"Worthless"

Who can argue your point? If one wished to do so, which i don't, it was worth the read and I was entertained as a result. It's that sick part of my mind that hones onto others sick parts of their minds. I also find the use of movie and television remarks are handy in making a point and i enjoy when someone is aware of the quip and smile. a reply to: Xaphan

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Dfairlite

I stop at 22/hr because that is what the minimum wage should be if it had kept up with inflation and the cost of living. Anyone working 40 hours a week or more ought to be able to live on that, not lavishly but basically. Nothing short of 22/hr will allow for basics.

$7.25 works just fine for the basics here is the math:

Let's say I'm unfortunate enough to live in the evil state of Texas working for the evil McDonald corp making the terrible minimum wage:

I make 1208 month (7.25hr/40hr's week, 50wks per year. Gotta have time off!)
I owe zero income taxes
I pay 6.2% FICA leaving me with 1133 per month
I can rent a room for $340 month link
This room is 0.8 miles from my job, so no car needed I can walk. It's only 15 minutes.
Natural gas bill is $20
Electric bill in the summer is $80
Cell phone bill $60 unlimited everything from t-mobile
Big mac meals every meal (except breakfast) 390
A few boxes of cereal and some milk and snacks $50

Alright so far we have:
Food = $440
Shelter = $440
Cell phone = $60

That puts us at $940/month, leaving us with $193 surplus for saving, entertainment, clothes, etc. And this is with a food budget that is 75% of what I spend on a family of 5.

Now let's make a couple adjustments.
Let's go with the $30 straight talk phone plan and instead of big mac meals let's go with dollar menu meals (burger, drink, fries) for $270. And this is still much more than it would cost me to feed myself three meals a day.

Now instead of $193 surplus we have a $343/ month surplus, with that I can now afford the all important health insurance (don't want to be a leech on society using medicaid) which will cost me $180/month according to ehealth, and if I take the government handout from obamacare (AKA a subsidy) I can get it for $22/month.

So let's see, no handouts and still a surplus of $163.
Now, I'm sick of walking so let's buy a car. It's a beater, but it'll do for $1500. I spread that over two years and didn't get a great rate so that's a payment of $67

So now I've got 96 dollars per month for fuel and clothing. I think I'll make it!

Throughout this experiment I tried to think of ways to waste money, like not taking subsidies, eating out more than any rational being does, etc. and yet here I am with a surplus still.

If I missed anything, there is plenty of wiggle room in the budget. (e.g., eat out less, buy a bus pass, save for a car instead of financing, etc)
Moral of the story: is minimum wage comfortable? No, but it's not inhumane or anything. It is a livable wage.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

We should all be in the streets, not rioting but just there, in our squares. Our real economic power would show if we did it, I mean really did it. Everyone making under 22/hr (USD), which is what the minimum wage should be, should be out on the streets en masse for 2 days, all over the world. The entire world economy depends on us and we are pooped on.

LOL you think every person working is worth $22/hr? Why stop there? Why not $75?

I find it remarkable that one's worth should dictate whether a person can afford a home, food, and necessities.

See above budget.

You need to go back to the basics. Read john locke's treatises.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Dfairlite

I stop at 22/hr because that is what the minimum wage should be if it had kept up with inflation and the cost of living. Anyone working 40 hours a week or more ought to be able to live on that, not lavishly but basically. Nothing short of 22/hr will allow for basics.

Now let's do a budget based on your 22/hr.

I make 44,000 year
With federal income taxes and FICA my take home pay is $35,934 per year.
So monthly that's $2,994

Alright, Well I'm having steak every night, delicious ribeye's from the local steakhouse for $29/night
That's $870/mo
Then I'll have some fast food for lunch at $210/mo
And I'll stick to my cereal for breakfast. I'm too lazy to go out. So another $75 month for snacks and cereal.

