Quote:I'd left my job in automotive to start taking full time college classes after 10 years of working and hitting dead ends. 3 years ago I moved my family of 6 into a 2 bedroom duplex, shut off the cable, sold everything we owned except the beds the washing machine and some clothes. We hung dry clothing to keep the electric bill down, I rode a bicycle to work 4 miles each way and to get to class I bought a motorcycle to limit gas. took a job from 2am-10am unloading semi trucks for $10 an hour so I could double up on classes from 12pm-8pm.


I finished my AA in 3 semesters and went back to work in automotive where I'm making twice what I made before I left. I'm about 10 credits from finishing my BA where I then plan on jumping to a dealership for more money.


My point was that I know what it's like to make ends meet on $10 an hour and without help (for us it was the form of student loans and savings) it's not possible. If people really expect a minimum wage that can be a living wage you'd have to pay somewhere around $15 an hour but everyone admits that's to much, why because the jobs paying $7 an hour won't exist if we make them pay $15 an hour.

 

Quote:The purpose of the $200 argument is to illustrate there is a balance to wages. That balance is the backbone of capitalism, supply and demand. When you try and adjust that balance even the slightest the adjustment is to eliminate or consolidate jobs.


To me those minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone if you eliminate them it makes it harder for anyone to get started. Or you drive that type of work underground.

I don't know that a married couple with 6 kids is really the average nor the norm of the average minimum wage worker. I am sure with say 1 kid or two kids or single, 12-15 would be plenty to survive on. That's what we are talking about paying bills and feeding yourself with a bit of room with scrimping to go to school and get ahead should you so desire. 

 

No that is not the purpose. The purpose is to make it sound ridiculous because it does when you throw dumb numbers like 200/hour to counter why 12 is unreasonable.. Again your argument is living wages are unreasonable. That's what you are saying that walmart will somehow get rid of jobs all of a sudden if they had to pay "unreasonable wages" that are subsidized through the welfare programs you hate so much. You know they would not. 

 

If the backbone of capitalism is to have the ability to not pay enough for people to survive than the system is broken. True Free markets are broken and flawed in that they tend in the end to monopolies and when monopolies happen guess what? Wages sink even lower among other problems. This is the point of regulations on the free market. To defend it in it's purest form is foolish because it's purest form does not work in a society. 

---