Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Full-time minimum wage workers cannot afford a two-bedroom rental anywhere in the U.S. and cannot afford a one-bedroom rental in 95% of U.S. counties, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's annual "Out of Reach" report. In fact, the average minimum wage worker in the U.S. would need to work almost 97 hours per week to afford a fair market rate two-bedroom and 79 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom, NLIHC calculates.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is the land of the free y'all... if you can afford it. There is some sort of sickness in this country. Avarice.

#1 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-07-15 10:56 PM | Reply

Yet these Yahoo MAGABillies continue to support the Demented Orange Goon from their rusty trailers eating roadkill because their EBT has been exhausted at the Waffle House.

#2 | Posted by jvel777 at 2020-07-15 11:04 PM | Reply

Minimum Wage Workers Can't Afford Rent Anywhere in U.S.

This sucks, but is not unexpected. We in our American culture blame the Workers and not the Minimum Wage.

#3 | Posted by horstngraben at 2020-07-15 11:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That's why the majority of them are living at home with mommy and daddy. The minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage for people to get experience in the working world so one can progress into a better paying position.

When I was in my teens the minimum wage was $25 an hour and, in my first job I got a 10 cent raise after 90 days. The next position I took, five months later, with 'then' work experience, paid $2.50 which, if you are poor at math , was double the minimum wage.

#4 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-07-15 11:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

$7.25 an hour isn't enough to live in this country.

But, you'd be rich in Honduras.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-15 11:21 PM | Reply

When I was in my teens the minimum wage was $25 an hour

LOL!!!

#6 | Posted by horstngraben at 2020-07-15 11:22 PM | Reply

"Go find something new to do"
"In five months you will be making two-fiddy"

- - msgt Ivankuz

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-07-15 11:22 PM | Reply

The minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage for people to get experience in the working world so one can progress into a better paying position.

Bullshht. Show me where that's written.

Minimum wage is a laborers wage.

Everyone in this nation should be, and easily could be paid a living wage.

Your greed blinds you.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-15 11:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When I was in my teens the minimum wage was $25 an hour

Did you mean 25 cents an hour?

Because. Minimum wage should be $25 an hour.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-15 11:24 PM | Reply

Also. 25 cents, when you were a teenager, use to get you about as much as $5 does today.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-15 11:25 PM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2020-07-15 11:17 PM | FLAG: Correction for the a**H***s - If you had any sense you would know that was meant ONE DOLLAR and TWENTY FIVE CENTS - now go to your GOOGLE and check the minimum wage in the late 60s. AGAIN, the minimum wage has ALWAYS meant to be the starting wage in our economy. Again, if one is willing to actually work with the intention of getting ahead then, apparently unlike so many libbies, one can attain more that that in life. Guess that is why so many of you lefties have wealth envy because no one just handed it to you.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-07-15 11:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just another question - PLEASE tell me when the minimum wage was ever able to support the cost of rent, utilities, etc.?

#12 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-07-15 11:44 PM | Reply

You miss the point a minimum wage raises wages across the board resulting in more people making a living wage.

Now if you want to talk about a minimum LIVING wage, i am on board for that

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-07-15 11:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9

$25.00 an hour? 52k a year for unskilled labor? Not feasible.

#14 | Posted by willowby at 2020-07-15 11:55 PM | Reply

unskilled labor?

Stop looking down your nose at people who are working.

You pompous jackhole.

These people are filling a job. If you can't pay them a living wage. Don't hire them. If no one can afford anything. Time to cut prices or lose profits.

Your elitist mentality is why the rich are robbing this nation while poor people. Like you. Fight the people who are poorer than you

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 12:26 AM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY MSGT

Minimum wage was a compromise between the government and businesses. And in some areas is something that is being abused, forcing consumer to pay even more for product and service through tipping.

The whole system is as screwed up as the presidential electoral system.

Some of the things that America is exceptional at just so happen to be negatives.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 12:28 AM | Reply

" If you had any sense you would know that was meant ONE DOLLAR and TWENTY FIVE CENTS"

True... but you're the one who made the mistake.

" now go to your GOOGLE and check the minimum wage in the late 60s."

More importantly, google the CPI and find out that $1.25 back then is $9.25 today, and your raise was to the equivalent of $18.50 an hour, or ~$36K a year.

Are you in favor of treating others as you were treated?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 01:50 AM | Reply

Just another question - PLEASE tell me when the minimum wage was ever able to support the cost of rent, utilities, etc.?

#12 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2020-07-15 11:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:PPPFFFTTTTT!!

Actually back in the 70's it could... barely... I know because I did it for 3 or 4 years.Mostly because rents were reasonable. It was tight but doable. It was during the Reaganomics era and wage stagnation that rendered it impossible.

Spurred by the wealth guru's of the era and the "let your money work for you" by "leveraging" thereby reducing "personal risk" that people became detached to the fact that someone's hands actually have to be put to something to generate wealth.

Nope nowadays they treat capital as the working component and labor is just part of the raw materials and somehow magic happens... poof a product is made... and suddenly their brilliant ideas made them rich... It's funny they've actually come to believe that ideas (intellectual property) are actual commodities in and of themselves. So they sent the factories overseas to be done by countries that learned through experience that ideas don't manifest anything separate from labor.

China is kicking our @$$e$ without threats of nuking us to do it. They corner the market on both ideas and labor making it clear that "intellectual property" alone as a commodity is akin to using tulips as currency.

Ergo GFY

#18 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-07-16 06:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

PLEASE tell me when the minimum wage was ever able to support the cost of rent, utilities, etc.?

If i told you, would you shut up?

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2020-07-16 07:29 AM | Reply

I made 8 bucks an hour in the 90's and it was tough back then to get by. Impossible now. 8 dollars in 1995 is 13.72 now. That seems like a legit min wage for today. I say raise it.

#20 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 08:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

does anyone here know any adult working for minimum wage?

#21 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-07-16 08:59 AM | Reply

does anyone here know any adult working for minimum wage?

#21 | POSTED BY MAVERICK AT 2020-07-16 08:59 AM | REPLY

I would say most of the janitorial staff where I work very close to it. Last I recall they were getting between 9-10 bucks an hour. I see adults all the time in the drive thru windows at fast food places and they aren't managers. Go to most retail stores and they make close to it. Except costco which pays pretty good. So yeah there are plenty of people out there in the sub 10 dollar range.

#22 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 09:06 AM | Reply

"The minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage for people to get experience in the working world so one can progress into a better paying position"

If you ask 98% of employers (I know I'm making that number up but it's got to a high %) they would agree with you.

My kids earn more than minimum wage.

And regardless if there was a window of time in the past where the minimum wage was enough to live on.....it's probably not going to be ever again moving forward.

