Minimum Wage Goes Up Today - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #91 (**permalink**) 07-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

So they didn't actually pay that amount in income tax, it was merely withheld. If I may ask, why would a student in college not claim exemption from withholding? Were they working so many hours while in college that they actually had an income tax liability?

They withheld it. I don't know if at the end of the year they got any back or not. It would be real hard to prove anything about cash tips. But I though the entire thing was unfair. My kids worked their asses off in college. As for their tax liability, I don't know that either. I know that they worked every summer all summer and all they could during the school year. And they were working more than one job at times.

jviehe · #92 (**permalink**) 07-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Same with everyone who gets a COLA increase.

Not at all. COLA is a farce.

jviehe · #93 (**permalink**) 07-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I had a college degree when I got my first full-time job, and because the job market was horrible and my degree, while prestigious, is not a standard computer science or engineering degree, I found myself working for slightly more than minimum wage and no benefits. I had a roommate and we cooked at home every single day (no going out). After rent, gas, and food, I had basically no money. If my car needed repairs or if I had needed medical treatment, I would have been completely screwed. I even worked ~20 hours overtime per week and I was still damn near broke. My roommate had the same degree, and worked in construction as a carpenter for about twice minimum wage, but with no benefits, and technically he should have been paying self-employment tax, etc, but I'm sure he didn't.

Eventually, after almost exactly one year I got an engineering job with benefits (even though my degree isn't exactly engineering) and things got a LOT better.

Not everyone who works a minimum wage job lives at home. Not by a long shot. I can't even imagine trying to support a family on it (you would HAVE to get foodstamps and other assistance to make it).

Keeping minimum wage something that at least a single person can subsist on, rather than take a loss on, is a good idea. Letting minimum wage disappear would completely f*k a lot of good hardworking people.

You just said your job didnt pay you minimum wage.

Sunshine · #94 (**permalink**) 07-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Not at all. COLA is a farce.

Then so is raising the cost of living for minimum wage workers.

When I started working minimum wage was $1.10. With a 2080 hour work year, if it were never raised people working minimum wage jobs would only be making $2288/year. This country got past abusive work environments many years ago. Even at what the minimum wage is a lot of people still find it suits them better to stay home and draw welfare. Working is costly. One has to have transportation & gas, suitable clothing, lunches, etc. For a person working a minimum wage job, the pay is often eaten up by the expenses of working, thus making welfare the best option.

In the days I was working that type job, my husband was the real breadwinner with a very well paying job. As I think about it now, I don't think I really brought anything much into the household. But we didn't have children in those days, and staying at home and beng a 'kept woman' albeit a married one didn't feel real good to me.

Thematic-Device · #95 (**permalink**) 07-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Becuase no one has to pay for the increased wage. They just get more money. They arent going to be doing more work, or have more responsbilities. Same job, higher wage.

They simply take away a higher percentage of the revenue. Further, by virtue of their continued employment we know that they were earning at least their new share of for their employer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

its refreshing to hear a leftie admit that.

but then its not "assistance" at all is it ?

Its thoroughly admitted by many (fairly liberal) economists who've studied the matter. In fact there's a compelling argument that for many workers at the very low end of the scale it is sometimes more profitable to live solely off the benefits because working adds costs. The means to offset this would be to remove welfare benefits based on a 1:1/2 scale or similar rather then the 1:1 for new income earned.

e.g.

Assuming a starting Welfare of 300 per period

Quote:

$100 wages 250 welfare - Total 350
$200 wages 200 welfare - Total 400
$300 wages 150 welfare - Total 450
$400 wages 100 Welfare - Total 500
$500 wages 50 Welfare - Total 550
$600 Wages 0 Welfare - Total 600

jviehe · #96 (**permalink**) 07-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Then so is raising the cost of living for minimum wage workers.

I agree. The free market should set the wage, not what it costs to live. And as very few people work for minimum wage, its moot.

Sunshine · #97 (**permalink**) 07-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

executed this with all my stores on JULY 1st

even got the mid wage earners a small raise

it was good !!!

Good for you. I'm sure it's well deserved!

CDavidNeely · #98 (**permalink**) 07-26-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiggidy

No, I don't, this is just what I've been taught. I know there are government officials that believe differently, however, how can they say that a kid in high school has to be paid a living wage? It just doesn't add up.

