OT: "Minmum" wage crap

That from the group's king of idiots.

According to krw. What the claim means to me is that krw has certified me a s not being a sucker for his favourite right-wing delusions.

Being spectacularly dim himself, he can't separate his critics on the basis of the intellectual powers, and tests them for compliance with his ideolog ical stance. Most of us register with him as left-wing deviants - aka norma l. From his point of view, only an idiot could fail to make the same mistak es he does.

The logic doesn't actually hold up. Quite intelligent people - like James A rthur - can believe total nonsense. I wouldn't insult James Arthur by sayin g that his brand of right-wing nonsense is the same as krw's, but krw proba bly can't detect the difference.

I recently saw an analysis of another side effect of increasing the minimum wage. People who make minimum wage have access to income-qualified government benefits, like food stamps and child expense help and Obamacare. If the min wage goes from, say, $8 to $15, they lose a lot of those benefits. The equivalent income tax can run in the 65-85% range, and can get over 100% if certain household income thresholds are crossed.

But the unionistas who are making $15 then go to $25. That's the whole point.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 19:22:14 -0700, John Larkin Gave us:

Those programs are inaccessible to any household with a real income, and minimum wage or even twice that isn't it.

If you have kids, the threshold numbers drop significantly for each one you add.

If you have no kids, you have to make like 12k a year to qualify.

In other words, it has been crafted to be deliberately inaccessible.

They also "install" all kinds of trigger mechanisms to disqualify you, and make the application process more complicated than it needs to be.

I found this out simply by trying to get a reduced electric bill.

And I see idiots who DO get the discount burning everything and his brother over the hot nichrome, and paying half what I pay for using one fourth what they do.

The specific term is "implicit tax rate," or "marginal tax rate" more generally.

Here's a nice graphic documenting the effect for our public assistance programs:

Here's a worked out example for Obamacare:

Earning an extra dollar can cost you ten or twenty kilobucks in Obamcare's premium subsidy / welfare.

A quibble with that article--they're not allowed to buy a Bronze plan. To get subsidies they'd have to buy a Silver plan with a higher premium. (I don't think the subsidy calculator's output changes--it's based on a benchmark plan, less a percentage of the victims' income.)

Cheers, James

Brickwall disincentives are evil; they trap people in poverty. This is by design, to keep a big fraction of the population dependent.

Similar things happen with medicaire and SS and such. Slopes should be gentle and continuous.

I am reminded by Caesar Chavez' admonition to a gathering of farm workers. He told them to not use birth control because it "decreases the numerical power of the poor."

Marx blamed employers for wanting a "reserve army of the unemployed", but he hadn't met the Democrats.

nerally.

rograms:

's premium subsidy / welfare.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. This came up in the UK when I was there and the bureaucrats proceeded to fiddle with sys tem so that the loss of subsidy never amount to an implicit tax rate higher than the regular income tax rate. It didn't take much fiddling.

It's easy enough to design the system to work that way once you recognise t hat it ought to.

A rather silly admonition.

He got slung out of the international socialist movement in 1870 for being undemocratic - his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was corre ctly predicted as being route to a more despotic dictatorship than any that existed at the time.

He may not have met US Democrats, but he did lose in a confrontation with a group who did take democracy seriously.

"Unionistas"? If you mean union workers... which union workers only get $15 an hour? That is the point. Even $15 an hour is *barely* a livable wage. If a union could negotiate a wage higher than $15 an hour, I'm sure they would have it already. Anyone in a union making only $15 an hour must be done a job that would only pay $10 an hour or less if they didn't have collective bargaining.

Even so, the minimum wage is not $15 an hour. I believe the actual number being discussed is $10.10 an hour. It is a lot harder to argue against a $10.10 an hour minimum wage, so I guess I understand why you are arguing against a $15 an hour minimum wage. If you can't win the fight, find a different fight you think you can win.

I really don't understand how anyone who supports a free market can argue against collective bargaining.

Public employees ahould not be allowed to strike.

Private employees have a total right to destroy their own jobs, and often do.

Wow! You do have at least a single-digitIQ. Maybe.

No, your only point is on your head.

Many union workers are in that range. Do you think they all get $50/hr. OK, if that's your assumption, doubling the minimum will raise them to $100, which I'm sure would make you happy.