I like what some local governments have done recently where the cost of living warranted a substantial change in the minimum wage. I expect more of that to come as it's not been a job killer like the nay sayers claimed it would be.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:11 AM | Reply

A lot of adults work for minimum wage hence the multiple jobs. They even take on extra (usually minimum wage)jobs to augment those "above" the minimum wage jobs.

#24 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-07-16 09:13 AM | Reply

RIGHTISTRITE

do you personally know any adult working for minimum wage?

#25 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-07-16 09:18 AM | Reply

"Stop looking down your nose at people who are working."

Stop looking down your nose at small business employers who are trying to get by.

They will pay for the cost of labor the way they want within the law.

What more do you want from them? They aren't wealthy people and they are doing the best they can.

It isn't their job to worry about what a living wage is for every worker.

But....ask yourselves something....if the wages are so so so low....then how are landlords able to charge so much for rent, rendering it too expensive for these low wage workers?

They have to live somewhere? How are they affording where they live now?

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:19 AM | Reply

They have to live somewhere? How are they affording where they live now?

#26 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-07-16 09:19 AM | REPLY | FLAG

They stack in like sardines. I evicted tenants for that once. Three people were on the lease at one of my rentals. I found out 8 people were living on the property.

#27 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 09:27 AM | Reply

"do you personally know any adult working for minimum wage?"

My sister in law. She works for her parents at the campground they manage.

She can come and go as she pleases, shows up late, or not at all...because she's a drunk (so is my brother, her husband). She's like 60 years old and this is pretty much the only job she's ever had.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:28 AM | Reply

27

What were you charging for rent? just curious if they needed 8 people living there to afford it.

my guess is that wasn't necessary....they were just taking in freeloaders. Am I right?

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:30 AM | Reply

just looked at Indeed.com searched Cooks. within 25 miles of me there are 886 openings ranging from $10-$16.00 an hour. jobs from Daycare, Nursing homes, regular locally owned restaurants, short line etc... this is in Missouri

#30 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-07-16 09:35 AM | Reply

"Minimum wage should be $25 an hour"

never took an economics class in his life.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:40 AM | Reply

my guess is that wasn't necessary....they were just taking in freeloaders. Am I right?

#29 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-07-16 09:30 AM

It was college kids. Rent was about 900 bucks for a 3 bedroom 2 bath house. House was less than 5 years old. I thought I was renting to 3 girls. They had their boyfriends move in and some friends. I probably wouldn't have evicted but the house was getting destroyed. Picture animal house destruction.

#32 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 09:43 AM | Reply

U.S. inflation calculator. Minimum wage in 1969 was $1.60, I know because that is how much I earned at the time.
Using the calculator that would calculate to $11.24 today.
Try it yourself:

www.usinflationcalculator.com

#33 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-16 09:51 AM | Reply

Byrd, you didn't have a choice. You had to get them out.

BTW, if memory serves...didn't you mention some time back that you attended Kansas Wesleyan University?

I was there yesterday. My son was at a basketball camp held there and I picked him up.

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 09:54 AM | Reply

The whole idea of a federal minimum wage is sort of a problem. Here in S. Florida it is far more expensive to live than in other parts of the state. I think a formula should be devised that calculates the cost of living by county and gives a minimum wage for that county. Miami-Dade and Broward would have far higher minimum wage that way than most of the rest of the state. And compared to very rural states it would be significantly higher here. However NY or California would probably have much higher minimum wage than we would have here.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-16 09:56 AM | Reply

I was there yesterday. My son was at a basketball camp held there and I picked him up.

#34 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yep I did. I get back to the area once or twice a year to visit family.

#36 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 10:22 AM | Reply

#4 | Posted by MSgt

I felt the need to go all the way back to this one... I am not sure where that thought evolved from and became embedded in our culture. The minimum wage was conceived as a way to help strengthen workers and decrease class stratification.

But good luck finding something that pays double the minimum wage today with a couple months experience - good luck with a couple years of experience even with the very low unemployment numbers we had. Reality is most places still only give you a dime raise after a few months and you are no longer "minimum wage". If you switch employers they start you back at minimum wage even with experience. This push for $15/hour minimum wage has made many large company push up their starting wages but that hasn't pushed up other jobs like it should yet. I mean if I can make $15/hour at Target or $15/hour with a degree in a lab... Reality is wages have been sliding in this country for decades. The wealth disparity in this country is just one of the many results.

Which brings me to
#33 | Posted by danni

I know MSgt is right about how things went back in the day - not many people made minimum wage and not for long. So let's use MSgt's argument of 1.25 that comes out to about 10/hour. So according to MSgt, after a couple months work you should be able to get a job paying $20/hour today. GOOD LUCK - even with a college degree. Someone very close to me was moved into management and still doesn't make that after 17 years. She has held 4 different progressively more responsible jobs with the company over that time. While a Gas Station/Convenience store Chain based in Ohio proved over a decade ago if you actually pay your people a living wage then your results as a company will be significantly better. They were paying a minimum of $35k as of 2010 I believe. They were booming. I don't remember the name but I am sure I could dig it up. Their though was when your employees don't have to worry if they will be able to pay this bill or that they will be better workers.

#37 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-07-16 11:06 AM | Reply

"The minimum wage is meant to be a living wage. In 1933, five years before the first minimum wage became law, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean the wages of a decent living."

Minimum wages could be high enough to support oneself in this economy but the 1% know better than paying its workers an equivalent wage for slave labor as the 1%ers CEOs make for wearing nice suits.

If workers were paid a salary commiserate with the amount of labor they expend and 1%er CEO were paid for the actual labor and energy they expend we probably wouldn't even need to discuss this.

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-16 11:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Welcome to the Liberal United States. I know Libs either don't know or just don't care but a huge reason why people can't afford rent is because of all of the regulations surrounding home building and everything else. IIt's not the only cause but it is a big cause. Every regulation put in place increases costs. It's like cars. Obama was gung-ho on mandating cameras in cars. Well, guess what, those cameras aren't free and car costs have gone up because of it. Property rates increase because the government has to put in regulations to the processes of enforcing the rates/taxes. Almost everything in a house has some regulation, down to the electrical outlets.

A lot of Libs LOVE to talk about how great other countries are. Guess what, many of those countries have different living cultures. They live with their families longer to help home economics. They don't ask the government to change for them because they are Socialist and it won't happen. So they have learned how to live and adapt given their circumstances. Americans don't want that, they want to have every luxury in the world and Libs actually think this is mandatory. So while Cons may work hard to horde money for the rich, Libs are also causing problems by expecting everyone to be able to live the same as everyone else.

#39 | Posted by humtake at 2020-07-16 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The whole idea of a federal minimum wage is sort of a problem. Here in S. Florida it is far more expensive to live than in other parts of the state. I think a formula should be devised that calculates the cost of living by county and gives a minimum wage for that county."

