You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

21
72

[–] FTSIO 21 points 72 points (+93|-21) ago 

It's not supposed to. Minimum wage is for high schoolers and retarded people. If you want more money, make yourself a more valuable asset.

8
9

[–] dayofthehope 8 points 9 points (+17|-8) ago 

In the 1950's if you had a job, any job including flipping burgers, you could live with dignity. Any man could afford a house, two automobiles, 7 kids and a boat. It wasn't a big deal.

Why are things different now, especially that with all the illegals the economy is supposed to be so much better?

3
12

[–] speedisavirus 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Minimum wage in the 50s was $0.75 an hour so I'm calling bullshit. A car was on average $1510 a new home $4000. If you worked 40 hours a week at that wage with no vacation or downtime you made $1560 a year.

1
1

[–] ohgoodlord 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This really isn't true. There were always frustrated people living in walk-up apartments. You didn't need a college degree in the 50s, but you did need a qualification or skill. You needed to complete an apprenticeship or be able to stick with something manual and pay union dues for 5, 10 years if you wanted to get the raises/accrue the savings needed to ever buy a car or home. My grandfather worked a skilled trade, married a woman with a college degree and she quit her job when they had their first kid. But they had both been working and saving to buy a home. His brother worked odd jobs at donut shops etc and was stuck living at home with their mother until she died. You have to train at something and commit to something if you want to have a decent life. That has always been true.

1
1

[–] loveoftruth 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I would argue that it is hard to adapt to a fiat monetary system that steadily eats all wealth and moves it to the corrupt. Your fiat $ is devalued every year. You can only adapt so much before the cause of the corruption needs to be removed. This fiat $ corruption is why politicians and companies can be purchased so easily... you just print the $ you need if you own the press.

8
-6

[–] FTSIO 8 points -6 points (+2|-8) ago 

Lol this comparison is so old. We live in a different world now. The 1950's was almost 70 years ago. 70 years before that you only had to boil you water to not die.. The world has changed and it's about time people adapt.

2
4

[–] totes_magotes 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Just for the sake of discussion, how do you reconcile that with talk about how min wage used to and could also pay for college? I mean I don't particularly disagree with you. It's unskilled labor and not meant to be a living.

0
15

[–] loveoftruth 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

It's simple - super short version: College was inexpensive until the US gov. started guaranteeing that they would pay back the loan if the student did not. Once gov. created a payback guarantee under the premise of providing education for low income people, the banks did not care who they loaned to, or if the degree would lead to a career that pays enough $ to pay back the loan. Also the colleges could charge as much as they wanted (notice the sharp increase in cost over time) because the banks would loan the $ to any student in any amount due to gov. guarantees. Expensive cost is due to government guarantees of loans, without the guarantee the bank would ensure the student was going into a career that would generate $ or they would lose the $ they loaned to the student.

0
3

[–] FTSIO 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Because when that was still applicable, microwaves we're just coming out.. We don't live in that world anymore and haven't for a generatiion.

Secondary education is not a requisite for success but working hard and making good choices will always be.

50
4

[–] EIMR 50 points 4 points (+54|-50) ago  (edited ago)

Wrong. Minimum wage was created so that workers in industrial revolution factories(or rather sweatshops) had a salary that allowed workers to have a living wage(or rather, wikipedia says "to afford the necessaries of life").

Rather, you believe that there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

EDIT: Also, about making yourself a more valuable asset.

Someone who is working a minimum wage job cannot afford school, or a computer and internet to learn online. Someone working two jobs still can't afford it, and can't go to school/university because they don't have time.
And imagine going to the job interview while poor. You cannot afford a suit, you cannot afford to clean yourself up.
Poor people cannot systematically raise themselves out of poverty.

Also, there must always be someone below. There must always be someone doing worse jobs and earning less. Should those who are below not be able to afford necessities? You cannot apply advice to a singular person as a solution for the whole of society.

5
29

[–] lemon11 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago 

Wrong. Price floors are created to distort the market so that people are atomized, miserable, and demand more intervention.

5
15

[–] glassuser 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago 

Yes, trust Wikipedia. It always has the truth.

3
11

[–] Eualos 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Library is free

2
9

[–] Hilarious_Exception 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Can they afford the library?

4
2

[–] MensAgitatMolem 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

Unless I make at $19/h+ and work full time I cannot afford rent alone anywhere near any available jobs so even with the $15/h min wage shit your out of fucking luck.

INB4 you say that's 3k a month you should be able to rent a studio appt, NOPE they run from $1k to $1.4k a month and every place that is not in a crack den of a neighborhood requires renters to make 3 times the rent monthly to even apply, and that changes if you have a roommate, as one place had its requirement bumped to 8x the rent a month gross and another for some stupid fucking reason had it at 15x the rent a month gross.

I don't expect to be able to achieve my dreams on a wage below $20/h, but the system is obviously fucked in that you have to choose between debt, lifelong debt, or poverty as a young adult trying to get anywhere on their own, unlike previous generations, who caused this mess, that had it easy.

2
14

[–] mrfetus 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

If you can't afford to live in the city FUCKING MOVE.

0
2

[–] SJWs_R_FAAAGS 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I bought my first house 8yrs ago on 14/hr-zero down

0
0

[–] HotAirFactory 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I work for a pizza shop that has been around for 48 years now. They pay me 11$/hr +1$ for every delivery and I get tips I do not have to claim. So with the number of long time customers and number of deliveries , I make roughly about 20-23$ an hour.(20-25 hr week) I can pay my 1,000/mo rent my 300$/mo car payment and my 150$/mo full coverage car/renters insurance. After that My bank account is suckin fumes...if something breaks/goes wrong...then my ass is hurtin on payin my other bills..which sux ass

0
0

[–] Drain0 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm not disagreeing with your entire post, but I do call bullshit...

First the agreeing. I've seen studio apartments running $1k+ in most major cities these days and it's common practice to require renters to show proof of income of 3x-4x the cost of rent (gross income) so I am not disputing any of that. But using that statistic I would say it's safe to assume that a 2 bedroom apartment would cost more per month. Now unless your roommate was a significant other or relative I don't see 2 people sharing an efficiency but we'll still use the stats that you provided for clarity. You're saying that with a roommate, the two of you would be required to earn a bare minimum of $8,000.00 per month ($1,000/mo *8) depending on the rules and prices of the apartment but that it could be as much as $21,000.00 ($1,400/mo *15) ... That's where I call bullshit. It makes no sense. That would absolutely be the recipe for bankruptcy on the owners of the apartment because nobody making that earning potential would live so far below their means.

For example, Austin has the highest cost of living of any city in Texas (imagine that)... You can find 2br/2ba "luxury" HIGH RISE apartments from $5,000/mo all the way down to $1,500/mo so what would make me want to even look at an over priced efficiency who's only redeeming quality is that it's not in a crack den of a neighborhood? It doesn't make any sense, it would be financial suicide to require an income that high.