Pelican Parts Forums
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Are minimum wage laws working? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/702284-minimum-wage-laws-working.html)

fintstone 09-06-2012 02:51 AM
Clearly minimum wage reduces overall employment as you must make enough additional revenue to cover the increased salary. If your customer base does not change, them you must increase prices. If he market will not allow for a price increase, you are out of business.

The $7.25 example dies not make sense because it us presented backwards. If $7.25 is the natural rate and you increase it to $14.50, can you raise prices enough to cover payroll or will you cut workforce? Would you hire additional employees at that higher rate and uf you did, how many would be entry level at that price? There are lots of things I am willing to pay somone to do for ne if the price is right. If it costs $20 to get my lawn mowed....I am in. If it costs $200 to get my lawn mowed...,I will either mow it myself or I will xeriscape.

jyl 09-06-2012 03:25 AM
That assumes that minimum wage laws do indeed result in an increased salary. Put another way, that assumes that if there was not a minimum wage of $7.25 (federal; may vary by state) then the salaries for some jobs would be lower than $7.25 (I used $3.62, a -50% cut, as a hypothetical example).

But do minimum wage laws indeed result in an increased salary? If so, in how many cases?

In this thread, several people have said that the going rate for low-end jobs in their area is already well above the minimum wage. The minimum wage wouldn't seem to matter in those cases.

I guess what I'm getting at it, the minimum wage may have lagged so far behind inflation that it may not really matter anymore, or may matter very little.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 6958699)
Clearly minimum wage reduces overall employment as you must make enough additional revenue to cover the increased salary. If your customer base does not change, them you must increase prices. If he market will not allow for a price increase, you are out of business.

The $7.25 example dies not make sense because it us presented backwards. If $7.25 is the natural rate and you increase it to $14.50, can you raise prices enough to cover payroll or will you cut workforce? Would you hire additional employees at that higher rate and uf you did, how many would be entry level at that price? There are lots of things I am willing to pay somone to do for ne if the price is right. If it costs $20 to get my lawn mowed....I am in. If it costs $200 to get my lawn mowed...,I will either mow it myself or I will xeriscape.

jcommin 09-06-2012 05:13 AM
Maybe the minimum wage is society's way of making us feel good for those who have minimal skills that work in the industry. The reality is we need cheap labor. Flint won't pay $200 to cut his lawn. I couldn't buy a head of lettuce if that farm worker was paid a living wage.

Most of you talk about your experience when you were young working part time. I don't know the statisitics but your part time job is someones full time job.

The minimum wage was $1.60 when I was a teenager in 1967. I later found a part time job that paid $30/day. By the time I was 20 -21, I was a member of the Teamster union making $5.41/hr. Those wages allowed me to save money that put me thru school. My parents had no money to send me.

That environment doesn't exist today. Factory jobs are gone - what is left is food service and retail - those working in those industries are just threading water, especially if it is your full time job.

I work in manufacturing and more than half of the factory labor force works 2 jobs. We also have a temp service that supplies labor to buffer the business cycle of our business. They typically are $9- $10/hr jobs. There is a revolving door every day of hires that come and go. Several years ago, we re-negotiated the contract with this temp service and agreed to a lower starting wage - it was a cost reduction. You also get what you pay for. Some of thse people are just down right scary.

History tells me there has and will be a demand for cheap labor - a harsh reality - the minimum wage just makes us feel better.

72doug2,2S 09-06-2012 06:02 AM
Minimum wage removes some of the market forces that would differentiate between work and rates. Some jobs are charging minimum wage that should never go that low, while others are over priced for their respective work.

Not all work is equal. What kind of system requires equal outcomes for unequal efforts?

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcommin (Post 6958840)
I couldn't buy a head of lettuce if that farm worker was paid a living wage.
Neither could the farm worker. "Living wage" is a red herring. Pay a burger flipper $30k per yr. and pretty soon no one will be able to afford burgers and he'll be out of work. Furthermore, you shouldn't be able to support a family on a menial job. If you're not a teeanger working a summer job and you're making min. wage, your top priority in life should be finding a better job or getting promoted, not getting married and having kids.

