GOP rep.: Keep minimum wage low ‘for minorities’ who aren’t worth more than $7 an hour

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You hit the nail on the head there. consumer expectations have risen. You try and put someone in a quality life that equaled to really good living in 1968 and they would scream inhuman punishment.

When I worked for close to minimum wage I lived in an apartment with a couch, a bed, cinder blocks and wood table and some used chairs. My revolving monthly cost was rent, food, gas, cheap car. That was it... Today I see 99%ers and homeless with IPhone 6s. We have turned into a vast and out of control consumer society. Its great if you can afford it, I can, so I do, but then you have someone who makes close to minimum wage and they think all that luxury is basics. This is why your 30 per hour is what you think you need.

I understand the difference between luxury and what is need for basics, and because of that I could live rather cheaply if need be.

I'm not going to get into a debate over living cheaply, but I'm a college student with little income who goes to school without loans and mostly out of pocket. I'm well aware of living cheaply. If you must know the furnishings in my apartment I have a small laptop cart, and an office chair. I have no shelves, no tables, no couch, no TV, no dresser, no nightstand, not even a bed... I sleep on the floor. You got me on the cell phone though, I do have a prepaid cell phone I use sparingly, it costs me roughly $7/month.

I'm not making the argument because I want more stuff, I'm a minimalist I don't need more stuff... besides I'm rarely home anyways, outside of sleeping I spend 90% of my time at school or work. I'm making the argument from the perspective of the economy. Wage stagnation is a very real thing, as is income inequality. Neither of those are good for our economy. Lets look at the lesson of Communism, no one had any personal stake in working hard because all wages were the same. This is becoming more and more true of the economy in the US. Despite working harder than every other developed nation on earth (those with jobs atleast) the bottom 95% in the US are moving backwards on the income scale. If the idea is that by working harder you can get ahead, then why are people moving backwards? Working harder should result in more purchasing power, better educations, better health care, and better retirement plans. None of that is happening instead it is the exact opposite and people are giving up. The current administration is touting the low unemployment rate, but as is so often brought up here that's not the case, we have the lowest workforce participation rate in 70 years right now and it is getting lower by the day. People have given up on working because there quite literally is no point, they cannot get ahead by doing so.

Perhaps if the wages hadn't been going backwards for such a long period of time that wouldn't be the case.

a reply to: Aazadan

People work, but are lucky if they can get full time or the multiple jobs necessary to even get enough hours to get anywhere near full time hours. The real problem with the employment statistic is they pretend all these employed people are making at least 40 hours at minimum wage, most can't even do that.

I'm so sick of hearing minimum wage at 40 hours all the time as if even that is a reasonable assumption. Most jobs give part time work and low end part time work at that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

I'm not making the argument because I want more stuff, I'm a minimalist I don't need more stuff... besides I'm rarely home anyways, outside of sleeping I spend 90% of my time at school or work. I'm making the argument from the perspective of the economy. Wage stagnation is a very real thing, as is income inequality. Neither of those are good for our economy.

My point is 10 bucks per hour puts us in line with the highest point (1968) in our history for minimum wage. So do you need 30 per hour to live? You are doing what everyone has done when they went to school with little or no support. Long hours at school and work and little pay, Nothing new.

The current administration is touting the low unemployment rate, but as is so often brought up here that's not the case, we have the lowest workforce participation rate in 70 years right now and it is getting lower by the day. People have given up on working because there quite literally is no point, they cannot get ahead by doing so.

I agree there are people underemployed and under paid, and it needs to get fixed. But increasing minimum wage by a lot is not the answer.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
My point is 10 bucks per hour puts us in line with the highest point (1968) in our history for minimum wage. So do you need 30 per hour to live? You are doing what everyone has done when they went to school with little or no support. Long hours at school and work and little pay, Nothing new.

And my point is that it only puts us in line if CPI is accurate, which it's not. If CPI were accurate the minutes of work to purchase items between 1982 and the previous minimum wage increase would be roughly the same. They're not. Purchasing power is declining and that's a function of wages not keeping up. Since all wages are essentially based on the minimum, that means the minimum hasn't kept up. As you pointed out earlier, many states have $10/hour minimum wages, yet those states are still having the same issues. That's because $10 isn't enough, and to be perfectly honest, after the research I did on the topic I'm convinced that $15 or even $20 isn't enough either. Naturally, I don't expect those to be the new wages overnight but it's something we need to address and we can go one of two ways with it, both have proven results.

We can take the path of Singapore, remove the minimum wage, and at the same time remove almost all social safety nets. That will force companies to pay wages people can live on. A large part of declining wages today is due to safety nets effectively subsidizing corporate payrolls. The downside is that our economy is heavily saturated with service sector workers these days, and we can't really add more of those jobs. Without skilled labor positions for people to move into (or an economic climate that encourages small business) in the short and possibly medium term we will be setting ourselves up for rampant homelessness and the associated crime.

The other option is to take the path of Norway. Every resident (or maybe it's just citizen) in Norway gets a basic level of income so that they can survive while choosing not to work if they wish. If they want more money they work and are paid quite highly for the labor even at minimum wage. They have low unemployment and low crime. The downside is that it would require us as a nation to accept much higher taxes than we currently have.

