- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
1
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:43 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
How much did college cost for you old-timer?
Books and all, about a grand per semester. Tuition ran me between six to seven hundred, depending on how many hours I took. This was from '70-'73.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:51 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
quote:
This completely fails to explain how it is a subsidy for lower wages.
Let's play a game.
Let's say we changed the laws in this country to the following
A) welfare was a straight up cash payment of $10K a year, but only those who didn't work at qualified
B) the minimum wage was abolished. Though this one will become irrelevant
C)No more EIC
Now, what happens to wages for "minimum wage jobs" at this point? Why the demand for those jobs goes down of course, because who would work a full time ob to collect $12K in wages when they could instead just sit at home and collect $10K? The answer is very few people, which means without the subsidy of welfare for their lower aid employees companies would HAVE to offer higher wages to attract employees.
Of course, you could be an a-hole and get rid of both welfare and the minimum wage and let the free market play out, but as we've seen in thread after thread we are not a true free market society, because that tends to not work out for the poor so well.
They largely disappear. Both the supply and demand for those jobs dries up as welfare is acting as an artificial minimum wage. UE is up. Firms figure out ways to become more efficient with what they have and/or they just don't grow.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:52 am to gthog61
quote:
I don't know but people who cannot show up regularly are not worth $15 an hour
Correct
In a TRUE free market. We would tell people "you earn what you are worth and if you aren't worth enough to keep yourself alive, too fricking bad"
but we're not a true free market, and you know what, both these employers and these employees like it this way. These employees have fooled voters into subsidizing their laziness and the employers have fooled voters into supporting their poor wages.
Go into your local McDonalds and realize that most of those jobs , they don't require a "good" employee , they just require a warm body who won't frick things up too badly.
If McDonalds, or other places, gave a frick about employees being worth say $12 an hour. They would pay $12 an hour and simply fire those who weren't worth it. But if instead they can hire some jackass at $8 an hour they don't care. And that jackass, if he can get his welfare, he has no interest in making himself worth more.
Now, recognizing that getting rid of either the min wage or welfare is not an option, we make the next consideration. We raise the minimum wage and keep work requirements on welfare. That means , of course, that McDonalds has to pay more, meaning they aren't going to tolerate the same level of performance at $11 an hour that they did at $8, and the slacker HAS to make himself worth $11 an hour because welfare without working isnt an option
I have a friend who owns several fast food restaurants, and he's told me straight up, if he can get 2 out of 5 employees to work hard , as long as the other 3 put in any effort at all, he's happy.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:54 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Now, recognizing that getting rid of either the min wage or welfare is not an option, we make the next consideration. We raise the minimum wage and keep work requirements on welfare. That means , of course, that McDonalds has to pay more, meaning they aren't going to tolerate the same level of performance at $11 an hour that they did at $8, and the slacker HAS to make himself worth $11 an hour because welfare without working isnt an option
Again, you're not looking at the calculus correctly. They'll be paying a little more for fewer people. They'll drop the 1 or 2 of the 3 that isn't an efficient employee in your scenario. Why do you think UE is so high in most of Europe?
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:55 am to jimbeam
quote:
When did minimum wage become living wage?
Back in the 1960's it paid enough to be sufficient to have a car and rent an apartment.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:56 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
supporting their poor wages
you have completely failed to support this argument, yet keep repeating it
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:59 am to jimbeam
Maybe we should have a minimum wage, then as you accrue a minimum number of 'experience' hours, say, 2500, you move up to a 'Minimum+" wage, then at 4000 hours you move to an' Experienced' wage, then after that, when you've accrued 5000 hours you move to a 'Living' wage.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:05 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
hey'll be paying a little more for fewer people. They'll drop the 1 or 2 of the 3 that isn't an efficient employee in your scenario. Why do you think UE is so high in most of Europe?
ANd I'm fine with that.
I advocate a system that requires employers to pay a decent wage , even if it means hiring fewer people, while simultaneous not giving welfare to people who simply refuse to make themselves more valuable to an employer.
That's a win win in my book. I'm both fine with an employer being told "no you MUST pay higher wages" and en employee being told "better make yourself more valuable to an employer or you're going to be hungry"
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:05 am to Homesick Tiger
Boomers and gen-x have irresponsibly grown government and entitlements. They also have benefitted from ridiculously low interest rates allowing them to buy up everything when they have the most money.
Who benefits from cheap mexican labor imported illegally? The ones that own large established businesses. Wonder why "donors" are steering the GOP away from border control...its not rocket science.
We must pay the piper while they sit pretty on their pensions, retirement funds, and SS which we wont even be able to draw from despite putting into...
We will pay the piper
Who benefits from cheap mexican labor imported illegally? The ones that own large established businesses. Wonder why "donors" are steering the GOP away from border control...its not rocket science.
We must pay the piper while they sit pretty on their pensions, retirement funds, and SS which we wont even be able to draw from despite putting into...