There is nothing stopping from allowing local communities to demand businesses pay whatever wage they feel is necessary. Is something stopping them?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 12:35 PM | Reply

"In 1933, five years before the first minimum wage became law, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level. I mean the wages of a decent living."

Did he pay the Americans he locked up in concentration camps a minimum wage? I honestly don't know the answer.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 12:36 PM | Reply

-Is something stopping them?

Yes...the voters.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 12:38 PM | Reply

41

Keep in mind, he said it in 1933. A really robust economic time...LOL. How much was rent as a % of income at that time?

#43 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 12:39 PM | Reply

Eberly.

Stop looking down your nose at small business employers who are trying to get by.

If a small business can't afford to pay an employee a living wage, they shouldn't hire one.

Its like justifying slavery because slaves were the price to pay for cotton and tobacco plantations to get by.

They will pay for the cost of labor the way they want within the law.

"Within the law." Well. That's the discussion. Right? Whether the law is correct.

You know minimum wage has been raised in the past. Right?

I know all your millionaire buddies would rather remain millionaires rather than pay their employees a dollar more.

But honestly, fffk them.

What more do you want from them? They aren't wealthy people and they are doing the best they can.

I want them to pay their employees a decent wage.

You want people to shut up and be happy with whatever someone else decides they should get.

It isn't their job to worry about what a living wage is for every worker.

It isn't their job to underpay employees in order to become millionaires.

But....ask yourselves something....if the wages are so so so low....then how are landlords able to charge so much for rent, rendering it too expensive for these low wage workers?
They have to live somewhere? How are they affording where they live now?

People work multiple jobs, get roommates, rent rooms in houses, sleep in their cars and vans.

You sound out of touch with reality. Get out of your ivory tower for a minute.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 12:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's the great race to the bottom

#45 | Posted by hamburglar at 2020-07-16 12:42 PM | Reply

Who needs a minimum wage job? You get more if you do less.

How do people live in houses with no income?

Ever talk to someone in the projects? If they work too much, they get less from the govt. So, why work? I know folk who the govt sent to school so they could get a job. So, they went, it was paid for by the govt, their housing and food paid by the govt.

They are 3rd/4th generation living this way.

Oh, by the way, they are descendants of Philly blacks that were NOT slaves. Not in their family tree. It's just easier to do nothing.

#46 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 12:52 PM | Reply

-If a small business can't afford to pay an employee a living wage, they shouldn't hire one.

tell them that. But you'll have to wait for them to stop laughing before the conversation continues.

"It isn't their job to underpay employees in order to become millionaires."

I guess I take it for granted that I've worked directly with business owners my entire career and my profession requires me to get into the weeds with these folks regarding their people, how much they pay them, how they treat them, safety, HR, etc. it's what I do.....and that most other people like you don't and therefore, have little understanding what drives a business owner to be one and continue to be one despite the challenges of it.

I have my perspective and it's based on just exactly what I typed above. I've worked with business owners who weren't very successful, moderately successful, and very successful. Wealthy, bankrupt, middle class, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation owners, etc. All over the spectrum.

Going on now 27 years.

Not trying to be an -------....just telling you what I know from my professional experience...

If you think that makes me out of touch with reality and that you're dialed into reality...well okay then.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 12:55 PM | Reply

-I know all your millionaire buddies would rather remain millionaires rather than pay their employees a dollar more.

Some of my millionaire buddies care greatly about their people and pay them well. benefits, paid time off, safe working conditions, follow regulations, etc. They view people as their biggest assets and treat them well.

Some of them care less about people, don't trust them, always having turnover, claims, problems with one thing or another but live a good lifestyle...but never happy, it seems.

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:01 PM | Reply

If a small business can't afford to pay an employee a living wage, they shouldn't hire one.

tell them that. But you'll have to wait for them to stop laughing before the conversation continues.

I'm not sure your point.

They don't care about their employees?

Why should they be able to hire an employee they can't adequately pay?

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-They don't care about their employees?

They either do or they don't. They laugh at you because they don't care what you think they should pay their employees based on your liberal views.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:07 PM | Reply

-Why should they be able to hire an employee they can't adequately pay?

your definition of adequate and their definition might differ.

They'll view the pay they offer as fair if the employee accepts it. They understand the employee can go work some place else if they think it's a better deal.

It's always a competition for labor. Especially for high quality labor.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:09 PM | Reply

Where else should a business owner pay more for something?

lumber?
vehicles?
fuel?
paper clips?

Does he owe his suppliers an "adequate" price for their goods/services?

When you go buy a car...do you get 3 quotes and pay the highest one? Because you might harm the business owner and his employees for not paying enough for the product? If the dealer offers to sell it to you for $30K and the dealer across the street offers it for $32K...what obligation do you have to the dealer offering it for $32K?

Or....do you suddenly become a capitalist and pay the market rate for the car? (which, BTW, is $30K)??

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:15 PM | Reply

Eberly, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, no one has any constitutional right to operate a business in the United States. That privilege is granted through the issuance of business licensing, ie. the blessing of the public to be served. It is the state/and or local government's right to dictate the terms any business must operate under including the wage floor for compensating employees.

If the people - through their elected representatives - choose to set the wage floor above any single business's ability to gainfully profit under the structure, then that business model is not viable and its ownership needs to figure out a way to viability that doesn't require employees being paid less than it costs them to live in their own community. It is not the fault of potential employees who should be able to live productive lives by working 40 hours a week, and not be compelled to work 60-70 hours trying to eek out a pauper's existence.

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-07-16 01:19 PM | Reply

They understand the employee can go work some place else if they think it's a better deal.

This is an ideal situation. Where the employee has the luxury of not working for long enough to be able to negotiate a better pay or find a different job that pays more.

Typically not the situation. Especially not here in Los Angeles, where, if you don't take the job, there are dozens of other people waiting to take it.

That. In the end is the biggest problem, the fact that there's always someone younger, or more desperate, who will accept whatever money they are offered.

It's what allows employers to undervalue labor. Because it's an abundant commodity. Especially minimum wage jobs.

Also. There's the psychological game where the rich convince the"middle class" that the jobs poor people are doing aren't meant to pay a living wage. Because it requires less skill.

So people accept that the poor are getting robbed while their employers are making bank.

Also. Large corporations are using small businesses to excuse the minimum wage salaries they pay their employees. While their CEOs are some of the richest people in the world.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's because we have defined ownership as the primary component of the economy with labor seen as inferior. But all the money in the world will not produce a dollar's worth of value without the application of labor, whether goods or services.

It is a questionable moral position, and not necessary for a system of well-regulated capitalism.

