Glenn, you can not seem to keep politics out of your discussions. Please don't make myself or some other mod close this thread. This is a warning.

There was a story about a guy that was accused of setting fire to his hotel room because he was allegedly smoking in bed.

His explanation was that the bed was already on fire when he got into it.

Well, this thread was already political when I replied to it!!!

 

There was a story about a guy that was accused of setting fire to his hotel room because he was allegedly smoking in bed.

His explanation was that the bed was already on fire when he got into it.

Well, this thread was already political when I replied to it!!!

Then you need to go back to school and learn the difference between discussing a topic and randomly blaming everything in your life on mysterious and unstoppable government forces that you imagine and discuss in almost every post you make. It's boring dude.

 

Well, this thread was already political when I replied to it!!!

How so? I made zero affiliations with any political party when posting it and none specifically have so far been mentioned either.

 

It sure as Hell ain't boring here in California dude.

In fact government and politics in California is more exciting than plate tectonics and earthquakes. There's insurance for earthquake damage, but politicians and government can wreak unlimited financial havoc like open ended tax increases.

There is a saying "The power to tax is the power to destroy". So given a priority, most would rather get rid of all the politicians in the state before erasing the San Andreas Fault.

 

How so? I made zero affiliations with any political party when posting it and none specifically have so far been mentioned either.

I didn't say anything about my preference for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton either, so I haven't committed any of the deadly sins enumerated in the terms of use for AAC.

 

So, it seems safe to say that both front runners are equally noxious, hated and feared by the population. To quote Yakov Smirnoff, "What a country".

 

why are you asking questions instead of simply clarifying with a yes or no on your earlier statement? If you don't have a yes or no, please explain why you made the earlier statement.

Some are NOT WORTH any wage, minimum or otherwise. Some ARE worth the minimum wage and then some.

You hire on a teenager and pay them ... if they show they are worth more, pay them more. If they show they are worth less, they get fired. That is the basics.

So, what should the federally mandated minimum wage be, or should it be state mandated?

 

It is not just teens.

I am a 59 year old transgender woman who used to make good money in seriously technical fields. I own my home, and really do not want to move.

I was unemployed for over 6 months, seriously looking for a job I don't have to drive over 30 miles for. Before that it was hit and miss contract labor that seriously convinced me I don't like Dallas rush hour traffic. I have taken a part time job at Walmart, who scrupulously makes sure I don't get over 36 hours a week so I will not be eligible for benefits. I have no fixed schedule, other than working 5 days a week, my days off are at their whim. This for $9/hour. It is not even close to making ends meet, but it is what I have to do for the moment while looking for something better.

I knew it was going to be hard when I decided to transition and live. Life does not disappoint. I am on the edge, there may come a time I just drop out of site and no one will know what happened to me. That is the curse of the internet. It is also life.

Just be aware the hypotheticals you are discussing have real people in back of them. We are pulling out of the Great Recession (a joke that), but we are not clear yet.

 

The graphic claims that $15/hr (which is ~$30k/yr) isn't a living wage for a single adult in Colorado. Seems a bit of a stretch for me given that I live in Colorado and me, my wife, and my daughter got by for a year (about a year ago while I was largely unemployed) on just under $32k/yr without anything falling behind and that included paying the mortgage and health insurance.

Back in the 2002ish timeframe when I was paying off my first house (i.e., any money I could find went to the mortgage) I was living on LESS than the $5.15/hr minimum wage (including the basic mortgage payment but not including health insurance since that was paid by the company) and once I had the mortgage paid off I kept my basic lifestyle such that it could be maintained as long as I could find 40 hrs/wk of work at minimum wage. As a result, I piled up cash so fast that I had more than enough for the 20% down payment on our current house (though with 20/20 hindsight I wish I has stayed in the old, paid-off house).

Once we have this house paid off (hopefully another two to three years) our baseline expenses (for a family of three) will be right about where we can meet them at the current minimum wage.

 

@JoeJester
Your source is highly left- biased and pro-union: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/

$15/h equates to $600/week, $2,600/month, or $31,200/year. Max social security for someone is only approximately $2,303.80/month before deductions. Now, if one's income is that low, he is eligible for all kind of adjustments and subsidies. In fact, except for taxes, and with no subsidies, I live on less than amount and have done so for years.

Why should our maximum Social Security retirement be less than the so-called "livable wage."

John

 

@JoeJester
Your source is highly left- biased and pro-union: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/

$15/h equates to $600/week, $2,600/month, or $31,200/year. Max social security for someone is only approximately $2,303.80/month before deductions. Now, if one's income is that low, he is eligible for all kind of adjustments and subsidies. In fact, except for taxes, and with no subsidies, I live on less than amount and have done so for years.

