Sashaya

United States

#969 Feb 24, 2013
It seems to me that minimum wage should grow as does the increased productivity of the average worker. I dont quite understand why repubs continue to kiss the feet of the rich but if you cant see that were increasingly becoming a pure rich v. poor society, then youre blind deaf and undoobtedly dumb. BTW, im all for using drone attacks on Hugh Victor Thompson..

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#970 Feb 24, 2013
Sashaya wrote:
It seems to me that minimum wage should grow as does the increased productivity of the average worker.
No, if anything it should grow with the increased productivity of MINIMUM WAGE workers. Of course, if you are more productive, that just means the boss can send you home sooner, so what good is the hike going to do you?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#971 Feb 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How many minimum wage jobs does that single woman have to have to earn $60K? You are even more disconnected from reality that you have previously demonstrated.
working 24 hours 5 days a week on minimum wage does not get you to 60K.

since when is a minimum wage job anything other than a starting position, or a gap filler?

above proves that education, responsibility; and ambition pays dividends.

your ilk wants free dividends

making good decisions in life makes dividends easier to obtain.

making poor decisions has dividends on a string held out in front of you out of reach.

you don't like that.........but who cares.

suggestion for your ilk.....start being ambitious beginning with making good decisions.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#972 Feb 24, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
working 24 hours 5 days a week on minimum wage does not get you to 60K.
since when is a minimum wage job anything other than a starting position, or a gap filler?
above proves that education, responsibility; and ambition pays dividends.
your ilk wants free dividends
making good decisions in life makes dividends easier to obtain.
making poor decisions has dividends on a string held out in front of you out of reach.
you don't like that.........but who cares.
suggestion for your ilk.....start being ambitious beginning with making good decisions.
Well said, RS.
And I would also make the case for a teenager starting out as a stock boy at Staples and, with no additional formal education, moving up to management and corperate.
It's there for anyone who wants it bad enough.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#973 Feb 24, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Female?
Leftist?
You would have to provide your definition of "leftist" for me to be able to answer that question. Not a female.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#974 Feb 24, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have to provide your definition of "leftist" for me to be able to answer that question. Not a female.
it is over your head

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#975 Feb 24, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, but the resident Leftists refuse to acknowledge the truth, which I will repost for them, as repetition is the key to learning.
http://tinyurl.com/3a7u7dn
"In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year"
Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
From Emmerich:
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
I tore your little "study" apart, based on the facts, day before yesterday.

You didn't like it.
Adif understanding

United States

#976 Feb 24, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I tore your little "study" apart, based on the facts, day before yesterday.
You didn't like it.
I don't think you tore anything apart. You stated that minimum wage will not get you to a 60k income and at 60k with kids no one is struggling. Of course that is not what the study said and that was not what the reader said (well, e did say 60 with 3 kids can be low income in certain areas with a high cost of living). What they said was that with all the entitlements a minimum wage worker gets, they (single mother of three) have more disposable income then the same making 60k a year who does not have those entitlement benefits.

Or to make this even more clear, the amount of combined benefits from entitlements and wages given to a single mother of three making minimum wage is more then the costs of living for the same person making 60k and that minimum wage earner has more un-obligated income (read as disposable income) than the same making 60k with 0 entitlement benefits. You have not touched that at all that I can find.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#977 Feb 25, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you tore anything apart. You stated that minimum wage will not get you to a 60k income and at 60k with kids no one is struggling. Of course that is not what the study said and that was not what the reader said (well, e did say 60 with 3 kids can be low income in certain areas with a high cost of living). What they said was that with all the entitlements a minimum wage worker gets, they (single mother of three) have more disposable income then the same making 60k a year who does not have those entitlement benefits.
Or to make this even more clear, the amount of combined benefits from entitlements and wages given to a single mother of three making minimum wage is more then the costs of living for the same person making 60k and that minimum wage earner has more un-obligated income (read as disposable income) than the same making 60k with 0 entitlement benefits. You have not touched that at all that I can find.
liberals HATE facts

they want to ban them.
VADoc

Aiken, SC

#978 Feb 25, 2013
Sashaya wrote:
It seems to me that minimum wage should grow as does the increased productivity of the average worker. I dont quite understand why repubs continue to kiss the feet of the rich but if you cant see that were increasingly becoming a pure rich v. poor society, then youre blind deaf and undoobtedly dumb. BTW, im all for using drone attacks on Hugh Victor Thompson..
Oh my someone used the word "undoubtedly" they must have been listening to that McDonald's dollar menu commercial in between the song about getting bent over and creamed in the club and getting caught cheating because you bent over a Ho and creamed her in the club on the radio.
VADoc

Aiken, SC

#979 Feb 25, 2013
VADoc wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my someone used the word "undoubtedly" they must have been listening to that McDonald's dollar menu commercial in between the song about getting bent over and creamed in the club and getting caught cheating because you bent over a Ho and creamed her in the club on the radio.
Autocorrect changed the word meant to say "undoobtedly"
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#980 Feb 25, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
liberals HATE facts
they want to ban them.
I know. Like that fact about the Romney electoral landslide. That is one we have ignored.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#981 Feb 25, 2013
Sashaya wrote:
It seems to me that minimum wage should grow as does the increased productivity of the average worker. I dont quite understand why repubs continue to kiss the feet of the rich but if you cant see that were increasingly becoming a pure rich v. poor society, then youre blind deaf and undoobtedly dumb. BTW, im all for using drone attacks on Hugh Victor Thompson..
minimum wage does increase with the productivity of the worker today as we speak.

if you are in a position where you have earned minimum wage for more than 3 years, what does that say about the worker?

it says to me that the worker is not productive; and does not earn more than minimum wage.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#982 Feb 25, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you tore anything apart. You stated that minimum wage will not get you to a 60k income and at 60k with kids no one is struggling. Of course that is not what the study said and that was not what the reader said (well, e did say 60 with 3 kids can be low income in certain areas with a high cost of living). What they said was that with all the entitlements a minimum wage worker gets, they (single mother of three) have more disposable income then the same making 60k a year who does not have those entitlement benefits.
Or to make this even more clear, the amount of combined benefits from entitlements and wages given to a single mother of three making minimum wage is more then the costs of living for the same person making 60k and that minimum wage earner has more un-obligated income (read as disposable income) than the same making 60k with 0 entitlement benefits. You have not touched that at all that I can find.
Indeed, thank you.
Reader is a legend...in her own mind.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#983 Feb 25, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you tore anything apart. You stated that minimum wage will not get you to a 60k income and at 60k with kids no one is struggling. Of course that is not what the study said and that was not what the reader said (well, e did say 60 with 3 kids can be low income in certain areas with a high cost of living). What they said was that with all the entitlements a minimum wage worker gets, they (single mother of three) have more disposable income then the same making 60k a year who does not have those entitlement benefits.
Or to make this even more clear, the amount of combined benefits from entitlements and wages given to a single mother of three making minimum wage is more then the costs of living for the same person making 60k and that minimum wage earner has more un-obligated income (read as disposable income) than the same making 60k with 0 entitlement benefits. You have not touched that at all that I can find.
Wrong study.

The "study" claiming that someone earning minimum wage has as much disposable as a person earning $60,000 was simply a list of flawed comparisons. First off, calling it "disposable income" was a complete misnomer as the bulk of what was contained was not "disposable income" at all, but rather the amount of in-kind subsidies theoretically available to someone on the lowest rungs.

In the case of Medicaid and food stamps that would be true. These programs are truly "entitlements" with a state/federal partnership pledged to funding all those who qualify based on income.

However, a number of other programs listed, such as Section 8 rent subsidy and child care support are not entitlements, they are capped programs doled out on some variation of a first-come first served basis (with perhaps priorities, depending on the program, the state administering it and so forth). Many who would qualify based on income receive no support because there are not "slots" available. Further, the child care support only applies to those families with children of qualifying ages--so plugging in the full available amount of subsidy is a fallacy.

Next, it includes as contributing to "disposable income" an amount for Medicaid. Like the rent and child care supports, this is a program of in-kind assistance. Were it not there one can in no way assume that those dollars would be spent from available cash--nor even that any particular family receives that specific amount in benefit.

However, in the comparison line for the person having an income of $60,000 there is no health care benefit. This is very likely not true as most having that level of income would most likely receive some health care benefit from their employer--up to and including the possibility of full coverage.

So--running around making the claim that a person who makes minimum wage has a "disposable income" equivalent to a person earning $60,000--despite being able to link to a site where some other fool put it in writing--is utterly disputable and I did dispute it.

Tip responed with something along the lines of my refusing to see facts when they disagree with me.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#984 Feb 25, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong study.
The "study" claiming that someone earning minimum wage has as much disposable as a person earning $60,000 was simply a list of flawed comparisons. First off, calling it "disposable income" was a complete misnomer as the bulk of what was contained was not "disposable income" at all, but rather the amount of in-kind subsidies theoretically available to someone on the lowest rungs.
In the case of Medicaid and food stamps that would be true. These programs are truly "entitlements" with a state/federal partnership pledged to funding all those who qualify based on income.
However, a number of other programs listed, such as Section 8 rent subsidy and child care support are not entitlements, they are capped programs doled out on some variation of a first-come first served basis (with perhaps priorities, depending on the program, the state administering it and so forth). Many who would qualify based on income receive no support because there are not "slots" available. Further, the child care support only applies to those families with children of qualifying ages--so plugging in the full available amount of subsidy is a fallacy.
Next, it includes as contributing to "disposable income" an amount for Medicaid. Like the rent and child care supports, this is a program of in-kind assistance. Were it not there one can in no way assume that those dollars would be spent from available cash--nor even that any particular family receives that specific amount in benefit.
However, in the comparison line for the person having an income of $60,000 there is no health care benefit. This is very likely not true as most having that level of income would most likely receive some health care benefit from their employer--up to and including the possibility of full coverage.
So--running around making the claim that a person who makes minimum wage has a "disposable income" equivalent to a person earning $60,000--despite being able to link to a site where some other fool put it in writing--is utterly disputable and I did dispute it.
Tip responed with something along the lines of my refusing to see facts when they disagree with me.
As the author, Emmerich, stated...almost all welfare programs offer online "benefits calculators" where these benefits may be automatically calculated. In fact, he challenged readers to verify his data...and many did.

That you personally relabel many of the entitlement programs as "in-kind assistance" does not make it so. In fact, it is laughable and does, indeed, prove that you continue to refuse the facts.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#985 Feb 25, 2013
Sashaya wrote:
BTW, im all for using drone attacks on Hugh Victor Thompson..
I'll have to make it a point of surrounding myself with low quality people like you, DayStar. Hellfire missiles used in urban areas have a blast radius of 60-100 feet.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#986 Feb 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
As the author, Emmerich, stated...almost all welfare programs offer online "benefits calculators" where these benefits may be automatically calculated. In fact, he challenged readers to verify his data...and many did.
That you personally relabel many of the entitlement programs as "in-kind assistance" does not make it so. In fact, it is laughable and does, indeed, prove that you continue to refuse the facts.
The destinction is not between entitlement and in-kind. There IS a distinction between an entitlement program and one that is capped.

However, being able to access a subsidy of say $400 per month on a $600 per month apartment does not add $400 worth of disposable income. Without the subsidy, the family may end up living in a substandard unit at a cost of say $450, a difference of on $250 from what they are paying in the subsidized situation. Same is true of child care. With a subsidy the family may be able access market-rate licensed child-care in a facility. Without subsidy they may barter with family members or pay a neighbor or other provider in an unlicensed home.

And again the largest line item listed is the $16,000--which does not supplant any actual expenditure (hence no predictable change in disposeable income)--for Medicaid with nothing (expense or benefit) listed for the $60,000 earner.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#987 Feb 25, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
minimum wage does increase with the productivity of the worker today as we speak.
if you are in a position where you have earned minimum wage for more than 3 years, what does that say about the worker?
it says to me that the worker is not productive; and does not earn more than minimum wage.
And yet the people who work for you have not contract assuring them of that.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#988 Feb 25, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
However, in the comparison line for the person having an income of $60,000 there is no health care benefit. This is very likely not true as most having that level of income would most likely receive some health care benefit from their employer--up to and including the possibility of full coverage.
So what the whole purpose of Obamacare, then? And why would they need subsidies? And why was I able to find free or nominal health care plugging in a family of 3 at a combined income of $60K? And why are folks who make 6 figures (with enough kids) eligible for health insurance subsidies? Medicaid recipients WILL NOT BE MEANS TESTED in 2014 as part of the health reform. I thought that people - even those at $60K - couldn't afford their employer's health insurance. Isn't that why bankruptcies are up?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
City to consider measures to reduce plastic bag... 1 hr Zoe Regen 1
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Neutral Party 3,969
Illegal Immigrants On NC Voter Rolls 2 hr Zoe Regen 1
President Ebola 2 hr They cannot kill ... 697
Snapchat 6 hr roughsex999 3
Autopsy, toxicology report on Michael Brown 10 hr They cannot kill ... 113
Columbus police officer to resign after pleadin... 11 hr Zoe Regen 3
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]