Economy Rashida Tlaib: The federal minimum wage 'should be $20 an hour'

It's really odd to read you agree with me. But I'm glad. I think it's just common sense?

It should be shitty enough to drive incentive for them to improve their situation. I can't get behind someone pooring coffee or flipping burgers being paid more than minimum wage. And minimum wage will always be linked to cost of living. (mean's that you will and should be struggling making min wage)

I made minimum wage. I lived with 2 other people in a 2 bedroom and a den apartment. I did that for over 3 years as I was increasing my skillset and working towards entering into my industry.

I mean hell...it really boils down to "if you make bad decisions, life is gonna be hard."

I said this to another poster, but this isn't necessarily how human motivation works. Donald Trump was a millionaire who still put in the time and work to become a billionaire. Zuckerberg was a rich kid who worked to become the richest man on earth.

Motivation and ambition aren't exclusive to people who are suffering. For some reason, people attribute their work ethic to hard times even though we all know tgat plenty of poor people are lazy af.
 
<Dany07>

No you didn't

Holy crap.

Really? . . . here it is again . . . I've provided a couple of paragraphs from there. You've acknowledged as much with your whole "you didn't type anything" comment.
 
Holy crap.

Really? . . . here it is again . . . I've provided a couple of paragraphs from there. You've acknowledged as much with your whole "you didn't type anything" comment.

No.. you said "all I did was post BLS stats"

Which isn't true.

You whined that people that work at grocery stores shouldn't earn more for a few pages first.

Then you pasted the same stats I brought up, interpreted poorly, after I did, that don't support your argument at all.
 
I said this to another poster, but this isn't necessarily how human motivation works. Donald Trump was a millionaire who still put in the time and work to become a billionaire. Zuckerberg was a rich kid who worked to become the richest man on earth.

Motivation and ambition aren't exclusive to people who are suffering. For some reason, people attribute their work ethic to hard times even though we all know tgat plenty of poor people are lazy af.

One of my best friends growing up is lazy as fuck. I can't help him. When he gets laid off, he sits on his ass and collects as much unemployment as possible before trying to find the next job. He abuses sick days and work related injury requests. He does the bare minim and hates his job. When he needs money he turns to his credit cards and maxes them out.

He's been stuck paying an atrocious min payment for YEARS now just to stay afloat with his visa payments. And oh ya...he seems to resent me, my happiness and success. Because I'm happily married with a son and a good job on the verge of retirement while he's single and stuck with a dead end - bumb job, small ass apartment still living with his dad

I've tried giving him advice, he doesn't listen or comes up with a million bullshit excuses as to why he does what he does.

They are excuses.

I can't help him. He is exactly where he deserves to be in life. And I don't think the government or any other entity should be breaking their backs to help support him. And like you said, he's not alone. If you deep dive into the life of someone not well off, you won't find a "diamond in the rough" as most of the time-the majority of the time- you will figure out really quickly EXACTLY why someone is living like shit.

There are some things I think need to get addressed that are out of our control. Health care costs need addressing, as does student loans. But I wouldn't make the government step in because that kind of power is a slippery slope. I would try to make it so capitalism - free market enterprise - can come in and drive those costs down via competition.

Government should remove all form of collusion. That's about it.

At any rate. I think for once you and I agree on something. So discussion isn't as entertaining when two people see eye to eye lol.
 
No it wouldn't . . . you'd find something else to be completely confused about and then make up another point about me trying to play the victim. And for the record I have had to support a family on minimum wage. Just so you're clear on where we really are at here.

But just for giggles . . . people who depend on a minimum wage job to support a family need to quickly come to the realization that life isn't fair. Just because you have a wife and 3 kids to support doesn't mean you're going to get paid $20/hour do sack groceries, flip burgers or sweep the floors. At least in the long-term "you" need to figure out a plan to get a better job.

This is where you clearly didn't understand my point.