#55 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-16 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

If the people, through their representative, set too high a minimum wage that employers can't afford to hire minimum skill, it is not the employer's fault.

#56 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 01:26 PM | Reply

-If a small business can't afford to pay an employee a living wage, they shouldn't hire one.

tell them that. But you'll have to wait for them to stop laughing before the conversation continues.
#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Except the only ones laughing are the ones who are, as you so delicately put it, never happy:

Some of my millionaire buddies care greatly about their people and pay them well. benefits, paid time off, safe working conditions, follow regulations, etc. They view people as their biggest assets and treat them well.

Some of them care less about people, don't trust them, always having turnover, claims, problems with one thing or another but live a good lifestyle...but never happy, it seems.
#48 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Being an ------- is bad for business. That shouldn't be hard to concede, Eberly.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Typically not the situation. Especially not here in Los Angeles, where, if you don't take the job, there are dozens of other people waiting to take it."

Do you suppose that's a factor of the reality that millions of people migrate to Southern California because they strongly want to live there and that reality is why those people are in a tough environment for pay?

You're making the argument for me..."if you don't take the job, there are dozens of other people waiting to take it".

You are acknowledging that dozens of people will work for that wage and it's the business owner's fault they want to do that?

Why on earth would a business owner consider raising the wage if the only reason is to live up to Clownshack's moral high ground?

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:31 PM | Reply

It sure sounds like Eberly is telling us:
1. Nothing related to employee compensation the owners fault.
2. Everything related to employee compensation the employees fault.

It's not the employers fault for offering a minimum wage job, it's the employees fault for accepting it!

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 01:36 PM | Reply

I see both sides of the argument. Mcdonalds shouldn't have to pay a ton of money for a guy to flip burgers but 7.25 an hour is too low for this day and age. There is a happy medium that can be established. Probably should be established at the county level. San Fran costs way more to live than El Centro.

#60 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 01:39 PM | Reply

Got a run for a bit. Will return t

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 01:40 PM | Reply

"That. In the end is the biggest problem, the fact that there's always someone younger, or more desperate, who will accept whatever money they are offered."

Eberly will never acknowledge that winning a race to the bottom is a bad thing. Because he thinks the only ones who would enter such a race are losers to begin with, and they don't deserve better.

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

20% winners, 80% losers, that looks like a sustainable economy to Eberly. No structural defects. We can only afford to have 20% that win, or the bottom 80% will become complacent and there will be less of them willing to work for minimum wage, and that will bring down the 20% who are winners.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I see both sides of the argument.
#60 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

Good luck explaining it to literally any Republican!

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 01:47 PM | Reply

"If a small business can't afford to pay an employee a living wage, they shouldn't hire one."

So...it's better to be unemployed than a low wage employee?

It's better to have no money that some money?

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:00 PM | Reply

"You want people to shut up and be happy with whatever someone else decides they should get."

Someone else doesn't decide. No once can force you to take any job at any income level. You must choose to work at a wage you determine is agreeable. Just like the employer has to decide if what an employee is asking is worth paying.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:01 PM | Reply

Clown,

What you are saying is that if your labor is not worth being paid $n per hour, you shouldn't be employed.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:03 PM | Reply

"When you go buy a car...do you get 3 quotes and pay the highest one? Because you might harm the business owner and his employees for not paying enough for the product?"

And why buy American, when imports from China are so much cheaper? I'm sure no Chinese or Americans are harmed when you buy from Chinese slave labor. And it's the government's fault that Americans can't compete with Chinese labor on cost! We should strive to lower labor costs to the level of China. We can Make America Great Again by abolishing the Federal minimum wage!

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:03 PM | Reply

What you are saying is that if your labor is not worth being paid $n per hour, you shouldn't be employed.
#66 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Cart/horse.

If a business cannot be profitable while paying a living wage, it's a failed business model. And as such its license to conduct business should be revoked. We shouldn't be rewarding failure.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:06 PM | Reply

"It's because we have defined ownership as the primary component of the economy with labor seen as inferior."

Really?

Do you think that firms would willingly pay a brand new electrical engineer $70k a year if they could pay them minimum wage? What about doctors? What about lawyers?

Are they not doing labor?

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:07 PM | Reply

"No once can force you to take any job at any income level."

So dumb.

Circumstances force people to do all kinds of things they don't want to do, but have to do to make ends meet.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:08 PM | Reply

MadBomber: Do you think that firms would willingly pay a brand new electrical engineer in stock if they could pay them minimum wage? What about doctors? What about lawyers?

Are they not doing labor?

Why would they part with capital over stock?

Because it's just like ClownShack said, they value ownership more than labor.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:10 PM | Reply

The federal minimum hasn't gone up a single cent since 2009.

That's not fair. That's not right. It's just Republicans being totally cool with millions of Americans having to sacrifice and suffer and it's getting harder and harder on them year after year.

#72 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-07-16 02:12 PM | Reply

"So...it's better to be unemployed than a low wage employee?"

Better for whom?

Answer this: Is it better to have employers that pay at least a living wage, or employers who pay less?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:13 PM | Reply

"If a business cannot be profitable while paying a living wage, it's a failed business model."

How it is a failure?

Is the objective of enterprise to provide living wages for workers?

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:14 PM | Reply

"Circumstances force people to do all kinds of things they don't want to do, but have to do to make ends meet."

Make ends meet?

What ends must be met in a fashion that can only be accomplished through wage labor?

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:15 PM | Reply

"Why would they part with capital over stock?"

Who is they?

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:16 PM | Reply

It's always a competition for labor. Especially for high quality labor.
POSTED BYEBERLY

Translation:
It's always a competition for labor.
But not so much for minimum wage labor.

So let's just pretend all competitions are created equal! The top 20% fighting for ever-higher wages is the same thing as the bottom 80% fighting against stagnation.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:20 PM | Reply

"That's not fair. That's not right. It's just Republicans being totally cool with millions of Americans having to sacrifice and suffer and it's getting harder and harder on them year after year."

The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $.25 per hour by FDR. That's $4.57 in 2020 dollars.

It may be just a tad too high.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:20 PM | Reply

"Why would they part with capital over stock?"
Who is they?
#76 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's "firms."
Same "they" as when you posed the question, dummy!

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:21 PM | Reply

"Answer this: Is it better to have employers that pay at least a living wage, or employers who pay less?"

It's best to allow employers the ability to hire employees at any rate. It's better for employees too.

No one is going to make you accept an offer of employment, and many workers, especially new entries into the workforce, don't require a living wage.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:22 PM | Reply

The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $.25 per hour by FDR. That's $4.57 in 2020 dollars.
It may be just a tad too high.
#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Too high?

Can I see your Republican Math, or is this you showing it?

The minimum wage as first implemented was the best minimum wage, why? Because it was the lowest!