So what? Minimum wage is not *intended* to be a livable wage, not that it matters if the job is only worth "minimum". You'd rather have that person (kid or otherwise) unemployed and unemployable. That's the alternative.

Completely irrelevant, but your every thought is irrelevant. The fact is that many union contracts are based on minimums. A raise in the minimum is an automatic raise for the unions. Get *that* through your thick skull.

More irrelevance from the irrelevant.

It is *NOT* free. Employers don't have the same freedoms.

Businesses are subject to anti-trust legislation. Unions are specifically exempt.

Unionism is self-limiting. In the business world, they drive their employers offshore, or out of business. In government, they, more slowly, produce backlash and bankrupcy.

In right-to-work states, lots of people prefer to not join unions. And lots of businesses create jobs in those states.

I've always figured, if you can find a better job, do it.

Balderdash. I've made a great deal more most of my life, never spending even the $30k gross that implies.

Recently--a couple years ago--I made the mistake of giving a firm quote on a poorly-defined project. I wound up making $7/hr for six months' work, worked loads of overtime, paid all expenses easily and saved the rest.

Much further back, a progressive friend argued passionately it was impossible to live on minimum wage, whereupon I detailed with particularity how I actually *did*, had, and was living on 40-hour m.w. equivalent. Not deprived in the least, I had money to ski in Colorado, socialize, etc. Easy.

He said "But you couldn't raise a family on that," to which I answered a) "Why would I be starting a family if I only made minimum wage?", and b) "Oh yes I could, I could simply work more hours. Wifey could pitch in a little too."

I worked two minimum wage jobs (one $0.25 over) full time, once upon a time. It wasn't even hard. Lots of time to think, too.

The evidence irrefutable, his retort was "But no one would want to live like that."

I don't need money. As Dear Presidente said, "At some point haven't you've made enough money?" Exactly. I've got fast 'scopes, parts galore, friends, a mountain bike, and all the books one could ever read.

This will come in handy. If I live below the federal poverty income line--which expenditure would imply a significant increase from my current overhead--I'm Obamacare exempt.

"Economy is the art of getting the most out of life." --G.B. Shaw (a socialist)

Cheers, James Arthur

That is only $1,120 a month, give or take. Is your home paid for? This would not even pay one of my mortgages. Can you explain how you could live off of this income?

I'd love to see your numbers. There has to be someone underlying your situation that other people can't do, like a free home, car paid for... etc. Most people have to pay $1000 a month just for a place to live which leaves them nothing left to eat with, pay for clothing, gas, auto maintenance, cay payment, etc.

How do you work 60 hours a week and your wife work say 20? Who takes care of the kids? Do you have any kids?

Lol. This is such BS! "wasn't even hard"... total BS.

Task Hours/Wk Sleeping 56 Job 1 40 Job 2 40 Eating 10 Commuting 5 Total 151

Leaving 17 hours per week for the rest of your life, or 2.5 hours per day. That's not leisure time. That is the time you have to do shopping, cleaning, dealing with the necessities of life.... Hardly easy. Virtually no time for leisure in the true sense.

Because you have made a good living with lots of disposable income. Look around. There are a lot of people who aren't as lucky as you to have abilities that let you be employed at great wages so you can then claim to be able to live on minimum wage.

The more you say, the more we all find out what you really are all about. You want a free ride and have everyone else pay for it.

How the hell does anything I posted here indicate I want a free ride? I am one of the people who pay for others!

Exactly. You're catching on.

I lived on a minimum wage job when I was 16. Of course I was living at hom e with free meals. And I only worked during the summer, but saved enough t o have spending money for the whole year.

And then much later I lived on less money than the minimum wage for a year. I made a lot more than minimum wage, but saved the rest. The job was in Alaska working at the Chiniak satellite tracking station. It was fifty mil es by road from Kodiak. So room and board went with the job. The biggest expense was liquor. And since it was an air force base, there was no tax o n the booze. I think beer was $.25. I spent a fair amount of non working time at the ba r. Most of it being bar keeper. Did not get any pay for bar tending, but got to drink for free.

Dan

We lived on minimum wage (plus a few cents) jobs the first three years we were married, while I was in college. I worked 20ish hours a week and my wife a "normal" 40.