I was talking about people who HAVE to work minimum wage jobs for an extended period of time, which is why you raging about white privilege was especially useless and distracting from the main discussion. There are people who, due to disability or simply life status, find themselves unqualified for anything but minimum wage work for a long time. And they have to support a family.

My opinion is that those people should have their basic needs covered so that whatever stress they feel is the stress to be better, not the stress to survive.

Not long ago, America used to be this way. This is how we became the global superpower.

https://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-americans-spent-their-money-in-the-1950s

In 1950, the average salary was $3,210 and the average cost of a home was $7,354. That means the average American salary was just under half the cost of the average home. Now, the afterage salary is around 60k and the average home is $280k. In 1950, even someone making minimum wage (roughly $1560 annually) could afford a mortgage.

This is still how it is in many parts of the world. I don't understand why yall are so thirsty for the poor to suffer.
 
So why rag on my opinion of how much a teenager should make at an entry level job?

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Or I'm misunderstanding you. Because what I said disagrees with what I perceive you to have been saying.

If properly raised kids are gonna work hard no matter what, then paying them more early on is an investment that will help them get to their dream jobs quicker. Paying them less is needless; it doesn't build work ethic, it just makes them suffer for no reason.
 
Last edited:
C'mon man . . . I have no stake in this system. My pay won't change as a result of this, but if it does get implemented we're all going to be paying for it.

wrong fella.

unless you have a nice boss, you won't see an equal increase in your salary to offset the one for min wage. Which means the cost of everything will go up. Which means your salary that you worked hard to get doesn't stretch as far as it did before the wage increase.
 
C'mon man . . . I have no stake in this system. My pay won't change as a result of this, but if it does get implemented we're all going to be paying for it.

Sure bruh thats why you got triggered earlier by Leagons post, because you have no stake at all in this system...
 
So the companies producing items are going to keep their prices the same? McDonald's is still going to charge me the same price for that burger made by employees making $15 an hour? Housing prices will stay the same regardless of this wage increase? This shit won't help anyone.

Fair question, and since I'm not directly involved in the issue forgive me for relying on Google.

After a little reading it doesn't seem to be the case.
https://www.washington.edu/news/201...prices-minimal-one-year-after-implementation/

The team’s report found “little or no evidence” of price increases in Seattle relative to other areas, its report states.

Sixty-two percent of employers said they expected to raise prices of goods and services to accommodate the higher wages brought by the law.

But in an analysis of area prices over time, done through a combination of “web scraping” and in-person visits to grocery stores, restaurants and other retail locations, such price increases were not in evidence.

“Our preliminary analysis of grocery, retail and rent prices has found little or no evidence of price increases in Seattle relative to the surrounding area,” the team concluded.

I'll freely admit I'm multi-tasking and haven't read everything that popped up....if you have a fact based link that counters what this says then by all means.
 
So the companies producing items are going to keep their prices the same? McDonald's is still going to charge me the same price for that burger made by employees making $15 an hour? Housing prices will stay the same regardless of this wage increase? This shit won't help anyone.

Mcdonalds still operates in European countries where they pay people close to $20/hr, so no I dont think they will start charging $50 for a Big Mac.
 
I wonder how much her campaign workers who helped elect her got paid.
 
Fair question, and since I'm not directly involved in the issue forgive me for relying on Google.

After a little reading it doesn't seem to be the case.
https://www.washington.edu/news/201...prices-minimal-one-year-after-implementation/

The team’s report found “little or no evidence” of price increases in Seattle relative to other areas, its report states.

Sixty-two percent of employers said they expected to raise prices of goods and services to accommodate the higher wages brought by the law.

But in an analysis of area prices over time, done through a combination of “web scraping” and in-person visits to grocery stores, restaurants and other retail locations, such price increases were not in evidence.

“Our preliminary analysis of grocery, retail and rent prices has found little or no evidence of price increases in Seattle relative to the surrounding area,” the team concluded.

