Quote :

"I was just curious if you did this in Raleigh on $640 month. $300 for rent (how much are utilities?) if you split leaves $6 a day to live on. Thats pretty hardcore though if you managed that for 10 months."

Splitting the rent got us down to about $300/month in rent. Utilities generally only ran about $30 (the appt covered all except elec). After that it was all food costs, which consumed the remaining $250 or so, but that also included toiletries and such. Insurance on the car was $300 every 6 months so money for that was picked up in odd jobs or the little bit of working the other person could do. They were capable of working, but because of the medical issues it was pretty much impossible for them to hold a job for more than a few weeks, and even then they weren't much more than minimum wage for 5 hours a week. Any extra money they made working that didn't go to insurance or gas was put into savings. After about the 4th month, I did get a 30¢ raise, making things a little easier.

For what it's worth, now that I work full time and have bennefits I can't imagine how the hell we ever survived like that, but we did, so I don't begrudge people who can't imagine living like that, I just get irritated when people say that one can't live like that. It's also a matter of seriously searching for resources. There is a church I know of that offers a program called angel food where they put together donations from church members and sell ~$75 worth of groceries to needy people for $25. Private charities are wonderful things, one just needs to be able to swallow their pride and ask for help.

Quote :

"This is not terribly difficult if you don't have children. Children are tough because they consume lots of clothes, and are more sensitive to lack of food and tempeture regulation. "

This was a big help too. Since the other person was an adult, they could care for themselves, do odd work to bring in some side money if neccesary and could cook food so that we weren't eating out every day.

6/8/2007 1:35:07 PM

Quote :

"if businesses have to chip in an extra $2 an hour, they'll adjust, just like minimum wagers have been adjusting to inflation since the last increase."

Of course they will. They will adjust just as everyone does when something gets more expensive. They compensate by finding ways to use less of it. You see, as inflation rose, minimum wage workers always had the option of quitting and going home, to starve to death. At the same time, businesses also have the option of quitting and going home, leaving minimum wage workers to starve to death.

In a well functioning market, unfair as it is, low wage workers exert control over employers by varying the cheapness of their work. If there are lots of employers and relatively few workers then they get uppity, demanding raises, and wages rise. If employers are scarce and workers are plentiful, then wages fall; incentivising employers to rescue potential employees by creating them a job.

As you eliminate this feedback mechanism by rigging wages high, then employers will see no incentive to stay and some will go home, leaving minimum wage workers to starve.

The Government sets a price floor for milk; so the government buys the surplus and dumps millions of gallons into rivers. The Government sets a price floor for grain; so the government buys the surplus and donates millions of tons overseas. The Government has set a price floor for labor; so the Government puts millions of people in prison for selling crack on the street for what amounted to $2.15 an hour.

It is inhumane to set a price floor in any market without providing a legal exit for surplus goods. This is what we have done and you are advocating more of in the labor market. A more humane system would eliminate the wage floor and replace it with a universal promise of work: the government will hire an unlimited number of people at a living wage to do busy work. Employers will quickly raise wages to match, and the surplus labor thrown out of the productive economy will be rescued by government largess. This is a workable system, no one starves to death, and no one ends up on the street selling crack at anything less than a living wage.

So why don't we have such a system? Simple, the minimum wage was not passed at the request of the poor; it was demanded by the sensibilities of the middle-class which felt sorry for the poor. As the market was being regulated on behalf of people that were not participants, there was no objection to the poor being left to deal with the results: unemployment induced poverty. But this did not happen to America's farmers, because agricultural markets were regulated at the request of farmers; milk markets were regulated at the request of dairy farmers.

Do you see a pattern? Farmers and dairy producers have deep pockets to hire lobbyists, so they get wise regulation. The poor don't have such things; so they get regulation that manages to kill some of them, way to go representative democracy.

[Edited on June 9, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/9/2007 12:43:37 AM

Quote :

"At the same time, businesses also have the option of quitting and going home, leaving minimum wage workers to starve to death."

or, more likely, opening up a space in the market for another business that is willing to adjust to the wage increase. markets don't shut down because a few companies can't cut it, especially if consumers have more money in their pockets to spend.

Quote :

"It is inhumane to set a price floor in any market without providing a legal exit for surplus goods. This is what we have done and you are advocating more of in the labor market."

no, what's "inhumane" is comparing workers to surplus milk that can be thrown into a river.