Why should our maximum Social Security retirement be less than the so-called "livable wage."

John

It shouldn't. That's the point of this conversation. Yet, you somehow keep claiming that wages should be set by full capitalism - allowing employers to post positions and have potential laborer a out-bid each other in a spiral towards zero dollars per hour with no bargaining leverage for them like a minimum wage. There will always be some level of unemployment so that reverse auction (as anyone with basic economics training will know) will depress wages to unacceptable levels - hence the reason almost every country in the world has minimum wage laws of some type.

I live on less than amount and have done so for years.

No, you really don't. You claim you live on less but your house has been paid off for years. Calculate a mortgage on your little shoebox-sized house add property taxes and then double it. That is the rent most people pay (since most didn't have the luxury to get ahead of the curve and invest in real estate earlier in life.

On top of that, as a retiree, you have minimal transportation costs and minimal utilities to pay since you have been taking excellent care of your home over the years. You also have plenty of time to make all of your meals at home and never have to eat out as you run from one job to the next.

 

@GopherT
You seem to assume that someone who works for minimum wage should haven't to sacrifice any luxuries. There is clearly a difference between "livable" wage and desired wage. If you want more, then that should be your incentive not to work for minimum wage. Social Security was set up as an annuity to provide "social security." It should meet at least minimal requirements.

As for my belief in capitalism, what's wrong with that? It is certainly more effective, fair, and efficient than any other other form.

John

 

@GopherT
You seem to assume that someone who works for minimum wage should haven't to sacrifice any luxuries.

Is that what you extracted from my post? Are you on medication or are you just a troll?

 

For some reason I have a vision of a Walmart staffed by 17 year olds.


Good luck with the job hunt Wendy.

 

There will always be some level of unemployment so that reverse auction (as anyone with basic economics training will know) will depress wages to unacceptable levels ...

I have a basic economics training and I know no such thing.

First off, who says there is an "unacceptable level", and who exactly gets to determine what that is? I will stake my faith in the wisdom of a free market and will never believe that the central planners know better, as they always claim they do. How would tyrants and bureaucrats justify their existence otherwise?

Secondly, we're nowhere near having so large an excess in the supply of labor that sellers (workers) have no bargaining power. There are plenty of jobs to which the minimum wage laws don't apply anyway, and that market seems to be functioning OK. In fact the salaries for the vast majority of jobs in this country are subject to market forces. Everyone always wants more, but we grudgingly accept the reality that we can be paid no more than our replacement.

The tyrants seek to tell a small voting bloc – mostly young minorities - that they must give up their right to negotiate for a salary in a free market, and must instead become wards of the state, reliant on scraps from the tables of the bureaucrats.

 

Why should our maximum Social Security retirement be less than the so-called "livable wage."

I never implied that it shouldn't, but the government has already stated that Social Security is supplemental income and not a primary source, even though it is for some. If they define a "livable wage", that opens a new host of mandates including increasing social security. If the federal government did define livable, AARP and everyone receiving any government benefits will pressure their critters to change the laws to ensure they "get" what they deserve. The only required deduction from social security is Medicare, all others, including income tax, is voluntary as up to 85 percent of your social security can be taxable under the current rules.

I read a number of sources on this topic and they are all over the spectrum.

Saylor Group : Unemployment benefits and Labor-Leisure Tradoff
Forbes : The Record is Clear, Minimum wage hikes kill jobs
Forbes : Why Raising the Minimum wage kills jobs
Forbes : Why we need a minimum wage
Forbes : New York's $15 Minimum Wage Will Cost 65,000 Jobs
Forbes : The Truth about the Minimum Wage

Some confirm my opinion about an inverse relationship between minimum wage and available jobs. The Saylor Group's article thrown into the mix something I think I inherently knew, some people use unemployment in lieu of working.

Back to the minimum wage, how many people were suppose to survive on it? One. In this country today, both parents are working, contributing to the family income. That is nothing new as many of us seen both parents holding jobs to increase the family income for whatever reason.

from USDOL

• Unemployment insurance payments (benefits) are intended to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law.

from Cornell Law website:
The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.

Since ONE, the employee's health and well being, is the "designed" minimum wage, should there be a "test" to ensure a family can survive on the "minimum" wage? As we all know, if such a test existed, some will increase the size of their family to get the "higher" wage. When the minimum was 7.25, or over 15k per year, that was about 2000 above the poverty level for one person. Where should the minimum be set? Fifteen might be too low, why not 100,000. Of course then you'd have those making the minimum complaining they don't have enough money to support their lifestyle.

I remember people having room mates in order to afford housing, and no, I don't mean wives.

