SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-wonder-if-they-will-remember-this-time-next-week dept.
from the How-the-Other-Half-Lives dept.
The Center for American Progress reports
Since he began his minimum wage challenge on Sunday, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, now president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has had eggs and toast, a bowl of cereal with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and a banana. On Monday, he came to work with a bologna and cheese sandwich and a banana. "I'm not sure what I'm going to have for supper," he told ThinkProgress.
This is not a typical menu for him. But given that he can only spend $77 a week while he's taking the challenge, which asks lawmakers to live on a typical full-time minimum wage minus average taxes and housing expenses for a week, he has to "be sensitive about everything that I buy." Eggs are fairly cheap, he reasoned, and "I have found out that bananas don't cost a whole lot, so I stocked up on bananas." He hasn't eaten any other fruits or salads because they're too expensive. For the remaining five days of his challenge, "I don't think I'll be eating very healthy," he said. "Bologna's a lot cheaper than ham. I've been eating [quite] a bit of bread."
[...]
He came down with a cold but was lucky enough to find Tylenol and Afrin nasal spray in his cabinet already. "I don't think I would have been able to buy that Afrin nasal spray" on the challenge, he noted. "I never think about what medicine costs if i need it... But some people have to think constantly about how they spend their money, and their quality of life is quite different than mine."
Strickland will be joined by some current lawmakers this week, including Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Ryan (OH), and Keith Ellison (MN)
[...]
The hope is that those who take the challenge get a taste of what life is like on a low wage, even if it's temporary and they can go back to their normal lifestyles after a week. "I think it's important for those of us in these leadership positions that get elected by our constituents to represent their views from time to time to take a challenge such as this," Rep. Ryan said on the call, "to make sure we really are not just understanding this in an intellectual way but really understand the deep challenges that people face." It's meant to "bring awareness to this issue," he said.
(Score: 2) by emg on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:52PM
Yeah, right. Clearly increasing company costs will improve the economy.
The UK introduced its minimum wage when I was working there. Lots of people were looking forward to it, because it would mean they'd get more money for doing the same work. Then, soon after it was introduced, many of them were complaining because companies cut their hours and expected them to still get the same amount of work done, in less time.
Then Eastern Europe opened up, and UK manufacturers realized they could sell their factory to a property developer, use the money to build a brand-new, high-tech factory in Eastern Europe, and pay the employees less than the UK minimum wage. Big wins all round. Except for those who lost their jobs.
But, you're right. Since increasing the minimum wage is so great for the economy, let's increase it to $100 an hour. Clearly no companies will take advantage of our crazy low credit interest rates to borrow money to automate those people out of their business, or sack them and hire illegal immigrants willing to work for less than minimum wage instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:11PM
That's such a ridiculous refrain.
"I've got a headache."
"You should take two aspirin."
"Well since taking aspirin is so great for a headache I should just take a whole bottle!"
There is an hourly minimum wage number between $0 and $100 that is optimum for the overall health of the economy. Some argue that the current rates are too low. You might argue that they're too high. But the "if it's so great just raise it to a billion dollars loloolol111!!!!1!" trope is tired and stupid.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:01PM
Aspirin analogy rejected: Do you take the maximum dose of aspirin every day, for the rest of your life? Would that be good for the long term health of the system?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:54PM
Ridiculous rejection rejected: if minimum wage didn't exist, I'd get paid even less to do my job as my employer pays what he feels like. I'm already paid a little less than 2/3rds of unemployment after 6 years working for a multimillionaire, operating and taking care of extremely expensive equipment. They keep telling me if I don't like having my wages ripped off (they just randomly cut hours worked from my time sheet so they can meet their minimalist budget), if I don't like being blamed for equipment failures (most of our equipment is 20 years old and well past the use-by date), and if I don't like the shit conditions, I can always go and work at a supermarket where they pay a lot more than I get now. Of course, I can't just go and get a job at a supermarket because I have a degree, and people with degrees are considered a "flight risk" by managers of low pay businesses...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @01:56AM
You do realize that the "take a whole bottle of asprin" analogy is being used to counter the "why not raise minimum wage to $1000/hr" argument, right? They're equally stupid.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:08PM
Here's the real argument:
"I've got a headache."
"You should take MORE aspirin because MORE aspirin is better!"
Minimum wage proponents never advocate a particular level of minimum wage. It is always more.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @10:53PM
> Minimum wage proponents never advocate a particular level of minimum wage. It is always more.
WTF are you talking about? Every single proposal for an increased minimum wage has specified an exact number.
That you could be so obviously wrong, I mean something that doesn't even pass the laugh test, really ought to have you questioning your own ability to make objective conclusions. Have you no shred of self-doubt?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 25 2014, @12:07AM
Which is always positive.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @01:37AM
What, are you like a teenager or something?