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:24 PM | Reply

"It's best to allow employers the ability to hire employees at any rate. It's better for employees too."

How is it better for employees when they make a dime instead of a dollar, MadBomber?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:25 PM | Reply

#79

I do not follow your logic. Maybe you can clarify. Your position was that employers should pay a living wage. OK. So then why would employers ever pay anything more than a living wage?

If $n/hr is a living wage, why wouldn't a firm simply mandate that this is the wage everyone gets paid?

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:25 PM | Reply

"How is it better for employees when they make a dime instead of a dollar, MadBomber?"

Because a dime is greater than nothing.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:26 PM | Reply

What ends must be met in a fashion that can only be accomplished through wage labor?
#75 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

By way of explanation, you could list your ends. Now list how you plan to achieve them while never having labored.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:27 PM | Reply

"The minimum wage as first implemented was the best minimum wage, why? Because it was the lowest!"

FDR could have implemented minimum wage at any level. But he called $.25 the "minimum" wage.

It's hard to argue minimum with the guy who established what minimum was.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:28 PM | Reply

Because a dime is greater than nothing.
#84 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

But a dime isn't greater than a dollar.

So, how is it better to work for a dime instead of a dollar?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:28 PM | Reply

"By way of explanation, you could list your ends. Now list how you plan to achieve them while never having labored."

Wage labor, princess. That's a different animal than labor itself.

I don't think many people in Papua New Guinea engage in much wage labor.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:29 PM | Reply

It's hard to argue minimum with the guy who established what minimum was.
#86 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

This is not an argument. It's an argument from authority fallacy.

Why can't you discuss this rationally, and using math, like an economist would? ;)

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:30 PM | Reply

"So, how is it better to work for a dime instead of a dollar?"

If a prospective employer is willing to pay a dime but not a dollar, you're going to have nothing if the minimum wage is a dollar.

#90 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:30 PM | Reply

"By way of explanation, you could list your ends. Now list how you plan to achieve them while never having wage labored."

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:31 PM | Reply

#89

I don't follow.

Maybe you can use math and show me why I'm wrong.

Like an economist would.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:32 PM | Reply

If a prospective employer is willing to pay a dime but not a dollar, you're going to have nothing if the minimum wage is a dollar.
#90 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So?
Why shouldn't said employer just go out of business for offering so little?

If the business model can only afford to pay a dime, how much does the owner deserve to make?

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:33 PM | Reply

#91

I could point you towards any number of cultures that don't engage in wage labor. Is that an education you need?

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:33 PM | Reply

"Why shouldn't said employer just go out of business for offering so little?"

And they would, if someone isn't willing to accept a dime.

Your position is they should be forced out of business, and potential employees denied employment, because it doesn't suit the unrelated third party, You.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:35 PM | Reply

"I don't follow."

Really?
You don't know how you think, and why it's so often wrong?

en.m.wikipedia.org
Anargument from authority(argumentum ab auctoritate), also called anappeal to authority, orargumentum ad verecundiam, is a form ofdefeasible[1]argumentin which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. It is well known as afallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3]Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:35 PM | Reply

Your position is they should be forced out of business, and potential employees denied employment, because it doesn't suit the unrelated third party, You.
#95 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

No, it's because it doesn't serve the needs of the country and the purpose of the economy, which is to make the Nation Wealthy, as outlined in the book Wealth of Nations.

It sounds like you don't agree the purpose of the economy is to create Wealth of Nations.

What, pray tell, is the purpose of the economy in MadBomber's world? Wealth of Capitalists?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:38 PM | Reply

"How is it better for employees when they make a dime instead of a dollar, MadBomber?"
Because a dime is greater than nothing.
#84 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Isn't that what they told former slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation, leading to centralized share cropping and wage slavery?

#98 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 02:41 PM | Reply

I could point you towards any number of cultures that don't engage in wage labor. Is that an education you need?
#94 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Setting aside my doubts, it's not what I asked.
I asked, how could you make your ends meet, without engaging in wage labor. Like that property you own in Louisiana. How could you have achieved that end without laboring for wages? Maybe it was an inheritance... e.g. the fruits of someone else's wage labor? And so on.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:44 PM | Reply

#96

And the math?

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:44 PM | Reply

" The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $.25 per hour by FDR."

That some serious cherry picking, first during a depression, and then during a recession within that depression.

It seems your goal is to keep wages at depression-era levels.

Going the other way, $7.25 today buys what $6.09 bought at the time of the last minimum wage hike in 2009. And without looking, I can guarantee you the pay of the average Congress person has gone up more than $7.25 an hour over that time.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 02:46 PM | Reply

"No, it's because it doesn't serve the needs of the country and the purpose of the economy, which is to make the Nation Wealthy, as outlined in the book Wealth of Nations."

Uh...how so. An employer gets and employee at an agreeable rate. And employer gets a wage at an agreeable rate.

What else is there to discuss. The employer is in agreement with the employee. Not sure where you would fit in to that dynamic. Other than because you're a busybody.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:46 PM | Reply

Isn't that what they told former slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation, leading to centralized share cropping and wage slavery?
#98 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Madbomber will never acknowledge wage slavery.

They offered a dime, you could have said no.

One wonders if his mother was so destitute she had to turn tricks to feed the family. MadBomber has got some kind of reaction formation thing going on where hey, if mom voluntarily chose to make money in the Oldest Profession, then she and therefore all prostitutes aren't ever exploited. It was a voluntary agreement between buyer and seller, and if all the buyer was offering was five bucks, well, that's better than zero.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:50 PM | Reply

#101

I would agree that they are probably overpaid. But that's a separate argument. Injecting that here would suggest that those making minimum wage will always make minimum wage, and therefor it should always be increased.

I have worked at minimum wage jobs. But due to changes in employment and other factors, I make a bit more than I did in 1992. But the $4.75 I made in those days was more than enough to pay for gas an buy the occasional pair of shoes once in a while.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:51 PM | Reply

"Madbomber will never acknowledge wage slavery."

Only because it's not real.

Millions of people around the globe have never earned a cent from their labor. Yet, here they are.

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:52 PM | Reply

-The federal minimum hasn't gone up a single cent since 2009.

Remember the purpose of a federal minimum wage and that any State can increase their respective minimum wages...many have.

IOW, the federal minimum wage is irrelevant in the higher cost of living areas in this country.

If you increase the federal level, then the cheapest cost of living state in the country (Mississippi comes to mind) would have to follow it. That might not be feasable there.

#106 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 02:53 PM | Reply

"Uh...how so. An employer gets and employee at an agreeable rate. And employer gets a wage at an agreeable rate."

How so, is that it does not build wealth for the nation.

That, not your personalized Voluntaryism nonsense, is the precept upon which Capitalism rests.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:53 PM | Reply

Minimum Wage Workers Can't Afford Rent Anywhere in U.S.

