Minimum wage earners can't afford to live anywhere in America

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, Jul 15, 2021.

  1. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the federal min wage is not the same as the State min wage, some States need a higher min wage due to costs of living
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even a state MW forces $14/hour in San Francisco and $14/hour in McFarland...a boon to McFarland and a joke in SF. MW, if in place, should be calculated at the local level...maybe based on local cost of living indexes? I do not see MW and a so-called living wage ever being equal...they should be two separate discussions...
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    MW should be calculated at the local level...
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How? The market and wage competition divides that.
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it is, the federal min wage is just the lowest any State can have
     
  6. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because it's a MW, doesn't mean that is the majority of what is being paid. Exactly what is the value of unskilled labor? They are actually learning (hopefully) skills while they earn a wage. I'm not sure why people don't apply the idea that very few people actually stay at MW, regardless of what it is dollar-wise.
     
  7. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a persona has never held a job before, has no skills, and will be learning skills in their position, you have a large labor pool (technically) with the same skills. The lack of available labor is a driving factor in wage increases, we saw that prior to the pandemic.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  8. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it's not a matter of everybody deserving the same treatment, it's just for those who can't afford it. Special handling, shall we call it.

    But 'I' get to pay for it, but can't have it.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  9. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    never said it was, are you suggesting we force the rich to live in government housing

    this is an option for those that can't afford housing, not something we force on people
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Saw that back during Clinton and the dotcom bubble. Hard to find workers and starting wages went up.
     
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is probably partly true but is also a little more complicated. Inflation of the economy (during a bubble) also leads to monetary inflation, even in the absence of additional money being printed. Why? Because people think they have more money and wealth than they actually do.
    Theoretically this is temporary and will go away when that bubble implodes, but usually the government Central Bank (or "the Fed" in the US) is so afraid of any deflation that they start printing money to make up the difference, so things don't deflate back down to normal levels where they would have been if it was not for the inflation caused by the unsustainable bubble.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
    Collateral Damage and Hoosier8 like this.
  12. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) It's only going to be bad for them if they attempt to continue to live in a place they can no longer afford. Something has to give - they either need to increase their income, or change the way they live.

    2) That is the worst possible solution. Compounded by the fact that access to such housing would be predicated upon means, you have what equates to a disaster. Eligibility for anything like that MUST be predicated on a demonstrated history of financial responsibility. Your model means that any b@stard who simply blew all his dough on good times, would be eligible. Furthermore, what in hell is 'affordable housing' anyway? Think about what it really means, in the sense you mean it. What you're actually asking for, is that certain people - people who are greedy and entitled - are gifted discounted housing in high cost areas, while the rest of us have to live wherever we can afford. AFFORDABLE housing means that YOU can afford it. None of us has a right to live in places we can't afford.

    3) It's only 'critical' to those who consider themselves entitled to live wherever they want.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
    roorooroo and Collateral Damage like this.
  13. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please do not insert words I never used.

    If the government is going to subsidize housing for one group, why shouldn't they subsidize housing for all people?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  14. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if the rich want to live in government housing, they can, they will just choose not too, their choice, that is the point

    all people can choose government housing, if they don't choose it, that was their choice

    and you're the one putting words in my mouth, I just asked you a question
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
  15. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, no, 'rich' people cannot live in government housing (unless you are including military housing) since there are income limits for those permitted.

    So, back to my original statement, it would be a limited group for 'affordable housing', other people just get to pay for it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is no government housing that we were talking about, we're talking about apartments the government rents to anyone

    your talking about current low income government housing
     
  17. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure what program you are referring to, unless it's something you would like to see. Currently, all 'government housing' has requirements regarding income maximums.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  18. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The claim is patently false and the article was written by Herr Josef Göbbels, III.

    [​IMG]

    Those 2-bedrooms rent for $450/month.

    $7.25 * 40 * 52 / 12 * 80% = $1,005/month take-home pay.

    Very obviously, a minimum wage worker can afford that and since Ohio has a minimum above the federal level, it's even more affordable.

    If you want a 2-bedroom with a swimming pool and exercise facility, that will cost you $550-$650/month, and if you want a swimming pool and an exercise facility and tennis courts and covered parking and a club-house to use for parties and stuff, that will cost you $750-$850/month.

    This studio in San Fransisco rents for $1,779/month

    upload_2021-11-3_12-4-25.png


    You cannot find a 2-bedroom for $450/month everywhere in the US, but then unlike the sack of runny excrement that claimed minimum wage workers can't afford an apartment anywhere, I never said that was true.

    Now, go get a napkin and wipe that Kool-Aid® mustache off your face.

