- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In Louisiana, you need twice the minimum wage to afford a 2-bedroom apartment
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:37 am to Obtuse1
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:37 am to Obtuse1
quote:
So now we have a bunch of people making $12/hr that were previously mythical to you?
You have no reading comprehension. In fact I've said they do exist, just not among anyone I know.
They are lowly skilled, lowly educated, non motivated, young people.
Continually raising the minimum wage does nothing to fix that problem.
2
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:38 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You have no reading comprehension
You have no evidence of anything you're claiming, per usual.
quote:
In fact I've said they do exist, just not among anyone I know.
Totally irrelevant.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:40 am to Obtuse1
quote:
The bottom line is a LOT of people make less than ~$10/hr and thus there argument is moot anyway.
What's the best way to improve their lot in life?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
30% of hourly workers, and it doesn't include wages from tipping, which many of those positions carry.
You're looking at wages, not income.
OK let's refine it using the Pew numbers you have now cited. Over half of those are in generally non-tipping industries (there is a list in my link). If you consider 1/2 of the food service workers are back of the house with no tip-out you are now down to about 23% of workers. Still quite significant. But again you don't think they even exist unless you have modified your position.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:45 am to Obtuse1
quote:
But again you don't think they even exist unless you have modified your position
I haven't modified anything, you just can't read
What's the best way to improve these people's standing in society?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:47 am to StupidBinder
quote:
If people aren’t contributing $15/hour of value and you’re forcing their employers to pay them that, you’re still subsidizing them.
The only thing you’re changing is who forks it over. Either way, it comes out of your pocket in the form of higher taxes or higher prices.
I have said this several times in the thread. My position there, as I have already stated, is I would prefer the company that gets direct benefit to be the one to carry the freight, not the taxpayers. Some would rather the government do the subsidizing, I just differ in my opinion.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:48 am to Obtuse1
quote:
is I would prefer the company that gets direct benefit to be the one to carry the freight, not the taxpayers.
Are you under the impression that increased cost of production comes out of profit?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:50 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I haven't modified anything, you just can't read
I can read BUT when you make seemingly contradictory statements it makes it incumbent on me to try to nail you down to one position. Ok so you still think people paid less than $10.10 and hour are extremely rare correct? So you dispute the Pew numbers?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:55 am to Obtuse1
quote:
I have said this several times in the thread. My position there, as I have already stated, is I would prefer the company that gets direct benefit to be the one to carry the freight, not the taxpayers. Some would rather the government do the subsidizing, I just differ in my opinion.
What direct benefit? If my labor is worth X and my company pays me accordingly, how do they benefit by paying me more than that?
If you have an adult who is earning minimum wage, it’s either because he lacks job skills/training, education or motivation. None of that is the company’s fault. It’s either the education system, parenting, or the guy has a disability and actually requires gov support. Those are all societal issues.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:55 am to Obtuse1
Why is 10.10 your focus number?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 10:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Are you under the impression that increased cost of production comes out of profit?
Your arguments are getting increasingly loose you need to absorb everything I have said and understand often I am articulating the other side to attempt to get people to pick a side.
What I think you are driving at is that you are saying the cost of goods and services will go up not profit goes down. This isn't always the case and I assume you understand at least that much about the running of a business but lets go with it.
My point is IF we are in a situation where we are accepting either the buiness owners (currently paying at or close to min wage) pays the workers more or the taxpayers continue to subsidize them I prefer to get the government out of it. The taxpayers will then have more to spend and can choose where they spend it. If you prefer government involvement than so be it we agree to disagree on a matter of opinion.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:00 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Your arguments are getting increasingly loose you need to absorb everything I have said and understand often I am articulating the other side to attempt to get people to pick a side.
Having a consistent and coherent arguement is not a strength of the OT.
quote:
What I think you are driving at is that you are saying the cost of goods and services will go up not profit goes down. This isn't always the case
This is correct, but people will argue with you about it.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:02 am to Aristo
quote:
Why is 10.10 your focus number?
My opinions here were initially expressed regarding at or near minimum wage, in my mind at the time I was thinking <$10 though I did not initially articulate that. When the issue of not many workers make these low wages I researched the numbers and found the Pew stats that I linked to. The numbers they gave were for $10.10 and lower. I can't legitimately guess how much going with any other number would impact the percentage so I have continued to use the $10.10.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:06 am to Obtuse1
quote:
This isn't always the case
Well, nothing is absolute.
Now goods and services will not rise in price proportionally, but eventually it will rise.
quote:
pays the workers more or the taxpayers continue to subsidize them I prefer to get the government out of it
Minimum wage isn't getting the government out of it.
The idea should be to move these people up the ladder, not keep adjusting the ladder.
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 11:08 am
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:07 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Now goods and services will not rise in price proportionally, but eventually it will rise
This may or may not be true.
Eta: disregarding the impacts of inflation
This post was edited on 6/27/19 at 11:14 am
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:09 am to Obtuse1
quote:
My opinions here were initially expressed regarding at or near minimum wage, in my mind at the time I was thinking <$10 though I did not initially articulate that. When the issue of not many workers make these low wages I researched the numbers and found the Pew stats that I linked to. The numbers they gave were for $10.10 and lower. I can't legitimately guess how much going with any other number would impact the percentage so I have continued to use the $10.10.
You do realize $10.10 buys a lot more in Alabama than it does in California?
Shouldn't things like min. wage be left to cities or states?
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:10 am to StupidBinder
quote:
What direct benefit? If my labor is worth X and my company pays me accordingly, how do they benefit by paying me more than that?
You have to read and assemble the entire discussion since if you don't you are going to be arguing deadends that have already been explained.
If you put the whole context together I was arguing the binary choice of either the employer pays more or the taxpayers subsidize them which I did not set up just responding to. In this scenario the employer is getting the direct benefit of their work vs the taxpayer.
Keep in mind I am debating within other peoples arguments. I am not setting them up outside my initial post. So you have to understand that anyone can jump in mid-stream and say but this I can't argue an infinite number of points at once.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:10 am to Powerman
quote:
I'd like to know where you can buy a half acre lot for 20K
Right before I posted that I looked at Zillow for Watson LA. That is where I got that figure. If you want to go more rural, it is available for less.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:16 am to Obtuse1
quote:
If you put the whole context together I was arguing the binary choice of either the employer pays more or the taxpayers subsidize them which I did not set up just responding to. In this scenario the employer is getting the direct benefit of their work vs the taxpayer.
These employers don't pay taxes too? So basically you want the low income workers to receive a "living wage," you just don't want to be part of the group of tax payers financing it.
Posted on 6/27/19 at 11:19 am to Obtuse1
quote:
If you put the whole context together I was arguing the binary choice of either the employer pays more or the taxpayers subsidize them
Good luck with that choice
There are many who choose to work fewer hours in order not to lose their benefits.
Raise the wage high enough to end all benefits, hello automation.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News