We will pay the piper
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:09 am to WhiskeyPapa
Its amazing what happens when you irresponsibly print money for years and import millions of low skilled workers who will work for peanuts while drawing govt assistance.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:10 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
When did minimum wage become living wage?
quote:
Back in the 1960's it paid enough to be sufficient to have a car and rent an apartment.
You are remembering a time that didn't exist...
Minimum wage 1965 was $1.40 or $224 per month before taxes.
Average rent was $118 per month
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:13 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
ANd I'm fine with that.
I advocate a system that requires employers to pay a decent wage , even if it means hiring fewer people, while simultaneous not giving welfare to people who simply refuse to make themselves more valuable to an employer.
That's a win win in my book. I'm both fine with an employer being told "no you MUST pay higher wages" and en employee being told "better make yourself more valuable to an employer or you're going to be hungry"
Probably not politically feasible, and we'll start turning into Europe with terrible UE, close to zero (or even negative real) growth, even worse balance sheets, etc., etc.
Those workers aren't going to magically make themselves worth $11 or $15/hour. Unemployment is going to be a problem in your scenario no matter how you shake it.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:14 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:14 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Who gets paid minimum wage?
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:18 am to Aristo
quote:
Who gets paid minimum wage?
1. High school kids
2. People who've made shitty decisions in life
3. Dumb people
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:19 am to Aristo
quote:
Who gets paid minimum wage?
It used to mostly be teens. Now days, there are more adults that want the industry to pay them more for minimum age work rather than actually increasing and/or improving their skills to move up in the world.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:23 am to jimbeam
When the government started offering enough programs to cover everything else.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:29 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Books and all, about a grand per semester. Tuition ran me between six to seven hundred, depending on how many hours I took. This was from '70-'73.
What cost $700 in 1970 would cost $4395.65 in 2016. You paid that much for books and all in 1970 in terms of 2016 dollars for 1 semester.
I dont know if your "books and all" figure includes housing, food, etc, but giving the benefit of the doubt, one semester's tuition at LSU costs easily $7000- just tuition and books.
So right there college costs $2,600 more per semester. That's $5200 a year.
We can break it down further-
60 hours/week (probably bullshite but we'll roll with it) in 1970 would be $263.74 in 2016.
60 hours/week at minimum wage in 2016 is right at $500, $435 after taxes. I don't think I would be wrong in saying the tax rate in 1970 would be negligible in comparison.
So just school and books runs a modern student $14,000/year; on a before-tax salary of $6000/year working 60/hours a week, the cost of education eclipses a supernaturally industrious student's yearly intake into 2.3 times over.
Adjusting for inflation, you were earning $13,000/year working 60 hours/week. You paid right under $8,800(2016 dollars)/year for tuition and books in 1970.
TLDR:
Tuition and books alone are 230% of a minimum wage worker's yearly salary in 2016 clocking 60 hours/week.
Tuition and books were 67% of that same worker's yearly earnings in 1970.
See the discrepancy?
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:37 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:34 am to Loserman
quote:
You are remembering a time that didn't exist...
Minimum wage 1965 was $1.40 or $224 per month before taxes.
Average rent was $118 per month
man some of yall suck at this debate thing. In REAL dollars. $1.40 an hour in 1965 was equal to $10.97 an hour today. So the minimum wage is worth 66% of what it was in 1965.
/thread
BUt just for kicks. Let's look at some 1965 numbers
In 1965 a gallon of milk cost 31 cents. $4 today
In 1965 the average new house was $13,600. CLose to $300K today
In 1965 the average cost of a new car was $2,650. Close to $30K today.
LINK
So let's just take the average price of a new car. $2.650 . Just figuring the price of the car itself, and leaving financing fees out of the equation. A minimum wage worker would have had to work 1,893 hours to pay for that vehicle. Or rougly a year's salary.
Today the average cost is $30K. Meaning the minimum wage worker would have to work 4,138 hours to pay for the same average new car.
FOUR TIMES as long
You can shove your " minimum wage was good enough for me in 1965" right up your dumb old arse. I mean that is literally the dumbest argument ever fricking made when statistics PROVE that the minimum wage was worth FOUR fricking times what it is today.
By the way, in roughly the same time frame that the minimum wage didn't come keep up with inflation and became worth roughly 40% of what it was, yeah in that same time frame CEO pay increased 990% . And studies actually show that it isn't just the minimum wage employees who have seen a loss in their pay. It's EVERYONE BUT THE CEO class
LINK
People like you sir, who are stupid, greedy, and selfish, are exactly what has led to the Bernie Sanders supporters. Those kids don't really understand the dangers of socialism, but they do understand a greedy old frick trying to tell them they have the same opportunities and such that they had in the 1960s simply isn't true when they can simply look at a website and see "hmm inflation proves that the minimum wage is worth half of what it was just 20 years ago, and hmm statistics also prove that CEOS are making WAY WAY WAY more than they were just 20 years ago at the same time that they are telling us that they just can't afford to pay higher wages
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News