There was an article in the Wash. Post a few yrs. ago about a Safeway worker who had been bagging groceries at that same store for 30+ yrs. and was making $60k. I already knew Safeways in the DC area were grossly overpriced and so I never went there. But that article explained why they were so expensive.

jcommin 09-06-2012 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6958977)
Neither could the farm worker. "Living wage" is a red herring. Pay a burger flipper $30k per yr. and pretty soon no one will be able to afford burgers and he'll be out of work. Furthermore, you shouldn't be able to support a family on a menial job. If you're not a teeanger working a summer job and you're making min. wage, your top priority in life should be finding a better job or getting promoted, not getting married and having kids.

There was an article in the Wash. Post a few yrs. ago about a Safeway worker who had been bagging groceries at that same store for 30+ yrs. and was making $60k. I already knew Safeways in the DC area were grossly overpriced and so I never went there. But that article explained why they were so expensive.
Rick,

Thats why we need cheap labor. I'm not going to judge why someone can't or won't better themselves. We are all different - that's the reality.

island911 09-06-2012 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl (Post 6958709)
...

In this thread, several people have said that the going rate for low-end jobs in their area is already well above the minimum wage. The minimum wage wouldn't seem to matter in those cases.

I guess what I'm getting at it, the minimum wage may have lagged so far behind inflation that it may not really matter anymore, or may matter very little.
You are clearly pushing an opinion there. What you are doing is tossing out the need for a wage continuum which helps people learn on the job in exchange for lower wages.

I get that. Lots of middle aged and older people are fearful of the younger generation displacing their lazy-ass job. So, they want to put up barriers... nip it in the bud. Make those kids live with their parents a while longer. ...Doodle on their faded HOPE poster. ..maybe they can go occupy something.

kaisen 09-06-2012 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannonball996 (Post 6957584)
when you factor in all the government money, the minimum wage goes a lot farther then you think. I look at my own employees who I pay a little more minimum wage, and everyone of them gets food stamps (in texas its the lone star card) I know a few of them get some sort of housing allowance because they call me to verify their employment.

I think the real question should be, why does someone with a job still need government money?
If people making minimum wage are also receiving money from the government, isn't that an indirect subsidy to those businesses? In other words, if there were no welfare then workers simply could not accept that lower wage and still live. They'd have to work a less desireable job for higher pay, pursue education/training to qualify for a better job, etc. But since they are subsidized to accept a lower wage (they'd lose their benefits if they made more) then businesses can pay less.

If they are receiving $100 a week in welfare-like benefits, would it make more sense to pay that business $100 a week that gets paid out in higher wages? If that were $7.25 minimum wage, it's effectively $9.75 ($2.50/hr x 40 hrs = $100). It's the same money one way or the other, right? It benefits the employer as much as the welfare recipient, right?

Like it has been said, businesses couldn't afford to pay more, they'd have to close their doors. So welfare keeps those businesses profitable and/or viable. Am I thinking wrong here?

island911 09-06-2012 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959037)
If people making minimum wage are also receiving money from the government, isn't that an indirect subsidy to those businesses? .
No. It is a direct subsidy to those people. --many of whom LIVE off of welfare.

Many people choose a low paying, but fun, or easy job just to pass the time. ...rather than say, garbage collector.

Hello, and welcome to Walmart.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959037)
If people making minimum wage are also receiving money from the government, isn't that an indirect subsidy to those businesses?
No, because the gov't. assistance a worker gets has nothing to do with their place of work. If they lose that job, they still get that gov't. assistance. If they moonlight for under the table cash, they still get gov't. assistance. If they have kids, they get more gov't. assistance. If anything, gov't. assistance encourages them to stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And that gov't. assistance has to come from somewhere, likely the taxes paid by the business.

kaisen 09-06-2012 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by island911 (Post 6959049)
No. It is a direct subsidy to those people. --many of whom LIVE off of welfare.