    Illegal immigration should be barred for security and safety reasons, not for housing or wage issues.

    Besides, both legal and illegal aliens share housing, meaning an apartment has 2 or more households in it.

    Yeah, that's right.....legal and illegal immigrants are way more smarter and savvy and the average American turd.

    You can bring all immigration to a halt and one of the first things that will happen is your seafood industry will collapse, because Americans don't like cracking crabs or gutting fish, and then your agriculture industry will collapse because Americans don't like walking beans or de-tassling corn or baling hay or picking fruits and vegetables....for minimum wage....so food is affordable for you.



    That's fluff and puffery.

    The Göbbels-lover cannot back his claim that minimum wage workers can't afford housing so he tries to deflect by throwing in irrelevant data about the work-force in order to create an emotional angle.

    It's really sad you couldn't see that.

    You have never seen poverty.

    If you want, I'll take you on the Poverty World Tour™ to show you real poverty that will make you puke and have nightmares for the rest of your life. Yes, you'll have to sign a hold-harmless agreement first, 'cause I don't want to be held responsible for your nightmares.

    That is the fault of your government, and not the fault of legal/illegal immigration, specifically to wit: the Departments of Housing & Urban Development and Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    There are more than 120,000 housing markets in the US.

    To which one(s) are you referring?

    Instead of parroting something you know nothing about, why don't you waltz on over to the Department of Labor and USCIS to see who is applying for H1-B visas?

    Ultimately, they will anyway and there ain't a ****** thing you can do about it.

    Well, that's not entirely true. You could start WW III.

    Repeat this phrase as many times as you need to understand it: The Laws of Economics are Inviolable.

    You're living a fantasy, because you have been standing on the backs of Billions and raping them of their wealth for more than a century.

    The result of that is Americans are grossly over-paid, and so are Western Europeans.

    When India, Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central/South America and the rest of Southeast Asia move into the 2nd Level Economy and start approaching the 3rd Level Economy, wages globally will start equalizing.

    Your wages will stagnate or rise slowly while the rest of the catches up to you and is where they would have been had you and the West not interfered.

    Your Standard of Living and Life-Style will decline, too, but don't worry, it won't ever drop below that of 2nd World States.

    Um, no, that's not how it works.
     
  19. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then by your own admission, the federal government needs to get out of the minimum wage business.

    HUD will subsidize rent of a single person earning $56,600/year.

    I wouldn't necessarily call that "rich."

    Then again, HUD will only do that in some parts of the US and not the entire US.

    Likewise, in some parts of the US, HUD says that $14,000/year is way too much money for a single person and will not subsidize their rent.

    I wouldn't call $14,000/year rich, either.

    The reason I mention that is because:

    $7.25/hour * 40 hours * 52 weeks = $15,080/year

    The point being, your government says people who earn less than minimum wage can afford their own housing in at least some parts of the US, while the Göbbels-style articles says that none can afford housing anywhere.
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    were talking about creating a program that doesn't exist, as in it would be a new program
     
  21. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nope, the fed min wage is the min a State can set, if a State wants to set a higher min wage, they can

    why does the right want people to make less than the min wage
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
  22. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Edited to remove response not directed at me.

    Technically, no one is to earn less than minimum wage per hour worked, even tipped waitstaff. The employer is supposed to adjust employer paid wages so that between tips and wages paid equals a minimum of the FMW.

    A person may work less than 40 hours a week, as long as wages for hours worked is a minimum of FMW, or State MW, whichever is higher.
     
  23. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The value of labor is defined by the skill set and supply and demand. Labor is paid to produce something no matter if they are skilled or not. Some people want to learn and grow while others just want the status quo...who knows what motivates each worker? I agree MW should be entry level pay and that the worker should be motivated to achieve higher pay over time...however, many people believe MW should be a living wage and this is what keeps this conversation going...
     
  24. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then there's the reality in which many people need assistance...no matter all your judgement of them. It is a FACT that society does not present affordable housing for everyone who lives and works in a given community.

    In bold above is BS! You don't think a police officer, or a fireman, or a school teacher, or the workers at all restaurants and hotels and retail, who all are essential jobs, have a right to live within a reasonable distance from where they work?
     
  25. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea that there is some mysterious formula for the 'living wage' that some people believe should be paid regardless of value of the production tells me that the person saying such has actually no understanding how the value of production figure is reached.

    Labor is paid if they are capable to produce the particular product. If they are not capable, they are not paid, and chances are they aren't employed any further, regardless if there is a labor shortage or not. A reduction in production is preferable to paying a person who is not producing and acting like they are contributing to company.
     
    roorooroo likes this.

Share This Page