Even the government recognizes one needs more money at times. If you look at their quarters allowance for the military, you will find two categories, one with dependents and one without. The problem is, the IRS will tax all income, regardless of source. I doubt there is a tax break for businesses to offer "allowances" for those with families in the same manner the government reserves for itself.

 

 

View attachment 106905

I agree, the Government (and the Federal Reserve & Credit Ratings companies) was at fault...
not, the free market. The Private Sector did everything they could to keep money moving and get people into houses and keep the market rolling. Here is a great summary from Forbes Magazine.

• In 1998, banks got the green light to gamble: The Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC, i.e. the government, to engage in highly risky business.

• Low interest rates fueled an apparent boom: Following the dot-com bust in 2000, the Federal Reserve dropped rates to 1 percent and kept them there for an extended period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks). Asset managers sought new ways to make money: Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasuries. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities.

• The credit rating agencies gave their blessing: The credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasuries. Fund managers didn’t do their homework: Fund managers relied on the ratings of the credit rating agencies and failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them and did not understand these instruments or the risk involved.

• Derivatives were unregulated: Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The SEC loosened capital requirements: In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks. This exemption replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. This allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs [GS], Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America [BAC]), Lehman Brothers (now defunct) and Bear Stearns (now part of JPMorganChase–[JPM]). These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage left little room for error. By 2008, only two of the five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the bailout.

• The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws. In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks, including anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates increased markedly.

• Compensation schemes encouraged gambling: Wall Street’s compensation system was—and still is—based on short-term performance, all upside and no downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks. The bonuses are extraordinarily large and they continue–$135 billion in 2010 for the 25 largest institutions and that is after the meltdown.

• Wall Street became “creative”: The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations.

• Private sector lenders fed the demand for high-yield (risky) mortgages: These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to relax underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• Financial gadgets milked the market: “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

• Derivatives exploded uncontrollably: CDOs provided the first “infinite market”; at height of crash, derivatives accounted for 3 times global economy.

• Fannie and Freddie jumped in the game late to protect their profits: Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision.

• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market share declined. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

• It was primarily private lenders who relaxed standards: Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006.

 

I never implied that it shouldn't, but the government has already stated that Social Security is supplemental income and not a primary source, even though it is for some. If they define a "livable wage", that opens a new host of mandates including increasing social security. If the federal government did define livable, AARP and everyone receiving any government benefits will pressure their critters to change the laws to ensure they "get" what they deserve. The only required deduction from social security is Medicare, all others, including income tax, is voluntary as up to 85 percent of your social security can be taxable under the current rules.

I read a number of sources on this topic and they are all over the spectrum.

Saylor Group : Unemployment benefits and Labor-Leisure Tradoff
Forbes : The Record is Clear, Minimum wage hikes kill jobs
Forbes : Why Raising the Minimum wage kills jobs
Forbes : Why we need a minimum wage
Forbes : New York's $15 Minimum Wage Will Cost 65,000 Jobs
Forbes : The Truth about the Minimum Wage

Some confirm my opinion about an inverse relationship between minimum wage and available jobs. The Saylor Group's article thrown into the mix something I think I inherently knew, some people use unemployment in lieu of working.

Back to the minimum wage, how many people were suppose to survive on it? One. In this country today, both parents are working, contributing to the family income. That is nothing new as many of us seen both parents holding jobs to increase the family income for whatever reason.



Since ONE, the employee's health and well being, is the "designed" minimum wage, should there be a "test" to ensure a family can survive on the "minimum" wage? As we all know, if such a test existed, some will increase the size of their family to get the "higher" wage. When the minimum was 7.25, or over 15k per year, that was about 2000 above the poverty level for one person. Where should the minimum be set? Fifteen might be too low, why not 100,000. Of course then you'd have those making the minimum complaining they don't have enough money to support their lifestyle.

I remember people having room mates in order to afford housing, and no, I don't mean wives.

Even the government recognizes one needs more money at times. If you look at their quarters allowance for the military, you will find two categories, one with dependents and one without. The problem is, the IRS will tax all income, regardless of source. I doubt there is a tax break for businesses to offer "allowances" for those with families in the same manner the government reserves for itself.

For every internet opinion search there is a counter argument.
https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
On the other hand I do plead guilty to not taking the first job around when I have been unemployed. Maybe I'm just greedy, but I saw no reason to move backward when some more work would yield a better result. Maybe I was lucky I had enough to get through those periods.
Almost everyone has been unemployed during their life. Did you take a lesser job?

 

.
Almost everyone has been unemployed during their life. Did you take a lesser job?

When given the choice, no. But when times are hard it looks like you have no other choice if you don't want to starve and loose the roof over your head...So yes I've taken jobs that were "beneath my potential?" to not end up on the streets.