Many people choose a low paying, but fun, or easy job just to pass the time. ...rather than say, garbage collector.

Hello, and welcome to Walmart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959061)
No, because the gov't. assistance a worker gets has nothing to do with their place of work. If they lose that job, they still get that gov't. assistance. If they moonlight for under the table cash, they still get gov't. assistance. If they have kids, they get more gov't. assistance. If anything, gov't. assistance encourages them to stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And that gov't. assistance has to come from somewhere, likely the taxes paid by the business.
So why not lower minimum wage so more small businesses can thrive? The government will pick up the difference anyway.

Jim Richards 09-06-2012 07:13 AM
Yay, more subsidies!

island911 09-06-2012 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959070)
So why not lower minimum wage so more small businesses can thrive?...
Just get rid of it. ...it's more bureaucracy, which only helps the bureaucrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959070)
...The government will pick up the difference anyway.
Seriously? ...you are going to stick to that 'logic'?

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959070)
So why not lower minimum wage so more small businesses can thrive? The government will pick up the difference anyway.
Again, the two are unrelated. And politicians will never try to alienate constituencies by lowering the min. wage. Will never happen in my lifetime.

kaisen 09-06-2012 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by island911 (Post 6959077)
Just get rid of it.

Seriously? ...you are going to stick to that 'logic'?
It was your logic.

And I agree.

I think minimum wage is a false floor when people who choose to accept minimum wage just supplement it with government assistance.

onewhippedpuppy 09-06-2012 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959061)
No, because the gov't. assistance a worker gets has nothing to do with their place of work. If they lose that job, they still get that gov't. assistance. If they moonlight for under the table cash, they still get gov't. assistance. If they have kids, they get more gov't. assistance. If anything, gov't. assistance encourages them to stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. And that gov't. assistance has to come from somewhere, likely the taxes paid by the business.
This. The government subsidizes the lazy and unmotivated, which serves to reinforce their lifestyle. If your low wage plus welfare provides you with a "good enough" living, where is the motivation to better your life? I went back to college because I was tired of being poor, it was great motivation.

kaisen 09-06-2012 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959078)
Again, the two are unrelated. And politicians will never try to alienate constituencies by lowering the min. wage. Will never happen in my lifetime.
Then let's raise minimum wage, lessen dollars paid directly to welfare and take those dollars and pay them to businesses who are effected by the higher minimum wage. Zero sum change. Everyone wins, and politicians look good.

onewhippedpuppy 09-06-2012 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959086)
Then let's raise minimum wage, lessen dollars paid directly to welfare and take those dollars and pay them to businesses who are effected by the higher minimum wage. Zero sum change.
Why not lessen money given to welfare and cut taxes? You just moved the handout from the poor to businesses. There is no better way to promote people to spend money (therefore helping businesses and the economy) than by cutting their taxes.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959086)
Then let's raise minimum wage, lessen dollars paid directly to welfare and take those dollars and pay them to businesses who are effected by the higher minimum wage. Zero sum change. Everyone wins, and politicians look good.
Write your Congressman.

Cutting welfare to individuals and subsidizing evil, low-wage employers will go over like a turd in the punchbowl.

kaisen 09-06-2012 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959092)
Write your Congressman.

Cutting welfare to individuals and subsidizing evil, low-wage employers will go over like a turd in the punchbowl.
Then what is the answer?

island911 09-06-2012 07:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959082)
It was your logic.

And I agree.

I think minimum wage is a false floor when people who choose to accept minimum wage just supplement it with government assistance.
My logic is that welfare is independent/separate of minimum wage. I see now that I am seen splitting a hair to some on this, but it is a significant concept to me. That is, whether the low wage worker is getting welfare, living with mom and dad, or has a trust fund, lives like a student.... There are all sorts of scenarios --separate from welfare-- where people are fine making less than minimum wage. ...Like say, the official Sun Tropics bikini-lotion-application-specialist-boy.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 07:32 AM
By my rough math and Google search, the max EITC for 2011 for family of four is $5112. In looking at the IRS tables, to have that kind of tax liability, your taxable income would have to be $38k. Back out the two personal exemptions of $3700 per adult and child tax credits of $1000 per child and you can gross that income up another $9400. So that means $47,400 in gross income for two earners with two kids before they pay dime one of fed. income taxes. Anything less than that and you're getting more EITC back than you paid in taxes, i.e. welfare. $47,400 divided by two earners is $23,700. Assuming 40 hrs. per week, 2000 hrs. per year, that means you have to earn more than $11.85 per hour before you pay dime one of net fed. income taxes. That's more than any state or fed. min. wage.