"Fffk them!"
-MadDumber*

*MadDumber collects welfare from his time served in the military and lives in Socialist Germany, where he benefits from a Democratic Socialist nation.

Here's only here to troll.

He's pretty much the definition of a shht human being.

#108 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 02:54 PM | Reply

Hey Eberly,

What do you have to say about the fact that $7.25 an hour can't afford you shht in today's America?

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 02:55 PM | Reply

"Madbomber will never acknowledge wage slavery."

Only because it's not real.
#105 | POSTED BYMADBOMBER

I told you, RstyBeach11.

"Millions of people around the globe have never earned a cent from their labor."

Did you substitute labor for wage labor when you thought no one was looking? Sneaky! But also, kinda lame.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:55 PM | Reply

"One wonders if his mother was so destitute she had to turn tricks to feed the family. MadBomber has got some kind of reaction formation thing going on where hey, if mom voluntarily chose to make money in the Oldest Profession, then she and therefore all prostitutes aren't ever exploited. It was a voluntary agreement between buyer and seller, and if all the buyer was offering was five bucks, well, that's better than zero."

Funny thing, When I was much younger, a friend of mine married a 19 year old stripper. She had a Corvette, a Landcruiser, and her own house.

Had my mom been a stripper, It's safe to say that the material wealth available to me would have been far greater than what is was as the son of a teacher.

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:56 PM | Reply

Snoofy must be here and ran everyone off except Madbomber.

Have fun, Madbomber....I'll come back when others do too...

#112 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 02:56 PM | Reply

"Did you substitute labor for wage labor when you thought no one was looking? Sneaky! But also, kinda lame."

Dani.

Papua New Guinea.

#113 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-16 02:56 PM | Reply

"Remember the purpose of a federal minimum wage and that any State can increase their respective minimum wages...many have."

LOL.

Many Democrat states have, while many GOP states have not.

Which states have stronger economies, Eberly: The ones that pay above Federal minimum wage, or the ones that do not?

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:58 PM | Reply

-What do you have to say about the fact that $7.25 an hour can't afford you shht in today's America?

I don't have a problem with increasing that wage (if you're quoting the federal minimum wage).

It should keep up with inflation and even the cheapest places can probably stand to see it increase.

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 02:59 PM | Reply

Dani.
Papua New Guinea.
#113 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So, again, how can you make your ends meet, living that life?

How do your daughters get to go to college, for example?

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 02:59 PM | Reply

It should keep up with inflation and even the cheapest places can probably stand to see it increase.
#115 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Good luck explaining it to MadBomber!
He'll tell you it's the minimum wage that's holding the South back...

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:01 PM | Reply

"Only because it's not real."

Can you cite where you gathered information to form this opinion?

#118 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 03:02 PM | Reply

MADBOMBER -

My confusion regarding your stance here is really steeped in its black and white nature.

The nuance surrounding this topic is vast:

"Job interviews and other data on requirements for lower skilled workers in developed countries " particularly in the growing service sector " indicate that the more workers depend on low wages and the less skilled or desirable their job is, the more employers screen for workers without better employment options and expect them to feign unremunerative motivation."
Ehrenreich, Barbara. (2011). Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (10th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Picador.
www.google.com

#119 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 03:04 PM | Reply

Millions of people around the globe have never earned a cent from their labor.
#105 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That's slavery.

Which, based on everything you've ever posted, you fully support.

#120 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 03:05 PM | Reply

"Had my mom been a stripper"

I never said stripper.
I said something else.

But it doesn't matter, because your insistence that everything is voluntary means exploitation can't occur in the labor market. Because if laborers are so desperate they'll take that dime for a dollar's work, then they accepted the dime, so that makes it fair, even though both parties know the work is worth a dollar.

Likewise it's not exploitative when it goes the other way. If prices for insulin or epi-pens go up from $5 to $350, and you pay the $350, then you voluntarily accepted the increase. Nevermind that the alternative is death.

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:08 PM | Reply

Rsty:
He'll never see it.
He believes in Voluntaryism.
If he does not volunteer his eyeballs to your words, there is nothing you can do about it.

At first, it seems like he is simply incapable of empathy... but only for people. Capital he supports guarding jealously. He empathizes with the dragon, not the villagers; villagers who could have simply moved to another village, but didn't, and thus voluntarily accepted the dragon when they stuck around.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:17 PM | Reply

What else is there to discuss. The employer is in agreement with the employee. Not sure where you would fit in to that dynamic. Other than because you're a busybody.
POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Setting the minimum wage is likewise the doing of a busybody. As are safe workplace standards, child labor laws, overtime, weekends.

Unions? The biggest busybodies of all! What right do they have to interfere in the agreements between employers and employees? Best thing would be for the state to interfere -- in a non-busybody way, of course -- to weaken the unions. Since unions distort the employer-employee dynamic.

Oh but when the employer wants a pre-employment drug screen... that's no longer being a busybody.

And when the employer wants a non-compete clause, that's not being a busybody.

And when the employer won't pay for health care that covers contraception because of the company's religious beliefs, that's definitely not being a busybody.

It's not so much that MadBomber knows what side his bread is buttered on.
He doesn't even know there's another side!

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:29 PM | Reply

$10/hr is $400/week. Which is &1600 - $2000/month.
Around here (small town USA), rent for a decent place is about $450/mo.
Of course, big shots need not apply.

#124 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 03:37 PM | Reply

He empathizes with the dragon, not the villagers; villagers who could have simply moved to another village, but didn't, and thus voluntarily accepted the dragon when they stuck around.
#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Very interesting analogy.

#125 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 03:38 PM | Reply

Of course, big shots need not apply.
#124 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Now, if only folks can live in an unsustainable situation long enough to actually LEAVE that situation for a more affordable one, like you just described.

Let me ask you, PHESTER, what's the typical deposit you'd have to drop on a $450 p/m rent? I'm in San Diego, so how much would I need to save to travel (with all my stuff) to the town with such affordability?

These factors add up and for most people who are stuck in situations like these, the impetus that the grass is greener on the other side of the hill doesn't mean anything when you don't have the energy or resources to climb to the top of the hill in the first place.

IOW, it's far more difficult than you are suggesting, which explains why most people don't do what you're saying they should do.

#126 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What I presented are facts where I live.
Any imagination images are proof of childish mythology.

#127 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 03:44 PM | Reply

#125 See Also: "400 years? That sounds like a choice." (Kanye West discussing slavery)

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:45 PM | Reply

#127 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

And where is that?

#129 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 03:46 PM | Reply

$10/hr is $400/week. Which is &1600 - $2000/month.
Around here (small town USA), rent for a decent place is about $450/mo.