Food = $1155

Now I'll get a nice place with a pool and no room mates here for $950
Gas bill will be $25 now
Electric we'll say is $110 (~40% increase)
Blazing fast internet is about $60

Housing = 1145

Now I'll get me a fairly nice car, for 7k, spread out over 4 years which costs me $170/month
Insurance to go with that is another $100

Car = $270

Health insurance is still $180

Now I'll get that unlimited plan again for $60/mo

I still have a surplus of $184/month for gas and clothing.

I won't go through the process of behaving like a sane person, but I can tell you that I'd have thousands of disposable income if I wasn't a moron with my food and rent budgets.

So are you still going to say that it's not living comfortably to have a $22/hr minimum wage? mmm mmm steak!

a reply to: Dfairlite

Nope, sill not 'fair' (read: effortlessy luxurious) enough.

I won't be happy until I can live like a Kardashian on my MickeyD's salary.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ha! Let them all eat Value Meals from the fast food restaurants they work at! A "let them eat cake" statement for the modern era. Plus, you are using the area with the cheapest cost of living in all of the United States as an example - not to mention the person would be still be living paycheck to paycheck, one emergency/accident/unforeseen event away from not being able to feed or house themselves, despite gainful employment with a company that takes in hundreds of millions in profits every year.

But nah, it's okay, so long as people can barely eek out a living on the fringes of society, one disaster away from total destitution.

originally posted by: Syyth007
a reply to: Dfairlite

Ha! Let them all eat Value Meals from the fast food restaurants they work at! A "let them eat cake" statement for the modern era. Plus, you are using the area with the cheapest cost of living in all of the United States as an example - not to mention the person would be still be living paycheck to paycheck, one emergency/accident/unforeseen event away from not being able to feed or house themselves, despite gainful employment with a company that takes in hundreds of millions in profits every year.

But nah, it's okay, so long as people can barely eek out a living on the fringes of society, one disaster away from total destitution.

Well, being that they have insurance and a surplus of income they can probably save some money and be just fine during turns of bad luck.

And being that it is 'minimum' wage I thought I'd pick a place where expenses are low. However, Irving doesn't make the top ten cheapest cities in the US nor does Dallas, which one could consider Irving a part of. I lived on minimum wage in the early 2000's when it was still 5.15 an hour, outside of Texas and was just fine. I don't understand what is so hard to figure out about the word 'minimum' but leftists tend to have a real problem understanding words.

Truth be told, we are all 'one disaster away from total destitution' so I'm not sure what your point is.

Let them eat value meals is nothing like let them eat cake (which wasn't said by Mrs Antoinette). For the price of a value meal you can buy some good food at the grocery store and make a good meal.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I like the concept!! And do usually go out of my way and pay more to support the local guys over the mass marketers. And I know many people who are waking up and doing the same, as this latest recession has really shown a lot of people many things... among which, relying on corporations indebted to/controlled by bankers and politicians instead of keeping money and skills in the local economy is risky.

Who would be more likely to keep your community's needs in mind... the store owner who comes home to a house in the neighborhood at night, or a CEO/CFO/COO who commutes to your community every few weeks to make sure the wheels are still grinding but whose family and home are somewhere else?

If anyone has some good ideas for legally divorcing myself from state-mandated corporate-owned auto, home and medical insurance, in favor of paying for services rendered and belonging to a customer-owned co-op of like-minded folks who would support each other in catastrophic times of need, I would be forever grateful for that info.

a reply to: dagann

Especially to us then and people who know now HIV and AID's is the result of CIA funded research in bio-engineering and weaponry. In fact, just about all autoimmune diseases are a result of monkey viruses and how they were manipulated in the labs of Fort Dietrich and others and has everything to do with the explosion of new cancer rates in America.

I am sort of new here, and am unfamiliar with the connection between monkey viruses and autoimmune disease. Would you provide some source materials for that, please? I am an info junkie

a reply to: Dfairlite

$50 a week after paying the BARE minimums is being able to save? (what about insurance co-pays? What about laundry? Furniture? Cleaning supplies? What about basic sundries like soap, shampoo, toothpaste? Dentistry? And absolutely no costs for transportation? No social life? No relationships? Or are those luxuries in a 1st world nation?) Not to mention that $50 a month surplus only happens in a cheapest best case scenario that has no baring on real life (that unfurnished apartment for $340? Yeah, that's unavailable, finding cheap housing within walking distance of your work? Not always possible, nor finding decent housing near where you work).