I'm pretty sure that kind of income level qualifies for plenty of non-taxable assistance from various fed/state/local agencies too.

kaisen 09-06-2012 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959110)
By my rough math and Google search, the max EITC for 2011 for family of four is $5112. In looking at the IRS tables, to have that kind of tax liability, your taxable income would have to be $38k. Back out the two personal exemptions of $3700 per adult and child tax credits of $1000 per child and you can gross that income up another $9400. So that means $47,400 in gross income for two earners with two kids before they pay dime one of fed. income taxes. Anything less than that and you're getting more EITC back than you paid in taxes, i.e. welfare. $47,400 divided by two earners is $23,700. Assuming 40 hrs. per week, 2000 hrs. per year, that means you have to earn more than $11.85 per hour before you pay dime one of net fed. income taxes. That's more than any state or fed. min. wage.

I'm pretty sure that kind of income level qualifies for plenty of non-taxable assistance from various fed/state/local agencies too.
Then Matt's idea of promoting spending via tax cuts is irrelevant to anyone earning minimum wage or anywhere close to it -- they don't pay tax anyway. Am I interpreting this right?

So even at $11/hr minimum wage we wouldn't be collecting more taxes, just cutting business profits so we'd collect LESS taxes at the same tax rates?

slakjaw 09-06-2012 07:45 AM
Sounds logical to me.

When I was in my early 20's I worked at an auto repair shop. The manager paid me minimum wage on paper only. I was getting anoter 10 bucks an hour under the table. I am guessing a lot of that goes on now adays.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6957474)
Another Pelican got me thinking...

Are minimum wage laws still relevant? Are they working?

**PLEASE let's keep this out of PARF**
While the topic may have political components, it's fair to discuss the foundations and principles without talking about political parties. More importantly, let's do it without the name calling and bullying, okay?

Here's my take:

Without talking about why they exist and what happened long ago, I think they aren't relevant now.

I can only use examples here in my resident state of Minnesota based on studies released two weeks ago:
Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

We have a labor force of a little over 3 million people
Of those, 93K were making $7.25 or less (US Federal Minimum Wage)
That's a little less than 3.1% of the working population

Of those making minimum wage or less, a little over 32K were age 15 to 19, representing 34% of all minimum wage earners. Another 24K were aged 15 to 24. That's 56K of 93K total, leaving 37K over the age of 24 (1.2% of the entire labor force).

35% of the workforce making minimum wage or less are in the food service/preparation industry where 53% of them made tips, commissions, or other OTC.

Part-time workers made up 72% of all workers making minimum wage or less.

I'm not sure how it ties together, but there are few people over 24 years old that are actually making $7.25/hr in their full time job. If the statistics carry, they may represent 47% of 28% of 1.2%..... about 4900 people out of 3 million workers.

That's 0.16% of the population

I arbitrarily picked 24 years and up as they're likely not college students and/or still being subsidized by family. They're more likely (in my supposition) to be head of household. Same with part-time, thinking that they may be supplementing a job that pays more.



Sooooooo.........



If 99.84% of the 'adult' full-time wage earners are making MORE than minimum wage, is this evidence that the free-market system is working to find stasis (market equilibrium) at wages more than minimum wage?

If we eliminated minimum wage, would we see wages decrease? How many people would really be effected in an "I can't pay for my food/shelter" way?



It seems to ME that minimum wage is largely irrelevant.