I'll freely admit I'm multi-tasking and haven't read everything that popped up....if you have a fact based link that counters what this says then by all means.
That is interesting. But, that is one area, they are still able to sell groceries/retail items made in areas that do not have this minimum wage. We are talking about every employer in the country here. So unless you get stuff from overseas, costs will rise. I'm sure housing in Seattle is already outrageous, so that does make sense.
 
Mcdonalds still operates in European countries where they pay people close to $20/hr, so no I dont think they will start charging $50 for a Big Mac.
Not $50...but prices will rise. You will see more and more shift to automation with this. No job at all is worse than a lower paying one, right? Let's move to the discussion of health services. Are insurance companies and Medicaid going to start paying more for services they cover? How will a mental health agency pay counselors more(to keep them from swapping jobs) when they are not receiving any extra money for these services? It's not as simple as some of you seem to think it is. "Oh, they will have to pay more to keep their workers". No they won't, and shit will close down.
 
That is interesting. But, that is one area, they are still able to sell groceries/retail items made in areas that do not have this minimum wage. We are talking about every employer in the country here. So unless you get stuff from overseas, costs will rise. I'm sure housing in Seattle is already outrageous, so that does make sense.

I appreciate your opinion, but it's just that...an opinion, and I found a study (after 2.2 mins of googling)done by economists , dealing with the actual situation that refutes it.
 
I appreciate your opinion, but it's just that...an opinion, and I found a study (after 2.2 mins of googling)done by economists , dealing with the actual situation that refutes it.
Believe what you want...but thinking increases wages for people who are making products is not going to affect the price of those product is naive.
 
The next few decades are going to be painful. People cant wrap their heads around it. The truth is the jobs are disappearing. Meanwhile unemployment is reported as going down because people have to work 2 or 3 jobs to get by.

All the minimum wage noise in recent years is getting louder because peoples lives are getting worse.

Peoples lives are getting worse because corporations have taken over the country, destroyed unions(they kindof destroyed themselves also), taken away workers rights, destroyed company loyalty and driven down wages to the lowest common denominator.
They have brainwashed the masses into looking out for the individual instead of paying attention to the rules that are hurting others.
Even in this thread you see people proclaiming that others should not make what they make because they EARNED it.

Meanwhile the corporations are happy to give a few people their piece of bread as long as they tow the line and keep the peasants back from the table.

"Be happy with your crumbs, you didnt earn the full piece of bread."

And the billionaires laugh.

Amazon is the richest corporation in HISTORY outside of of state level royalty and they have workers around the world on strike for mistreatment and low wages.

Yet someone in this thread will lament how Jeff Bezos put in the time and if you dont like it you should start your own company and risk your own investment. If you wont do that be happy with your breadcrumbs!

Wake up people. Please wake up.

You've been brainwashed to serve your masters. Ever notice how its taboo to discuss wages in the workplace? Or that if you are the first to leave at the end of the day you are viewed as lazy?

Think. If profit was the only motivator you would be celebrated for your efficiency. Be more like him/her they get their work done in half the time as everyone else! They save the company money!

Its about more than that. They want you to be the underclass to continue to push profits up. The only way they can do that is by stressing you out and taking your time. Making you value the company more than your life.

Recently there was pushback against a Bernie bill that would require companies pay for overtime. The pushback was framed as increasing labor costs and hurting profits. You have been taught that because you get the bigger piece of the bread you should give more of your time to the company. Dont ask questions or pushback because we could pick someone else to give that piece of bread to.
Sheep.
We are the richest country in the world and have the land and resources to give every one of our citizens a lifestyle no other country has ever achieved.
Yet that lifestyle is reserved for a select few.
You earn it for them. You build it for them. You except your piece of bread and understand the price of it. Your time and your diligence in pushing down the dissenters that want more bread.

Tow the line.

Billionaires can't take advantage of peasants without your assistance.
Exactly.