Because you sound like someone who is supremely confident in irrelevant minutiae.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:03AM
Well it wouldn't be an increase if it was a negative number, now would it?
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday July 25 2014, @02:13PM
Yes, because the reason the current minimum wage is no longer acceptable is because inflation has decreased its buying power. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. The wage in 1968, $1.60/hour, would be equivalent to $10.90 in 2013 dollars.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 25 2014, @02:00AM
the minimum wage should be equivalent to the living wage [wikipedia.org] for that area.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 25 2014, @02:35PM
Yeah, because there's this little thing called INFLATION.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:13PM
trope is tired and stupid.
Why? Because you say so?
Look thru the eye of the broken window fallacy.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap01p1.html [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap19p1.html [steshaw.org]
Basically there are enough jobs for 'everyone'. Just not enough jobs at particular prices. For example for me to scrape the gum off a sidewalk in front of a store the store would need to pay me at least 50 an hour (as I can find jobs for at least that amount today because of my skills). However the store does not value it that highly. Maybe they value it at 50 cents an hour.
Now what happens when you put a cap in? The business still needs its gum scrapped off. They are not going to pay me $50 an hour to do it as they are only willing to come off 50 cents. So what do they do? They give the work to someone else they are already paying as their margin is probably not enough to hire a whole person at min wage to do it. Then ask the worker why he is behind. Lets say this other employee makes 3 dollars an hour (he has been there awhile) and min wage is made to be 3 (just nice easy numbers). So instead of the store paying out 3.50. They will pay out 3 dollars. But you say the same amount of work was done. You are right about the gum however other work was now done at lower cost. What about the rest of the dudes job? You have just removed from society 50 cents of productivity. As now the other worker can not be doing his 3 dollar an hour job he is doing the 50 cent an hour job and being over paid for it. However that means he is doing other work instead of his original work. Meaning less work is done.
Min wage removes productivity and money from the economy. It literally puts money into businesses from the workers.
If you want to *really* raise wages you need to make it so people at the low end are scarce not more common. Those jobs still need to be done. Businesses will value the job more and pay more for it. Scarcity increases costs faster than anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @09:36PM
minimum wage is supposed to set the floor below which you can't survive even if you work your butt off,
it's currently to low, a lot of people are working 2-3 minimum wage jobs working whatever hours they can get and they're still drowning
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:16PM
So they had more free time for the same pay.
As for the rest, in tyhe U.S. they've already offshored pretty much anything they could.
The U.S. states that have increased their minimum wage have seen at worst no job loss.
Since minimum wage is so terrible, surely if we just declare them slaves wealth will rain down on them.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:06PM
Exactly. Increasing the minimum wage is no substitute for other protective measures which should ensure that the wage increase actually has a beneficial effect to not only the recipient, but is not going to subtract from the middle-class. What I'm thinking is that wages at or around a raised minimum wage is going to be used as a tool to force the middle class into the lower class, essentially creating two classes (proles and the elites) instead of the three we enjoy today.
As for the P.R. crocodile-tears of these congressman pieces of shit, did they ever stop to think that being poor actually rocks when you know you're gonna be rich in a week? Did they ever stop to think that the middle-class don't enjoy the perks of it because they know they're gonna be poor next week?
Man, those pieces of shit in those big white buildings in D.C. infuriate me to no end.
(Score: 1) by pgc on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:18PM
"Yeah, right. Clearly increasing company costs will improve the economy."
What do you think the people will be doing wiht their money? That's right: spend it!
Increasing costs caused by increased wages has no negative effect on the 'economy'. It will actually improve it: people will be able to spend more, thereby most likely live healthier (better medicine, better food, better living conditions) and thus increasing their morale and productivity at the company.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:28PM
Henry Ford paid his employees a living wage so they could buy his product while stupid as fuck American companies send all the jobs to overseas slaves, pay illegals peanuts to do their work here and are shocked! they can't move any products....dumbasses.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:41AM
I'm so sick of this lie.
Ford had to pay his employees a higher wage because the job was a nightmare. You had men used to an agrarian way of life suddenly working in a mind numbing repetitive factory job. Workers hated it and would often quit after a few hours which would stop the assembly line and hurt his profits. He had to pay them to put up with it and end his high worker turn over.
Henry Ford didn't give a shit what his employees could buy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:34AM
> Henry Ford didn't give a shit what his employees could buy.
Perhaps you haven't realized this yet, but more than one thing can be true at the same time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:48AM
And he instantly went bankrupt and the economy was devastated. That's why to this day, nobody drives cars or works in a factory. right?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 25 2014, @11:45AM
[citation needed]
I live in the UK, and haven't noticed any of this shit you are talking about. I think you are getting your "facts" from tabloid headlines and people "complaining" about the lies they read in the Murdochs.