Who can live on minimum wage anyway? $7.25/hr x 40 hrs/week x 4.3 weeks/mo = ~$1250 per month. Taxes, SS, other deductions leave --what, $1100?? (I could look it up, just guessing)

Please discuss, I haven't locked in my position. Just looking to hear your points in a non-PARFy way. Thanks.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959137)
Then Matt's idea of promoting spending via tax cuts is irrelevant to anyone earning minimum wage or anywhere close to it -- they don't pay tax anyway. Am I interpreting this right?

So even at $11/hr minimum wage we wouldn't be collecting more taxes, just cutting business profits so we'd collect LESS taxes at the same tax rates?
Well, if you don't pay fed. income taxes, it's hard to give any kind of tax break other than a hike in the EITC, which is a euphemism for welfare. You don't get a refund at Nordstroms for clothes you didn't buy there. Though I know that's very hard for some folks to accept.

I'm sticking with an earlier claim in this thread that min. wage hikes are a backdoor way to more FICA $$, which is probably how the feds justify letting state min. wage prevail over federal if it's already higher.

Head416 09-06-2012 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannonball996 (Post 6957584)
when you factor in all the government money, the minimum wage goes a lot farther then you think. I look at my own employees who I pay a little more minimum wage, and everyone of them gets food stamps (in texas its the lone star card) I know a few of them get some sort of housing allowance because they call me to verify their employment.

I think the real question should be, why does someone with a job still need government money?
I like this question. Since you're an employer, can you help me out with some hard numbers? How much do you pay a certain employee? What is their take home pay after taxes/deductions/whatever? I want to try to put an actual number to it. $350/week take home? More/less?

How much is an apartment in your area? Let's do the math and see if we think they should be able to live without government money or not. I'm not trying to bait you, I really want to run the numbers and see.

onewhippedpuppy 09-06-2012 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959137)
Then Matt's idea of promoting spending via tax cuts is irrelevant to anyone earning minimum wage or anywhere close to it -- they don't pay tax anyway. Am I interpreting this right?

So even at $11/hr minimum wage we wouldn't be collecting more taxes, just cutting business profits so we'd collect LESS taxes at the same tax rates?
I wasn't suggesting it to specifically benefit those who are on welfare or minimum wage. I was suggesting it to benefit everyone. I give to charity of my own free will, I don't appreciate the government doing it for me.

I'm not the accountant in my family, but I believe Rick's comment was based upon your tax credits and refund that you receive at the end of the year, and the potential to actually receive more in refund than you paid in. I don't know of any circumstance in which you don't have to pay in to state and federal taxes on each paycheck, you could just potentially get it all back (or more) at the end of each year. I can't speak to this specifically, because I'm more than happy to let my accountant wife take care of this stuff for me.

onewhippedpuppy 09-06-2012 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head416 (Post 6959264)
I like this question. Since you're an employer, can you help me out with some hard numbers? How much do you pay a certain employee? What is their take home pay after taxes/deductions/whatever? I want to try to put an actual number to it. $350/week take home? More/less?

How much is an apartment in your area? Let's do the math and see if we think they should be able to live without government money or not. I'm not trying to bait you, I really want to run the numbers and see.
I'll play, because I have multiple college aged sister-in-laws I'm pretty familiar with apartment costs in Wichita. We'll use $9/hr, because there are a lot of menial jobs that pay this much or more. I know a teen with no experience that started out at $10.50/hr + benefits running the cash register at a QT.

$9/hr x 40 hrs x 4 weeks = $1440/mo
$450/mo for a nice apartment in a nice area
Groceries $100/mo
Gas for car $100/mo
Water $20/mo
Electricity $40/mo

Deducting those necessities leaves you with $730/mo left over. I'm obviously not deducting taxes from the check, and not including perceived "necessities" such as cell phone, cable TV, internet, new car payment, etc. Most of my wife's siblings are living this exact life while going to college. Can you raise a family on this? Hell no. But if you're trying to, shame on you for not taking responsibility and trying to make a better life. Even manual labor around here pays much better than $9/hr.