The working/middle class is brainwashed (for lack of a better term) into looking down at the poor, being distracted by immigration, etc, while the wealthy make off with more and more money whilst telling everyone else that they shouldn't regulate them or they'll hurt their own dreams. It's bullshit on an almost artful level.

How I felt reading your post:

tenor.gif
 
https://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-americans-spent-their-money-in-the-1950s

In 1950, the average salary was $3,210 and the average cost of a home was $7,354. That means the average American salary was just under half the cost of the average home. Now, the afterage salary is around 60k and the average home is $280k. In 1950, even someone making minimum wage (roughly $1560 annually) could afford a mortgage.

This is still how it is in many parts of the world. I don't understand why yall are so thirsty for the poor to suffer.

So, I found this really, really interesting. Not sure I agree with the conclusion, though.

As the article notes, the average size of a new home today is nearly 3x the average size in 1950 (2,687 sq. ft. compared to 938). If you look at the price of a new home on a per square foot basis, it's increased from $7.84 to $104.80. That's a 13.4x more today (actually 2016) than in 1950.

If you look at the average income for an adult male, that went from $2,570 per year to $38,869. That's 15.1x more today than in 1950.

My takeaway here is that if we still wanted 938 sq. ft. homes, they'd be more affordable today than in 1950. The question is why don't we?

There's also the issue of pre-tax versus after-tax income (did the real effective tax rate come down over that time for the typical American male?) and quality of homes.
 
Believe what you want...but thinking increases wages for people who are making products is not going to affect the price of those product is naive.
Maybe, but the more people who have buying power the more stimulated the economy is. That's how the US was pulled out of the Great Depression, by spreading the wealth.
 
Maybe, but the more people who have buying power the more stimulated the economy is. That's how the US was pulled out of the Great Depression, by spreading the wealth.
But are they really going to have more buying power? If you make $10 an hour and bread costs $2, is that not the same buying power as making $20 an hour and bread costing $4?
 
So, I found this really, really interesting. Not sure I agree with the conclusion, though.

As the article notes, the average size of a new home today is nearly 3x the average size in 1950 (2,687 sq. ft. compared to 938). If you look at the price of a new home on a per square foot basis, it's increased from $7.84 to $104.80. That's a 13.4x more today (actually 2016) than in 1950.

If you look at the average income for an adult male, that went from $2,570 per year to $38,869. That's 15.1x more today than in 1950.

My takeaway here is that if we still wanted 938 sq. ft. homes, they'd be more affordable today than in 1950. The question is why don't we?

There's also the issue of pre-tax versus after-tax income (did the real effective tax rate come down over that time for the typical American male?) and quality of homes.

Good point, but I don't know if it changes the interpretation. You can't buy square footage, you buy the entire house. If, for example, farmers started growing giant fruit and charging crazy amounts that only the wealthy could afford, we couldn't blame poor people for not being able to afford fruit.

If houses HAD to be larger or if they had somehow become more expensive to make, that would be one thing. But that's not the case.

Also, I have to imagine that most of those hourses that increased the national square footage are in places where housing is cheap. No one if building 2300 sq. foot houses in Manhattan or Los Angeles.
 
But are they really going to have more buying power? If you make $10 an hour and bread costs $2, is that not the same buying power as making $20 an hour and bread costing $4?
It would depend on the price hike. In areas where the minimum wage has been raised like Seattle they haven't run into this problem as far as I'm aware but it's been awhile since I've read up on it.

So, in your example, if the price of bread does anything but double (as wages did) it's a net gain for everyone.

Amazon recently started paying their workers $15 an hour after pressure from worker's groups and politicians like Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna and I'm not aware that ordering things from them has gotten any more expensive.

In many cases companies have far and above more than enough money to pay their workers much more than they do, and when they don't, it costs us money in taxes paying for social programs for their workers which means we're subsidizing their low wages just so a few at the top can make more money than they need or deserve.

The more inequitable a society becomes, the more unstable it becomes.
 
Back
Top