a #&#@ about those in China and Mexico that make all their stuff?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy implementing Freaky's suggestion globally, seems like that should be entirely doable.
I know. 'first world problems'.
[b]i am talking about the people that say there shouldn't be a minimum wage in the US. of course you can live on 1400$ a month in romania. You know what the minimum wage is here? about 200euros (less than 300$).
So why aren't you talking about the poor Romanians? Why are you trying to help US people get cars etc w ...[text shortened]... their own country and not give a #&#@ about those in China and Mexico that make all their stuff?[/b]
Works for me.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou're making a point that doesn't require being established.
aha, there it goes.
so you admit that minimum wage is not enough to live on because you can always get a second and third job.
thanks, your honesty is appreciated.
In the US, less than 4% of the wage earners are being paid the minimum wage, and the overwhelming majority of those earners are 25 years of age or younger--- not your typical wealth-building players.
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of those minimum wage earners are part-timers: some 64%, compared to 36% as full-timers.
This is most likely due to folks who are either in school or are purposely making less in order to secure other benefits.
It is my experience (three decades of management from entry to executive levels), finding people who want to work is perplexingly frustrating: wages have no bearing whatsoever.
My company has traditionally paid far above federal and state minimums, the work is relatively straightforward (albeit physically demanding), and the subsequent raises are both timely and significant.
Fact is: America has a tremendous amount of unemployable people.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFacetious or not, that's not the intent.
Then you should be all for highly taxing the highest wage earners and taking away most of what the wealthy own - so they too are not deprived of "liv[ing] a Spartan existence [that is] truly free" - and redistributing it to the lowest wage earners and the least wealthy.
With that kind of redistribution of earnings and wealth, everyone should be able to live something better than a Spartan existence.
Works for me.
If someone wants to chase the superficial consumerist dream, that's their right.
All of those folks who allow themselves to get sucked into that cess pool unintentionally assist those who live simply: costs for the basics are reduced when the demand for the luxuries rise.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh for fuk's sake. if you don't like the subject why are you in this thread.
I know. 'first world problems'.
[b]i am talking about the people that say there shouldn't be a minimum wage in the US. of course you can live on 1400$ a month in romania. You know what the minimum wage is here? about 200euros (less than 300$).
So why aren't you talking about the poor Romanians? Why are you trying to help US people get cars etc w ...[text shortened]... their own country and not give a #&#@ about those in China and Mexico that make all their stuff?[/b]
"So explain why americans are more deserving than Zambians and Romanians"
they are not. this is a forum with mostly americans and i am discussing american issues. it's a hobby. again, if you don't like it don't participate. make a thread about minimum wage in romania or zambia if you want.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf someone wants to chase the superficial consumerist dream, that's their right.
Facetious or not, that's not the intent.
If someone wants to chase the superficial consumerist dream, that's their right.
All of those folks who allow themselves to get sucked into that cess pool unintentionally assist those who live simply: costs for the basics are reduced when the demand for the luxuries rise.
Then you should be all for paying the lowest earners much better than a "living wage" even, so that they too can afford to live the "superficial consumerist dream" should they want too.
For the minimum wage earners who still want to be "truly free" and live a Spartan existence, they can give their excess to those who can't even afford that.
Works for me too.
07 Jan 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHif it is true that so few people are making federal minimum wage, there would be no problem raising it, right?
You're making a point that doesn't require being established.
In the US, less than 4% of the wage earners are being paid the minimum wage, and the overwhelming majority of those earners are 25 years of age or younger--- not your typical wealth-building players.
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of those minimum wage earners are part-timers: some 64 ...[text shortened]... e both timely and significant.
Fact is: America has a tremendous amount of unemployable people.
i still don't see a budget from you that would allow an adult to live on minimum wage. tell you what, just for you, we will raise the amount you have to work with to 2000$ a month. that is roughtly 13$ an hour before taxes.
do a budget with that.