Lots of $10/hr jobs in SmallTown USA right now, Phester?
Do these jobs have health insurance for when you get COVID-19?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 03:47 PM | Reply

The deposit is usually one month's rent.
Rusty I understand that moving can be overwhelming.
I think that it's worth it.

#131 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 03:47 PM | Reply

Upstate NY. (400 miles from the big assple)
Close to Amish country.

#132 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 03:49 PM | Reply

"He'll tell you it's the minimum wage that's holding the South back..."

Silly...everyone knows it's Unions.

I mean, just look at Alabama. They went Right-To-Work in 1953, and look where they are now!

#133 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 03:54 PM | Reply

-I mean, just look at Alabama. They went Right-To-Work in 1953, and look where they are now!

Exactly, Alabama should endeavor to be more like Detroit.

#134 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:00 PM | Reply

Rsty, San Diego is such a desirable place to live with it's beaches and climate that you are going to have...well..millions of people who want to live there even if it's basically in squalor....because it's there. They want to be THERE.

I think that's a huge factor as to why minimum wage doesn't get you much where you live.

#135 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:03 PM | Reply

I think that it's worth it.
#131 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You're probably right. But that's not as viable a choice for many to make as you think it is.

Believe me, I work with many families that wish they could be living in a cheaper area like Arizona. But there's employment issues, leaving family behind, and massive uncertainty that weighs on this decision.

As I was alluding to, some are able to make the leap, I've seen it. I've also seen many of them come back for various reasons; finding suitable employment being the most significant.

Moving from San Diego to Phoenix
$450 deposit + $450 first month rent = $900
$100 gas + $300 vehicle registration = $400
Uhaul rental = $1,400
-------------------------------------------
Total = $2,700 minimum for a family of 3

Recent reports indicate:

Nearly six in 10 Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 or $1,000 unplanned expense, according to a new report from Bankrate. Only 41% of adults reported having enough in their savings account to cover a surprise bill of this magnitude.
money.cnn.com
And that's a reference to Americans as a whole. Extrapolating those in the lower income brackets would show an even more dire situation.

I hope you get my drift.

#136 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 04:05 PM | Reply

I think that's a huge factor as to why minimum wage doesn't get you much where you live.
#135 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I know many families who don't go to the beach, many children who have never seen the beach or the mountains or the desert. These families are just as interested in better living situations (i.e., more affordable housing) as low-income people not living in San Diego.

You don't think parents would be willing to sacrifice Sunny San Diego so their kids don't have to attend schools inundated by violence and gangs? They would, they just can't.

That's my point. And the point stands here in San Diego as it does in other places that are not as desirable to reside.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 04:08 PM | Reply

I think that's a huge factor as to why minimum wage doesn't get you much where you live.

Which is why there's a problem with the minimum wage.

And not just in San Diego.

As the Headline of the article points out.

"Minimum Wage Workers Can't Afford Rent Anywhere in U.S."

Minimum wage should be $25 dollars an hour. I've read the research.

Being a millionaire or billionaire shouldn't be acceptable when people in the nation can't feed themselves or put a roof over their head regardless of working 40 hours a week.

#138 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-07-16 04:12 PM | Reply

Rusty, "But there's employment issues, leaving family behind, and massive uncertainty that weighs on this decision."

The one main thing that would be hard to overcome would be leaving family behind. Uncertainty is next.
NYS is generous toward the unemployed. EBT and public assistance along with HUD is easy to get.
$15/hr jobs are plentiful in normal times.

#139 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 04:18 PM | Reply

-Minimum wage should be $25 dollars an hour. I've read the research.

And yet you can't get that done in San Diego or Los Angeles?

"Being a millionaire or billionaire shouldn't be acceptable when people in the nation can't feed themselves or put a roof over their head regardless of working 40 hours a week."

It's unfair

#140 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:19 PM | Reply

-$15/hr jobs are plentiful in normal times.

Where I live (low cost of living and not exactly a booming economic place) any able bodied adult can earn $15 an hour.

You just have to have these qualifications....

1. sober
2. drivers license
3. show up to work

#141 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:22 PM | Reply

#141

How much for one out of the three?

#142 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 04:24 PM | Reply

-You don't think parents would be willing to sacrifice Sunny San Diego so their kids don't have to attend schools inundated by violence and gangs? They would, they just can't.

I'm in no position to argue with you on that....perhaps there are people who want to leave but can't.

My point is why they are in such a tough competition for labor and why wages are not near enough to live on there.

Hell, it's why I don't live there.

I imagine my current home would cost $3 Million+ in San Diego. I'm not doing that......

#143 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:26 PM | Reply

142

If you were an employer that needed all 3...which one would you give up?

It's all or nothing. You need all 3.

#144 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:27 PM | Reply

-I mean, just look at Alabama. They went Right-To-Work in 1953, and look where they are now!
Exactly, Alabama should endeavor to be more like Detroit.
#134 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Alabamans should endeavor to have Job Creators leave their state?
Is that what Detroit did, told the Big Three to shut factories in Detroit?

RstyBeach11, why is it you think right-wingers have such a hard time discussing this issue seriously?

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 04:28 PM | Reply

" Exactly, Alabama should endeavor to be more like Detroit."

Michigan is a right to work state.

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 04:31 PM | Reply

Where I live (low cost of living and not exactly a booming economic place) any able bodied adult can earn $15 an hour.
You just have to have these qualifications....
1. sober
2. drivers license
3. show up to work
#141 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That's it, huh?
Double the minimum wage in Kansas for just that.
Is this the type of work that after few years time renders an able-boded adult... less than able-bodied?
Does this type of work include health insurance?

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 04:31 PM | Reply

-Michigan is a right to work state.

Oh, then Ohio, or Illinois.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union nor am I bagging on Michigan or Ohio necessarily.

And Alabama has it's issues...I'm just sayin...Non-right to work states have their problems as well.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:39 PM | Reply

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union nor am I bagging on Michigan or Ohio necessarily."

Don't get you wrong?
It's impossible to get you right, since you never say what's right.
That's your impenetrable defense mechanism: Both-siderism.

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 04:42 PM | Reply

" Non-right to work states have their problems as well."

True. But right to work has always been sold as the key to economic explosion, when in reality it's just a way to lower wages. Always has been.

BTW...142 was (supposed to be) a joke. I was going to say I have a driver's license.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 04:44 PM | Reply

I get the feeling by reading the post numbers and seeing so many missing that I'm bothering someone.

Someone is posting frequently and I'll be they are addressing me in the process with no success at getting me to respond.

That's good.

#151 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:45 PM | Reply

150

My bad....missed the humor there. On some days...all I can offer is the drivers license but nothing else.