Head416 09-06-2012 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy (Post 6959333)
$450/mo for a nice apartment in a nice area
This may be the most shocking thing I've read all year. I'm going to need some time to recover from this. Just one more reason why I need to leave CA.

onewhippedpuppy 09-06-2012 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head416 (Post 6959349)
This may be the most shocking thing I've read all year. I'm going to need some time to recover from this. Just one more reason why I need to leave CA.
Yup. The wife's sisters have had several over the last few years, all nice clean one-bedroom places in popular and safe areas. If you don't mind something still livable but not as nice or convenient, you can find them for $300-$350. Cost of living in KS is ever so slightly different than CA, I won't bother getting into what a nice house costs......:cool:

Zeke 09-06-2012 10:01 AM
Are minimum wage laws working?
 
I don't see how anyone can work for minimum wage. The minimum wage is an insult to humanity in this country. It's there I suppose because some would pay even less if they could get away with it.

I think Seahawk put it in perspective. $10/hr cash is like 15 on payroll. One can at least live at a comfortable (relatively speaking), while in modest poverty, making 15. Get a couple wage earners in the household and the comfort factor will reach into having basic financial discretions. YMMV state by state.

Even a combined 30/hr cash in metropolitan CA is a stretch if you're going anywhere but broke.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke (Post 6959408)
I don't see how anyone can work for minimum wage. The minimum wage is an insult to humanity in this country. It's there I suppose because some would pay even less if they could get away with it.
What would you pay your subs if there were no min. wage? Would you pay prevailing wage or more because it makes you feel better?

kaisen 09-06-2012 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6959426)
What would you pay your subs if there were no min. wage? Would you pay prevailing wage or more because it makes you feel better?
Half the subs in California are working illegally anyway. No minimum wage law would apply.

Rick Lee 09-06-2012 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisen (Post 6959434)
Half the subs in California are working illegally anyway. No minimum wage law would apply.
It's probably more than half. But assuming (I know, fantasy land stuff) it was all on the books and subject to reporting, FICA, etc., no one would pay more than prevailing wage. Just doesn't happen. At best, some would get bonuses for coming in ahead of schedule/under budget. No one pays more than they have to.

RWebb 09-06-2012 11:12 AM
A minimum wage can increase overall employment as the additional dollars will be spent by the employee on goods and services.

That's the macro-economic story.

Fint's comment above to the contrary is also true but only at the micro-economic level.

In contrast, a subsidy to the well-odd, e.g. lower tax rates, tends to be invested so there is a lower effect on jobs.

kaisen 09-06-2012 11:14 AM
Does trickle-up work as well as trickle-down? Or is it all VooDoo?? :D

island911 09-06-2012 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 6959530)
A minimum wage can increase overall employment as the additional dollars will be spent by the employee on goods and services.

That's the macro-economic story....
Sure, if that min wage job is actually printing more dollars. :D

Do tell us more macro-economic stories. ...of a confused Parfessor.

I mean, you really don't -get- where "additional (macro econ) dollars" come from, do you.

RWebb 09-06-2012 12:43 PM
isly if you cannot act like a grown up then stay in your PARF playpen

and try an introductory econ course sometime

island911 09-06-2012 12:57 PM
So then, NO; you really don't -get- where "additional (macro econ) dollars" come from.

dheinz 09-06-2012 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by

$9/hr x 40 hrs x 4 weeks = $1440/mo
$450/mo for a nice apartment in a nice area
Groceries $100/mo
Gas for car $100/mo
Water $20/mo
Electricity $40/mo

Deducting those [U
necessities[/U] leaves you with $730/mo left over. I'm obviously not deducting taxes from the check, and not including perceived "necessities" such as cell phone, cable TV, internet, new car payment, etc. Most of my wife's siblings are living this exact life while going to college. Can you raise a family on this? Hell no. But if you're trying to, shame on you for not taking responsibility and trying to make a better life. Even manual labor around here pays much better than $9/hr.
Groceries $100/mo...= $3.33 a day:eek:


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 AM.
Page 2 of 3 « Prev 1 2 3 Next »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.