Quote :

"A more humane system would eliminate the wage floor and replace it with a universal promise of work: the government will hire an unlimited number of people at a living wage to do busy work. Employers will quickly raise wages to match, and the surplus labor thrown out of the productive economy will be rescued by government largess."

the definition of a "living wage" is highly debatable. besides, if the government has already determined that $7.15/hr is, as a minimum wage, necessarily the base liveable income level, how would a universal promise of work at a living wage be any different than what's already in place, besides using up more taxpayer dollars?

Quote :

"the minimum wage was not passed at the request of the poor; it was demanded by the sensibilities of the middle-class which felt sorry for the poor. As the market was being regulated on behalf of people that were not participants, there was no objection to the poor being left to deal with the results: unemployment induced poverty."

middle-class sentiment was swayed with good reason, by books such as _the jungle_ that shed light on some of the horrible labor conditions of the early 20th century. unemployment, especially with a system in place to keep the unemployed from starving, is infinitely more humane than being subjected to "slave" pay, unsafe working conditions, and deplorable standards of living.

Quote :

"Do you see a pattern? Farmers and dairy producers have deep pockets to hire lobbyists, so they get wise regulation. The poor don't have such things; so they get regulation that manages to kill some of them, way to go representative democracy."

i'm not buying it. plus you're talking in extremes. with welfare, medicaid, and like programs in place, poverty in the u.s. ideally wouldn't directly kill anyone (though derivative effects of poverty lead to unhealthy lifestyles). this is an issue of standards of living, not life and death. guaranteeing universal work wouldn't guarantee humane living/working conditions. granted, neither does the system we currently have in place, but such conditions are dependent on personal budgeting and one's willingness to find work, not on the business perogatives of cutting overhead and maximizing profits at the expense of employees' living/working standards.

6/9/2007 11:59:12 AM

Quote :

"or, more likely, opening up a space in the market for another business that is willing to adjust to the wage increase."

Hmm, this statement is illogical. If another business could be founded that made a profit paying $7.15 an hour, what is to stop it from already existing in a world where labor is $5.15 an hour? It could make whatever competitive profits it would otherwise make, only pocket an additional $2 per worker hour.

Quote :

"markets don't shut down because a few companies can't cut it, especially if consumers have more money in their pockets to spend."

But what makes you believe they will spend that money on the goods and services provided by the poor? Dominos and Pizza Hut are not the only source for pizza. As a higher minimum wage drives up the price of fresh cooked pizza produced by these providers, consumers will consume less of it and more home-cooked (frozen) pizza which is produced by middle-class workers in a factory.

Net result: consumers shift their consumption, businesses employing the poor go bankrupt, the poor become unemployed, and the middle-class factory workers get higher wages, now that they no longer need to compete with local pizza joints.

Quote :

"no, what's "inhumane" is comparing workers to surplus milk that can be thrown into a river."

"I" am not. I am saying that government policies designed to produce a surplus of milk is fine, it's only hurting consumers and the river. But metaphorically dumping workers into the river is a crime against humanity.

Quote :

"how would a universal promise of work at a living wage be any different than what's already in place, besides using up more taxpayer dollars?"

For those that get a legal job, you are right, the two systems are identical. But for for that 1% of humanity rendered unemployable by the artificial price floor, they are forced to make due with unemployment and meagre government handouts, forced to live unhealthy lives in bad neighborhoods working in illegal industries for appalling wages.

Are you really eager to sacrifice the few just to save a few tax dollars?

6/9/2007 1:09:35 PM

Quote :

"Cut out your cable, internet and cut down on your electricity use and your bills are fairly minimal."

No internet access? What the hell did you do, only working twenty hours a week?

Internet access is a human right, n00bz. I don't care how much debt I have to go in. I don't ever plan on giving that up.

6/9/2007 1:12:27 PM

internet is free. just get a wireless network card.

6/9/2007 1:13:29 PM

Yes, because laptops are so easy to afford at $160 a week. That's a month of work, minimum.

[Edited on June 9, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : don't get me wrong, wi-fi is great]

6/9/2007 1:15:27 PM

Quote :

"No internet access? What the hell did you do, only working twenty hours a week? Internet access is a human right, n00bz. I don't care how much debt I have to go in. I don't ever plan on giving that up."

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but there are public libraries, friends, and computers at work. There's also the possibility of finding an apartment that offers free access (mine does). There's also the matter of simply finding other forms of entertainment, books, broadcast TV, going outside and exercising etc. People survived for many many years without internet, a few more won't kill anyone.