The thing I find ironic is you have those of the working poor and working class fighting for their own wage slavery. Economic and social mobility in the US has been in decline for a long time now - paying more people less money isn't going to fix things - It's simple wealth extraction - Wealth is still being generated, it's just not going to employees, who have less available income, which hurts local economies.

I suppose you are fine with the idea of your children working 40 hours a week, living in an unfurnished efficiency, no tv, no cable, no furniture, no computer, no internet, just a cell phone?. You go to work, head back home, sit on your floor and browse the internet on your phone until you pass out then repeat? That's living?

Why are so many (working class people, too) so willing to turn living conditions in this nation back into those similar to developing nations? Greed - caring more about material wealth then the living conditions of your fellow man - you think taking away opportunity from the working poor will open up more opportunity for you?

As for us all being one disaster away from destitution - I disagree. I was at one point: I worked a job where I made $7.50 an hour (I worked 80-100 hour weeks to survive, no overtime because of maritime laws), I've also worked full-time while homeless - doesn't mean I am in agreement with those situations because I was able to survive them, and better myself - I am completely aware my situation is unique, and everyone won't get the opportunities that opened up for me.

Wages for the working class have been declining while cost of living has been rising since the late 70's early 80's. To continue this trend, while surplus wealth is being generated, is insanity - It lowers the overall quality of life for a population - again, if you're fine with your children having less opportunity then you, to have less quality of life, by all means, continue to support those policies.

a reply to: Bone75

The place where I am "stationed" for work is one of the largest food processors in the world.

The amount of automation in the last 20 years has reduced the staff at the plant I am at by about 50%. The position I am in gives me access to a lot of inside info. They are targeting another 50% in two years. I would say maybe 60% of the people there are automation enigeers or their support staff. Blue collar work in this industry will probably be close to gone in 20 years. The stuff that isn't is temped out at minimum wage.

The lowest paid worker at any job should be paid no less than 10% of the highest earner CEO included. Problem solved across the board.

Yes...Read: "Dr. Mary's Monkeys" and "Me and Lee" Also, see Dr. Tent on youtube and Google Dr Lenard howowitz book "emerging viruses, AIDS and EBOLA, Natural, Accident or Intentional?a reply to: CantStandIt

You've proven yourself to be the classic NEO-CON. So much personal research on how to survive on Micky-Dees wages. So much talk about liberals and their curious involvement of monitoring the habits of the rich and affluent. It alway amazes me how a run of the mill garden variety neo-con spends so much time and effort designing a budget for the working poor. ...jus sayin.... a reply to: Dfairlite

a reply to: Syyth007

$50 a week after paying the BARE minimums is being able to save?

Yes, having left over money and not spending it is called saving.

Not to mention that $50 a month surplus only happens in a cheapest best case scenario that has no baring on real life

The best case scenario? Not at all. Best case scenario has hundreds left over. The food budget alone has at least $100 excess in it, one could buy a bus pass instead of a car, etc.

The thing I find ironic is you have those of the working poor and working class fighting for their own wage slavery.

Wage slavery lol. good one. Learn a skill, go to school, work your way up, etc. No slavery here, just those who won't help themselves and those who do help themselves and move out of these jobs.

Economic and social mobility in the US has been in decline for a long time now

The right leaning NPR (hehehe) disagrees link

paying more people less money isn't going to fix things

Way to knock that straw man down! No one is advocating this.

I suppose you are fine with the idea of your children working 40 hours a week, living in an unfurnished efficiency, no tv, no cable, no furniture, no computer, no internet, just a cell phone?