What I do know is that our current approach of a low minimum wage combined with a government subsidy to make up the rest is not getting the job done. Instead it is depressing the wages of just about everyone to the benefit of only the 5% at the top. If that is the route we're going to go, the wage needs to increase, because right now we effectively have no minimum wage but lack the tax structure to support such a thing.

a reply to: Aazadan

a reply to: Xtrozero


When will a home and food become basic human rights?

a reply to: EternalSolace

In the US? Probably never.

In other areas of the world? It already is.

originally posted by: EternalSolace


When will a home and food become basic human rights?

Oh we can do that for everyone, but no bitching about the home and food....

The US is about the only country in the world that people feel the lowest level of living should be what a single person can effectively live on their whole life at minimum wage. When you go to other parts of the world it is a synergistic event of a family or a group supporting one another.

I get this image of a 18 year old that graduates high school with zero skill and walks into a minimum wage job that will pay for an apartment, all his food, transportation, clothing, entertainment etc. Somewhere someone pays if not him. I had roommates until I was 30 and that was the 70s and 80s.

Minimum wage sets a starting standard that other wages are based on. Those who actually pay minimum wage I would never work for or support and are most likely predatory companies that people should ban by zero support.

BTW, a right? I do not know, but what I do know is if you are healthy in mind and body and you do not try to do anything for yourself in life I do not care if you starve...its your choice.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The US is about the only country in the world that people feel the lowest level of living should be what a single person can effectively live on their whole life at minimum wage. When you go to other parts of the world it is a synergistic event of a family or a group supporting one another.

Sometimes roommates aren't a bad thing, but often times roommates are really only something for when you're young it's not so much a status thing as it is a personal space thing. People require space. I see a lot of people, especially here who advocate this to be a good thing as it forces people to get married and then stay together out of financial need. I'm not so sure that that's a good route to go.

When it comes to family, that would be nice but we have a culture in the US of kicking kids out and telling them to bootstrap themselves. Our family structure is non existent when compared to other areas of the world and Americans largely mock such structure. For example I remember reading a story here about a Chinese kid. He lived with his parents until he was 25 while he went through medical school, and the story mentioned that his parents would help him study every single night so that he got good grades. The response by people commenting here was outright scorn saying the kid was a leech, had no concept of responsibility since he wasn't living on his own, and was a failure as a human being for getting help from his parents for studying. The comments weren't very kind to the parents who were supposedly babying their child either.

As a people Americans are rather callous, even towards our own families. In how many cultures around the world does a person put their parents into a nursing home rather than take them in? Many places view it as an equal exchange and often times have 3+ generations under a single roof. They take care of you when you're young, you take care of them when they're old. We don't do that here, if we did we could probably solve a lot of these issues.

I get this image of a 18 year old that graduates high school with zero skill and walks into a minimum wage job that will pay for an apartment, all his food, transportation, clothing, entertainment etc. Somewhere someone pays if not him. I had roommates until I was 30 and that was the 70s and 80s.

I get a different image. I see a person skilled or not making minimum wage, they get a crappy apartment, enough food that they eat well and don't have to purchase the cheap stuff that causes long term health issues, and the ability to fund transportation to and from work. What I don't see is a person having a grandiose life on minimum wage. On the other hand them having enough that they can put x% towards recreation doesn't seem to me like the worst thing in the world. Afterall, it's important in an economy for all members to be participating.

Minimum wage sets a starting standard that other wages are based on. Those who actually pay minimum wage I would never work for or support and are most likely predatory companies that people should ban by zero support.

Maybe we just live in different areas. I'm 30 now and the highest paying jobs I have ever had have been minimum wage, not for lack of skills but because that's simply what people pay. Usually they pay less, maybe that's just a side effect of living in the poorest area of the country? Then again it has always been my experience that what happens to those on the bottom is an indicator of things to come for the rest. Things always propagate starting with the lowest.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Sometimes roommates aren't a bad thing, but often times roommates are really only something for when you're young it's not so much a status thing as it is a personal space thing. People require space. I see a lot of people, especially here who advocate this to be a good thing as it forces people to get married and then stay together out of financial need. I'm not so sure that that's a good route to go.

Roommates are a lot like insurance and investments. When you are young with little money you have no investments but you can get cheap insurance and a roommate, as you get older insurance gets more expensive to the point you can't afford it anymore, but investments then take it's place. If you get older and have no investments then your kind of # out of luck in quality of life choices, just as if you are older and still make low income your kind of # out of luck for other quality of life choices too like living without a roommate.

The normal progression is to increase your income as your skills, experience and education gets better.

As a people Americans are rather callous, even towards our own families. In how many cultures around the world does a person put their parents into a nursing home rather than take them in? Many places view it as an equal exchange and often times have 3+ generations under a single roof. They take care of you when you're young, you take care of them when they're old. We don't do that here, if we did we could probably solve a lot of these issues.

I agree

Maybe we just live in different areas. I'm 30 now and the highest paying jobs I have ever had have been minimum wage, not for lack of skills but because that's simply what people pay. Usually they pay less, maybe that's just a side effect of living in the poorest area of the country? Then again it has always been my experience that what happens to those on the bottom is an indicator of things to come for the rest. Things always propagate starting with the lowest.

Why do you live in a place that holds you back?

originally posted by: XtrozeroWhy do you live in a place that holds you back?

Because scholarships and grants don't take cost of living into account. A low cost of living area with the associated inexpensive tuition means I can get the education to do what I want to do without having to take student loans, or any other debt.