6/9/2007 3:13:45 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because laptops are so easy to afford at $160 a week. That's a month of work, minimum."

A friend of mine has always owned a laptop, but has never bought one. Whenever his boss buys a new laptop he gives his old one (usually broken) away; he fixes it and keeps it. Bravo all around.

6/9/2007 3:30:31 PM

Coming from a manufacturing viewpoint, one of the US's biggest problems is our reliance on cheap labor.
Companies are unwilling to invest in technologies such as automation in order to rid the business of low grade labor jobs. One reason is that many manufactures hands have been tied by unions but is just unwillingness to upgrade.

Farmers and other service industries are the same. The most ridiculous thing I ever heard was a lawn maintenance man guy complaining of not being able to find native born americans who are willing to work for a low enough wage. He said without the illegals he wouldn't be able to run his business... Well duh. He wouldn't be able to make the margin he wants which would force him to exit the market.... the way it should be.
No one HAS to have their grass cut for $20 a week.

Some farms have invested in technology to streamline their production, but the majority still rely on manual labor. A lot of the tasks being performed by illegals could be automated such as milking cows, some fruit harvesting, etc...

If you can compete in a market under the constraints placed on it, get out of it.

6/9/2007 4:28:06 PM

Quote :

"If you can compete in a market under the constraints placed on it, get out of it."

And yet, people demand more minimum wage and stricter laws on outsourcing. All laws designed to help them compete in the market.

6/9/2007 4:58:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure you're being sarcastic,"

And that is why you fail. Unless you're in school at the time, working only twenty hours a week and having no cash at all sounds boring as hell.

Quote :

"but there are public libraries"

Yes, public services are great, aren't they?

Quote :

"and computers at work"

That depends on where you work.

6/11/2007 2:37:18 PM

Crooden, I just wanted to note you made some really bad points that range anywhere from blatantly incorrect to only somewhat false...

6/11/2007 5:49:55 PM

Quote :

" Yes, public services are great, aren't they?"

6/11/2007 6:20:27 PM

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 11:54 PM. Reason : n/m]

6/11/2007 11:54:12 PM

^^^ finally, someone brings substantive, authoritative content to this debate.

man, thanks for correcting me on that. i see what you did there.

6/11/2007 11:57:06 PM

Quote :

"And that is why you fail. Unless you're in school at the time, working only twenty hours a week and having no cash at all sounds boring as hell. "

Your inability to survive without modern entertainment frightens me.

Quote :

"Yes, public services are great, aren't they? "

Yes, there are some public services that are great, no doubt about it. I have very little issue with public libraries, mostly because they are locally funded and open to all. That is, it's a government service that doesn't exclude any portion of the population. That being said:

Quote :

"There's also the matter of simply finding other forms of entertainment, books, broadcast TV, going outside and exercising etc. People survived for many many years without internet, a few more won't kill anyone."

Quote :

"That depends on where you work."

Again, I was merely listing possible ways to gain access to the internet should one desire to. See the quote above.

[Edited on June 12, 2007 at 12:37 AM. Reason : sdfa]

6/12/2007 12:36:57 AM

Quote :

"Your inability to survive without modern entertainment frightens me."

I'd do okay with just a computer and internet access. If couldn't afford those two things, I'd probably try to work more hours.

6/12/2007 7:53:50 PM

Quote :

"how would a universal promise of work at a living wage be any different than what's already in place"

Um, because it would be completely different than what's currently in place. I don't really know how to elaborate. It would be different by being different...

6/13/2007 5:58:03 PM

^ context really helps that quote.

you should probably go back and reread the posts leading up to it and the response to it in order to better understand how the conversation was framed.

6/13/2007 6:08:07 PM

I explained how it would be different:

Quote :

"For those that get a legal job, you are right, the two systems are identical. But for for that 1% of humanity rendered unemployable by the artificial price floor, they are forced to make due with unemployment...forced to live unhealthy lives in bad neighborhoods working in illegal industries for appalling wages. Are you really eager to sacrifice the few just to save a few tax dollars?"

6/13/2007 11:31:24 PM

^ blah, you didn't listen when Lonesnark explained it to you so why waste my time rehashing something you won't comprehend anyway

6/14/2007 6:46:28 AM

huh, ok

6/14/2007 5:57:51 PM