No one needs cable tv. Yard sale furniture will do them just fine. They'll likely have their own laptop long before they move out of my house, and they will have earned it. There is free wifi pretty much everywhere, but even if they didn't have it at home they could decide whether it was worth it to them or not to pay for it.

Why are so many (working class people, too) so willing to turn living conditions in this nation back into those similar to developing nations?

I think you need to visit a developing nation. Living at the bottom of the chain in any country is not comfortable. Nor can you make it, unless you decimate the middle class, and even then it probably will still be uncomfortable.

As for us all being one disaster away from destitution - I disagree.

Fair enough.

Wages for the working class have been declining while cost of living has been rising since the late 70's early 80's.

Technically this is not a true statement, but I see your point. But what has caused this? A great many things have caused this which we can't even begin to do justice in a forum such as this.
(You can fix this sentence by using decelerating and accelerating in place of declining and rising respectively)

originally posted by: Raxusillian
The lowest paid worker at any job should be paid no less than 10% of the highest earner CEO included. Problem solved across the board.

I've flirted with this idea but I'm not convinced it would work. There are a lot of moving parts in compensation, bonuses, pension plans, stock, stock options, etc. There are a lot of loopholes in this idea and closing those loopholes could prove majorly detrimental to businesses in the long term.

An interesting note; I was reading this article about the correlation of when executive pay started taking off lining up with a law that required public disclosure of executive pay. Theory being they began to compete with one another. I haven't looked more into it, but it seems to at least make a little sense.

originally posted by: dagann
You've proven yourself to be the classic NEO-CON. So much personal research on how to survive on Micky-Dees wages. So much talk about liberals and their curious involvement of monitoring the habits of the rich and affluent. It alway amazes me how a run of the mill garden variety neo-con spends so much time and effort designing a budget for the working poor. ...jus sayin.... a reply to: Dfairlite

Not sure what a neo-con is (I've heard the term, but usually it's in reference to war mongering), but ok.

Maybe you were responding to someone else because I didn't mention liberals nor their monitoring of the rich. I did mention leftists having a difficult time with understanding the meanings of words, but I don't think you can make the leap to rich people very easily from there.

It alway amazes me how a run of the mill garden variety neo-con spends so much time and effort designing a budget for the working poor

I like to know the facts. No better way to find them than through personal research. In this situation it's pretty easy. It doesn't hurt that I'm a finance guy and do this sort of thing for fun. I do my personal budget at least a few times a month.

a reply to: Kali74

I agree with the poem but it's very one sided... My thoughts are more confused on 'austerity'..

State Bloat, War Bloat, Charity Bloat, Inefficient Industry.... All these things mean more people have to be funded by tax payers.. Cutting down this bloat means we shouldn't have to borrow more money.... The issuance of money is a different matter... Bloat for the sake of employment, New Deal style, is just a way of holding back development, preserving the failing/failed status quo... WE need MORE PEOPLE working for MORE PAY doing far LESS HOURS - this is impossible under laisse faire capitalism though, unfortunately..... Technical efficiency removes jobs and pushes down wages, destroying consumer bases, as Marx and others foresaw... We either abandon technological improvement or make very an even more artificial money system work for ALL...
Benefits for all will be needed - and I'm a Social Libertarian, but not economically blind.. Real Direct Democracy (technocracy to the people) is a ROBUST, non-money based idea in my Guardian profile.. if capitalism fails totally - but fully compatible with liberal capitalism too..

a reply to: Dfairlite

We all saw what happened to the guy from "Super Size Me".

Living off McDonalds fast food isn't living. It's surviving. It's not OK for someone to be surviving off McDonalds twice a day, every day.

Sure, your math works out but in practice nothing ever goes according to the "plan". There are always unforeseen expenses.

And really -- 1.6 miles of walking to/from work each day, really? That's what we expect the working poor to do? We should all be willing to chip in to our society to make it a better place for everyone.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We should all be willing to chip in to our society to make it a better place for everyone.

We do, it's called income tax. Perhaps those making under $50,000 a year should start chipping in and paying some of it, too.