It could be because paying one person for working and then paying another person a lower wage simply because they were younger would be unethical. How would you feel if you went to apply for a job and the person hiring said, "Wiggidy, we have two openings. I am going to hire Mr. So-and-So but I am gonna pay him 7.55 an hour but I'm only gonna pay you 4.00. No, your gonna be doing the same job but your only 17 and he's 18 and therefore your not worth as much as he is."

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

jviehe · #99 (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

It could be because paying one person for working and then paying another person a lower wage simply because they were younger would be unethical. How would you feel if you went to apply for a job and the person hiring said, "Wiggidy, we have two openings. I am going to hire Mr. So-and-So but I am gonna pay him 7.55 an hour but I'm only gonna pay you 4.00. No, your gonna be doing the same job but your only 17 and he's 18 and therefore your not worth as much as he is."

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Thats not what he said, but rather that its wrong to base the wage amount on the cost of living, when the person receiving the wage is dependent on someone else. I doubt anyone thinks its right to base a wage on someones age.

CDavidNeely · #**100** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Thats not what he said, but rather that its wrong to base the wage amount on the cost of living, when the person receiving the wage is dependent on someone else. I doubt anyone thinks its right to base a wage on someones age.

I am unaware of any indication that the minimum wage was based on someone who is dependent on someone else. The minimum wage is there to attempt to make sure that people are paid enough for their work so that they can live on it.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Skynet · #**101** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

I am unaware of any indication that the minimum wage was based on someone who is dependent on someone else. The minimum wage is there to attempt to make sure that people are paid enough for their work so that they can live on it.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

I'm scratching my head as well on that one. Though, I do believe he means that most people who earn minimum are on some type of welfare. Though, there are college students out there who work shit jobs as well who live with other roommates. I don't mind my money going to support people who work. They pay taxes as well, so they pretty much pay for their own welfare benefits. It's such a silly system if you think about it. If jobs paid enough for a living, we wouldn't need welfare in the first place and we'd have more money in circulation. That would save millions of dollars per year and those who aren't working, but are able should be required to do community service. That way, they would be earning their keep.

EagleTed · #**102** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Thomas Sowell makes a good case that the original intent of Minimum Wage was Racist in nature, in that Big Labor supported it in order to keep Southern Blacks who migrated North from underbidding their jobs.

While few who support it today have such negative motives, nonetheless, it's effect has been to keep minority youths from getting entry jobs. Therefore dooming their futures.

jviehe · #**103** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

I am unaware of any indication that the minimum wage was based on someone who is dependent on someone else. The minimum wage is there to attempt to make sure that people are paid enough for their work so that they can live on it.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

He said politicians are saying you have to pay people a certain minimum wage so they can live on it. And that that makes no sense as many minimum wage employees are not adults, and therefore do not need to live off it.

And no, minimum wage is not there because of this. Its just another form of govt control, wealth redistribution, and buying votes.

jviehe · #**104** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skynet

I'm scratching my head as well on that one. Though, I do believe he means that most people who earn minimum are on some type of welfare. Though, there are college students out there who work shit jobs as well who live with other roommates. I don't mind my money going to support people who work. They pay taxes as well, so they pretty much pay for their own welfare benefits. It's such a silly system if you think about it. If jobs paid enough for a living, we wouldn't need welfare in the first place and we'd have more money in circulation. That would save millions of dollars per year and those who aren't working, but are able should be required to do community service. That way, they would be earning their keep.

You live in a fantasy world. Jobs pay plenty. The people on welfare made bad choices and are continuing that. The best thing we could do for them is to take it away so they have to actually put some thought into it for themselves. Punishing the rest of us for their mistakes is two wrongs.

CDavidNeely · #**105** (**permalink**) 07-27-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleTed

While few who support it today have such negative motives, nonetheless, it's effect has been to keep minority youths from getting entry jobs. Therefore dooming their futures.

This makes absolutely no sense. How does mandating a minimum amount someone can be paid for a job keep minorities from getting entry level jobs? One would think that mandating a minimum wage instead keeps them from being abused by the system which would utilize them as slave labor if such criteria did not exist.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode