1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    07 Jan '17 16:41
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You work for what you are willing to work for. Local unions are the way to go, but the Establishment types like to import scabs.

    Get trained in somethung in demand. Take your future in your hands not the government's.
    great idea. why don't people get trained in "somethung" in demand.

    so back to our little game, you have 1400$ a month. add into that some "training in somethung in demand". i am sure you can squeeze it in because you're so smart. don't forget groceries. that's important.
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    07 Jan '17 16:541 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    great idea. why don't people get trained in "somethung" in demand.

    so back to our little game, you have 1400$ a month. add into that some "training in somethung in demand". i am sure you can squeeze it in because you're so smart. don't forget groceries. that's important.
    If it is in demand, it will pay more than minimum wage.

    Average family income in the US is at least 40k. It fluxuates state by state
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    07 Jan '17 17:16
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If it is in demand, it will pay more than minimum wage.

    Average family income in the US is at least 40k. It fluxuates state by state
    "If it is in demand, it will pay more than minimum wage."
    but someone isn't in a "in demand" job and that someone IS getting minimum wage. I am still waiting on that budget where you show me how someone earning minimum wage can get training for "somethung" in demand.


    "Average family income in the US is at least 40k. It fluxuates state by state"
    yes, because we are talking about the average minimum wage not the minimum. you know what else is high? millionaire income. billionaire income is even higher. is that relevant to minimum wage discussion?
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    07 Jan '17 17:28
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]If someone wants to chase the superficial consumerist dream, that's their right.

    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 Sp ...[text shortened]... existence, they can give their excess to those who can't even afford that.

    Works for me too.[/b]
    My philosophy works in the real world.
    When I tired of working my ass off for those dead-end jobs, I found my current employer and... worked my ass for them in order to convince them to keep me.
    If I wasn't working here, I'd work for myself: hard work smartly applied will eventually find success.
    It's the economy of the world from the beginning of time.

    Redistribution of reward is antithetical to that economy and eventuates in the destruction of any society which attempts such tinkering.
  5. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    07 Jan '17 17:39
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if it is true that so few people are making federal minimum wage, there would be no problem raising it, right?


    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.
    Will?
    Way.
    When I worked those jobs, I found the most affordable housing, pared my outgo to accommodate my income, saved every month.
    Rode a bike instead of a car when work was 27 miles from my house each way.
    Rent was $300/month.
    Doable today?
    Absolutely, if you know where to look.
    Internet wasn't a thing back then, but cable was: didn't have it.
    Was in the best shape of my life, took frequent trips around the country, read voraciously, wrote a s-ton of poetry and generally lived life.
    Wasn't about to start raising a family, even though my financial discipline afforded me the ability to do all of those things and save money.
    I could have just as readily paid more for rent, afforded a car and etc., but I wanted to know that I could live comfortably on the things I needed, not stretch just to have some of the things I wanted.
    One of the nice things about that existence with dead-end jobs was the ability to take extended periods of time off.
    In my current position, even though I have six paid weeks a year off, I cannot take a two-month tramp around for general purposes like I used to be able to do.

    In every situation, give and take.

    And no, I have no problem raising the wage, except for the fact that the businesses which employ it do so for a purpose.
    The impact needs to be seen from their perspective before considering the impact on the worker: without those opportunities, the wage could be $1,000/hour and still be of no use to anyone.
  6. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Jan '17 17:49
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    My philosophy works in the real world.
    When I tired of working my ass off for those dead-end jobs, I found my current employer and... worked my ass for them in order to convince them to keep me.
    If I wasn't working here, I'd work for myself: hard work smartly applied will eventually find success.
    It's the economy of the world from the beginning of time. ...[text shortened]... to that economy and eventuates in the destruction of any society which attempts such tinkering.
    Well, I figured your "Spartan existence" rationalization was exactly what it is.

    Why wouldn't paying the lowest earners a living wage or better "work in the real world"?
  7. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Jan '17 17:52
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Will?
    Way.
    When I worked those jobs, I found the most affordable housing, pared my outgo to accommodate my income, saved every month.
    Rode a bike instead of a car when work was 27 miles from my house each way.
    Rent was $300/month.
    Doable today?
    Absolutely, if you know where to look.
    Internet wasn't a thing back then, but cable was: didn't have it.
    ...[text shortened]... er: without those opportunities, the wage could be $1,000/hour and still be of no use to anyone.
    And no, I have no problem raising the wage, except for the fact that the businesses which employ it do so for a purpose.

    Your initial statement indicates otherwise:
    "Do we all owe Bob something, other than our well wishes? "
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    07 Jan '17 18:10
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]And no, I have no problem raising the wage, except for the fact that the businesses which employ it do so for a purpose.

    Your initial statement indicates otherwise:
    "Do we all owe Bob something, other than our well wishes? "[/b]
    As a person with a certain amount of 'paper wealth' as it is called, I have no obligation to create jobs for others with the fruits of my labor.
    I could, of course, but I am not obligated to undertake such risks.
    But let's assume I do.
    If I were to take such a risk, the first imperative (after obeying the law and etc.) is to create something profitable with the second to execute it in such as way as to make it sustainable.
    Depending on the business model and/or restrictions, the profitability of the business might very well depend upon an aggressive margin on either end: low costs and high mark-up.
    Not every business is able to achieve the volume required to allow both low costs and low mark-up in order to realize profitability; most small businesses simply cannot follow that path.
    For such small operations, the only way to sustain the business is the low/high method.
    Is minimum wage better or worse than no wage?
    The business owner who needs the low/high model is allowing Bob something much, much better than no wages at all.
    And hopefully, his well wishes, too.
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Jan '17 18:195 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    As a person with a certain amount of 'paper wealth' as it is called, I have no obligation to create jobs for others with the fruits of my labor.
    I could, of course, but I am not obligated to undertake such risks.
    But let's assume I do.
    If I were to take such a risk, the first imperative (after obeying the law and etc.) is to create something profitable ...[text shortened]... wing Bob something much, much better than no wages at all.
    And hopefully, his well wishes, too.
    So you'd be all for a minimum wage that pays a living wage or better, so long as "small operations" can qualify for relief if they can show that they are unable to achieve a modest profit due to having to pay the minimum wage?
  10. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    07 Jan '17 18:45
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    So you'd be all for a minimum wage that pays a living wage or better, so long as "small operations" are given relief if they can show that they are unable to achieve a modest profit?
    Who wouldn't?
    Because of my professional experience, I would shy away from any business which must operate on a low/high model: turn over is the bane of all businesses with respect to consistency, quality and daily operations and nothing screams turn over louder than minimum wage.
    But some operators have a long-term business model which accounts for that chaos and they make their plans accordingly, meaning, they're really not about overall integrity as they are intent on financial stability.
    Those types of businesses are notoriously easy to enter and maintain and are therefore in a perpetual rise and fall existence.
    Without some type of unimaginable and (to my perspective) unattainable regulation, there is no end to their position as an employer source in the national economy.

    A good tangential example of this phenomenon is Walmart.
    The size of this scorched-earth behemoth is more than enough for them to break free of the low/high model completely, but they have opted to retain portions of it in two critical areas.
    For one, they force their vendors to act on a global pricing scale even when the vendor is capable of only behaving (at best) nationally, but typically regionally.
    Secondly, they force the local and federal benefit sources to subsidize their employees by paying them crap wages and either offering no health benefits or equally dismal benefits at substantial premiums.
    And what does the adoring public do about such chicanery?
    They buy the stock and support the effort by taking their business to them at every chance.

    I think the answer is somewhere in a simplified formula which considers gross and net for each business, bracketed and balanced.
    Unlike the joke that is non-profit organizations, each portion of a business' accounting/balance sheet is weighted, thereby determining how much relief--- in any--- a business can realize in assisting their wage subsidies.
    If a company profits more than certain levels commensurate with their actual costs... no soup for you!
    But, as you can imagine, very administrative-heavy to enforce.
    Yet another layer of government oversight!
  11. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Jan '17 19:11
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Who wouldn't?
    Because of my professional experience, I would shy away from any business which must operate on a low/high model: turn over is the bane of all businesses with respect to consistency, quality and daily operations and nothing screams turn over louder than minimum wage.
    But some operators have a long-term business model which accounts for that ...[text shortened]... u can imagine, very administrative-heavy to enforce.
    Yet another layer of government oversight!
    So what's your bottom line?

    At first it seemed like you are all for it. By the end, it seemed like you ended up somewhere else.
  12. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    07 Jan '17 19:48
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    So what's your bottom line?

    At first it seemed like you are all for it. By the end, it seemed like you ended up somewhere else.
    The bottom line remains the same: with it only impacting 4% of the wage earners and with it's actual impact to the mentioned businesses not yet established, there doesn't seem to be much of an impetus to increase it.
  13. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    07 Jan '17 19:52
    rent 600
    util 100
    food 200
    tran 100
    insu 150

    ente 100

    totl 1250

    western usa
    spartan and stoic

    so ($750/mo / 30) = $25/day profit!
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    07 Jan '17 20:21
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Will?
    Way.
    When I worked those jobs, I found the most affordable housing, pared my outgo to accommodate my income, saved every month.
    Rode a bike instead of a car when work was 27 miles from my house each way.
    Rent was $300/month.
    Doable today?
    Absolutely, if you know where to look.
    Internet wasn't a thing back then, but cable was: didn't have it.
    ...[text shortened]... er: without those opportunities, the wage could be $1,000/hour and still be of no use to anyone.
    Chicago.
    lowest rent is 480
    https://www.apartments.com/chicago-il/under-600/?bb=g8o-hx32gK4qkupx7M&so=2
    i am sure however that you can find a craphole for 300$ (poor people don't deserve decent apartments, right?)
    and sure, ride a bike to work, including in the winter.


    the budget is not done yet dear. groceries. utilities. healthcare.

    oh and in case i wasn't clear i don't care what the situation was "in your day" whenever that was. budget for the present day please.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Jan '17 20:22
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The bottom line remains the same: with it only impacting 4% of the wage earners and with it's actual impact to the mentioned businesses not yet established, there doesn't seem to be much of an impetus to increase it.
    You started with this which seemed to indicate that you're against any type of minimum wage increase since Bob isn't "owed" anything more than our well wishes with the rationalization of Bob being done some sort of favor since he's "truly free" that way:

    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.
    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.


    Since then, it's been hard to tell through all the flotsam.

    Seems like your initial post probably best captures your position with you subsequently trying to "sell" additional rationalizations as to why Bob shouldn't be paid a living wage.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree