A Livable Minimum Wage

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by scheherazade, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, I don't "seem" to be doing anything of the kind.
    The poor must. The rich choose. It's the key fact of the matter.
    As far as cheaper stores often missing from poorest neighborhoods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
    Also competition between stores. (In wealthier neighborhoods I've seen people shopping in pairs, separate stores, comparing prices by phone.)
    Right next to the lower quality, lower priced brands - and holding down the prices of those brands. The rich choose.
    Incompetence is not a requirement of the calculation. If one is comparing the differences in the minimum cost of living for different economic classes, the differences in what they have to pay for and what they have to pay for it must be included, no?
    Rich people can even buy online, and have low priced stuff delivered to their doors. Poor people meet obstacles doing that - from credit cards and computer access to financial and package security - and these obstacles add cost.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Good. Then we can agree the two standards of living aren't on par, and that the rich actually do spend more to maintain their standard of living.
    As opposed to the poor "minimum standard of living."
    The poor overwhelmingly make bad decisions. Their choices.
    Food deserts are usually the result of crime, where grocers don't want to invest in an area. That crime is a choice, staying there is a choice, and not using public transit to get better groceries is a choice.
    Comparing convenience stores to grocery stores is not comparing apples to apples.
    Rich people?
    So the rich are good for the poor, by holding down prices?
    No. Cost of living makes comparisons across class, that such ad hoc adjustments would invalidate.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    We are not talking about standard of living, but minimum cost of living. It's lower for the rich.
    The rich pay a much lower price for their numerous bad decisions - part of their lower minimum cost of living.
    Dumbass ranting like that is a waste of your time.
    It doesn't matter how or why the food in poorer neighborhoods costs more than the same stuff in wealthy neighborhoods - along with the bulk discounts, timing discounts, and all the other money-saving options the rich can choose - all that matters is the fact.
    You are correct. Convenience stores and the like have higher prices. So people who have no other stores in their neighborhood pay higher prices, or higher travel costs.
    Holds down prices.
    The rich save money for themselves by holding down prices in wealthy areas. The poor of course do not have transportation etc, and if they did that would be yet another cost.
    We are specifically comparing minimum cost of living between, not across, economic classes.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    No, we're talking about some nonsense you made up, while refusing to address real world factors that show it's nonsense.
    Nonsense term, unrelated to reality.
    Yes, it does matter. Little thing called reality. Perhaps you've heard of it?
    Really? Public transit is more expensive than a car?
    More real-world defying nonsense.
    Your make up term, unrelated to reality. Oo, oo, oo!
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Apparently reality for some people does not include their minimum cost of living. Ok.
    Mine does.
    But this is more interesting, for the nature of the error:
    Ignoring the fact that this guy cannot read, we have the interesting observation that some fraction of Americans think that cars for the rich are necessities, cars for the poor are luxuries. A minimum cost of living for a rich person includes a car.

    In other words, we seem to be establishing a genuine class structure within people's minds, in America, within an American's very perception of the real world. The upper classes are seen as living in a different physical reality than the poor, not as a matter of social privilege and choices but as an actual physical state of things, as a property of nature, morally and ethically neutral.

    Interesting. The effects of that on everything - from minimum wage laws to the bail system in the courts to the long lines outside of voting booths in poor neighborhoods to the abandonment of health care and schooling in the commons - can hardly be overestimated.

    And there are a lot of rich Chinese, Saudis, Russians: Get the minimum wage down low enough and America becomes an attractive investment again - jobs for everybody.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    May I suggest from an outsiders view I percieve greater distinction in class in US than anywhere else.
    That is an impression from movies and other observation.
    Probably if you live there you believe the statement and repeated uttering re the American dream takes the issue off the table but from outside it seems rather humorous.
    And there seems to be extreme class hatred which seems at odds with the premise of equality.

  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Funny how people suddenly shift from talking to someone to making appeals to the general audience. Trying to frame the conversation while no longer engaging in it.

    Yes, your minimum cost of living for the rich does include a car, because that's how they actually live in the real world. You either seem to think people are dumb enough to believe that the rich ever live like the poor, buying the same groceries, using the same transportation, having similar housing costs, etc., or you pretend the rich somehow have cheaper groceries, transportation, housing, etc..

    All people are entitled to the fruits of their own voluntary transactions. Anything less if fascism.
    Class warfare is often the tool of fascists.
    The US is also richer than most everywhere else. Hatred is the result of not taking responsibility for your own utilization of opportunity.
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    All societies are entitled to the fruits of their own voluntary governance. Anything less is anarchy. Social disintegration is often the tool of anarchists.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Did someone say otherwise?
  13. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    In so many words you did. People are only entitled to what any greater society deems fit, regardless of their perceived individual fruits.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    But the minimum cost of living for the poor does not included interest paid on payday loans and medical debt and credit card balances from covering emergencies, because how the poor actually live in the real world is a consequence of their choices. Got it.

    Basically, you've decided to ignore the meaning of the English language term "minimum cost of living",
    and the meaning of the English language term "fascism".
    You are one step from declaring that socialism is fascism - which is the latest in fascist agitprop, btw, in the US: there's entire books and promulgating intellectuals making the rounds.

    So that the rich, to you, are a different kind of person subject to different laws and realities than the poor. They don't live in the same economy, even. This obviously would affect one's view of a minimum wage law.
    Including in the US, where the current class warfare launched by the Republican Party (in 1980) is one of the features of the fascist takeover of that Party.
  15. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    I really don't think I did. The greater society controls what the individual voluntarily agrees to? That's contradictory and fascist.
    Just ignoring your made up term. I'm talking about the cost of living, that compares food, housing, transportation, etc. costs. It is calculated for a certain standard of living, and you cannot compare different standards on different criteria. That's just bad math.
    Here's some of the bad choices: http://richhabits.net/i-spent-5-yea...here-are-4-destructive-money-habits-they-had/
    Not allowing voluntary action is fascist.
    Not different kinds of people or laws, but clearly different realities. Same economy, just different strata.
    Calm down and have a banana.
  16. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    As a citizen of the United States for example, do you voluntarily respect its laws and customs, or are you conditioned to do so by society?
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    thus does Citizenship and/or Residency Dictate you be a slave to the Administration ?
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I had in mind the usage of the term white trash or trailer scum...those terms presumably do not come from either the white trash or the trailer scum.

    Those terms suggest a class who see themselves above those folk and it suggests hatred.

    Over here I have never heard terms that are so offensive.

    Our worst "class" thing is perhaps the use of the term "bogans" or "westies" but even these folk are not hated they are simply seen as different and perhaps stupid because they like burnouts in cars and thumbing their noses at authority and conventional society.

    Maybe being over there you dont see what outsiders may see or indeed imagine.

    There seems class hatred via your politics which you are free to reject.

    Sure your country seems rich but there seems to be many poor who are looked down upon.

    But your suggestion about choice I dont think addresses the use of terms like white trash or trailer scum.

    In any event perhaps dont worry asI was making an observation that perhaps is not particularly relevant.

  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    To the degree we are unwillingly dominated by a given administration, we are it’s slaves. The same can be said about any other aspect of human experience as well.
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    I don't think those are mutually exclusive. And conditioned is a far cry from society deeming what people are entitled to.
    Those terms here have the same meaning as your terms for similar people. Never heard of "trailer scum", but some people even identify themselves as "trailer trash." If seeing people as stupid and burnouts isn't looking down on them, I don't know what is.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I made up English words?
    Bad choices cost poor people more than they cost rich people.
    Well obviously you can't calculate a meaningful minimum cost of living by assuming large and voluntary expenditures must be included for some people but not others.
    No. You appear to be confusing authoritarian or oppressive governance of all kinds with the unique kind named "fascism".
    It's an English word, it has a meaning, and that meaning is not "bad".
    Did I sound excited about your claim of class warfare? I'm not. It's kind of depressing, actually - for one thing, the wrong class is winning. For another, when an entire Party is corrupted into fascism, and there's only two Parties, elections become grim choices. I'm not that fond of the Democrats, and now I'm trapped.
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Saying someone is stupid is one thing and maybe it is looking down on them for what is seen as stupid action, but my point was about the apparent hatred suggested by the terms I referred to.

    I think you may be right ...trailer trash...that is probably what I was thinking about.

    I could imagine if folk refer to themselves as trailer trash but that may be their way of pointing out that is how others regard them...a way of complaing as to how others call them rather than a term they use with pride in their situation.

    So do they introduce themselves..hi I am Joe and I am trailer trash and proud of it.

    And we are dealing only with my perception of your society.

    My perception may not reflect reality and maybe folk are happy to call themselves white trash or trailer trash and those terms dont reflect class hatred at all.

    I find it strange that a country that is so rich even have poor people.

    A country that can get anything done cant do better for poor folk is difficult to understand for me...and that you have a class system at all.

    Not having a better health care system seems odd.

    It seems structured to benefit everyone but the poor...it just seems those with power think poor people deserve their poverty.

    I may be wrong but your attitude seems along the lines that folk are poor because they did not make the right decision which seems not only incredibly simplistic but most heartless.

    If they are poor for whatever reason shouldnt they be given help?

    I suppose you need war so you can have peace and so you have the poor so folk can enjoy the priveldge of being rich.

  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Renting is listed as a bad choice, as is reading anything other than self-help books and the like. Watching reality TV is listed as bad, watching other kinds of TV is ok. Failing to create three income streams is listed as a bad choice. Using a credit card for a major expenditure is a bad choice. Any time spent not earning money or preparing to earn money is time wasted.


    I think he overlooked the major and most common bad choice: getting born to the wrong parents.

Share This Page