#152 | Posted by eberly at 2020-07-16 04:47 PM | Reply

"1. sober
2. drivers license
3. show up to work
#141 | POSTED BY EBERLY"

That is part of the Conservative manifesto.
The other part is:
4. Live within your means.

#153 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 04:56 PM | Reply

That is part of the Conservative manifesto.
The other part is:
4. Live within your means.

#153 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

Pff.

Not in a long time. Their new motto is - reduce my taxes so low that my children will be saddled with neverending debt.

#154 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-07-16 05:20 PM | Reply

Actually I do know adults who work minimum wage jobs but my state was one of the forward movers relative to the neighboring states. A lot of "second jobs" are minimum wage.

Of course, there are adults earning minimum wage to deny that is being both insular and way out of touch! Especially common among older adults with fewer options.

#155 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-07-16 05:26 PM | Reply

4. Live within your means.

Give me a break, Phester.
You and the rest of the GOP supported the four trillion dollar unfunded War with Iraq.
And the tax cuts that came with it.

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 05:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Someone is posting frequently and I'll be they are addressing me in the process with no success at getting me to respond.
That's good.
#151 | POSTED BY EBERLY

TL, DR:
Trolling the libs is why I'm here.
Signed, Eberly

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 05:33 PM | Reply

If you are paid minimum wage today, $7.25, and it was raised to $25, what is the cost to the employer?

Is it simply a $17.75 increase?

Some folk believe that's the cost. At the end of the year, how much was this added expense?

And, lastly, if the business is in the black and the business can afford a 5k to 10k expense increase, how many employees, with this increase in wage, will break the business into the red?

The increase in wage doesn't guarantee increasing the value of your business' product.

#158 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 05:56 PM | Reply

Growing up, we grabbed two buddies and split rent three ways

#159 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 05:57 PM | Reply

Growing up, we grabbed two buddies and split rent three ways

#160 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 05:57 PM | Reply

The increase in wage doesn't guarantee increasing the value of your business' product.
#158 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Neither does keeping the wage steady.
Meanwhile, "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 05:59 PM | Reply

"Is it simply a $17.75 increase?"

I see where you're going, but you're missing part of the equation.

It actually costs the owner less than that out of pocket, since the marginal tax rate on his profit is greater than the employer's portion of the payroll tax.

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:04 PM | Reply

"Is it simply a $17.75 increase?"

I see where you're going, but you're missing part of the equation.

It actually costs the owner less than that out of pocket, since the marginal tax rate on his profit is greater than the employer's portion of the payroll tax.

#163 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:05 PM | Reply

Prove the employer's costs, causing him to go red, is good for the business? Or, making less profit is great for him? A lower tax rate won't pull the business into the black.

You claim tax savings while the company's assets have to cover more expenses. If there are not enough assets, then the expense has to come by cutting or charging more.

#164 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 06:19 PM | Reply

Why is it only people 45 years old and older seem to think that only teenagers starting out have minimum wage jobs? There is such a disconnect between what the middle aged and older people believe and the actual economic reality that it is somewhat mind blowing. No wonder so many people in the greying generations cannot relate to what younger people are going through.

Minimum wage IS the life wage for millions of adult working class Americans! Get that through your greying and balding skulls. This, in a microcosm, sums up the huge rift in the social classes throughout America. The top 25% absolutely do not understand what the rest of America is experiencing. Everybody who is doing well seems to naturally assume that everyone else is doing equally as well, and if not, it must be because they are lazy or just want government hand outs.

#165 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-07-16 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You claim tax savings while the company's assets have to cover more expenses."

I'm pretty sure he's just saying, the tax bill for higher wages is less than the tax bill for taking the same amount as profits.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 06:24 PM | Reply

"There is such a disconnect between what the middle aged and older people believe and the actual economic reality that it is somewhat mind blowing"

They got in on the good side back in 1975, and spent the past four decades saying if you didn't, it's because you're lazy, stupid, or probably both, so you are lucky to even get minimum wage.

They fundamentally believe that life should be a lot more miserable for the poor than for the middle class, and in turn the middle class should be a lot more miserable than the rich.

Then they say "I worked hard to get where I'm at!" And then they post on the DR all afternoon.

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Example: as a business owner, if I give my assistant a raise of $3, it costs me 3.22 once my portion of payroll taxes is added. But that cost is fully deductible, meaning in the 33.3% bracket, I save $1.07, for a net cost to me of $2.15. In the 43.3% bracket, I save $1.39, for a net cost of $1.83.

Assumptions: 12% feds; 6% state. Payroll tax is 15.3%. Change for higher bracket: 22% fed.

Of course, at higher rates, the results can be even more dramatic.

#168 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" You claim tax savings while the company's assets have to cover more expenses."

You wanted folks to admit that it costs more than the additional increase when you have to add in things like payroll taxes. I proved that an increase of three dollars doesn't even cost the owner three dollars.

#169 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:35 PM | Reply

Supply and demand.

#170 | Posted by visitor_ at 2020-07-16 06:35 PM | Reply

That's why it'll hurt the business owner.

It still costs the employer. Raising wages is an expense. Unless revenue increases to match, the business has to either cut expenses or charge more.

Your explanation is ridiculous.

So, if my expense per year in wages is an extra $100,000 but with my tax break, it's really only $60,000 then this is great for the business.

$60k out of the business. If the company doesn't have 60k or 100k to meet a mandatory increase in wages, the cost of his goods must be increased, expenses cut, or both.

You sound like Congress.

We cut spending by 50%. Now we only borrow a trillion instead of two.

#171 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-07-16 06:43 PM | Reply

" Your explanation is ridiculous."

Real Math will look like that to a Republican.

#172 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:50 PM | Reply

"So, if my expense per year in wages is an extra $100,000 but with my tax break, it's really only $60,000 then this is great for the business."

I never said that. All I was doing was debunking your suggestion that $17.75 will cost the owner more than $17.75. It won't, because you missed part of the equation.

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:52 PM | Reply

"Unless revenue increases to match, the business has to either cut expenses or charge more."

Does profit count as an expense, or nah?

#174 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 06:52 PM | Reply

" It still costs the employer."

Of course it does. Just not as much as you were trying to pretend.

#175 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-07-16 06:53 PM | Reply

"But....ask yourselves something....if the wages are so so so low....then how are landlords able to charge so much for rent, rendering it too expensive for these low wage workers?"

Why can landlords can afford for a rental property to sit empty, until someone who will pay more enough comes along?
That's part and parcel of why they're landlords in the first place.
To be a landlord, you by definition have to have sufficient capital that you can spend money for no other reason than to make money off someone else's need to put a roof over their head. Nobody thinks it's altruism.
It's wealth redistribution, from those with less wealth (or they'd just be landlords themselves), to those with more.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 07:06 PM | Reply

How are they affording where they live now?
#26 | POSTED BY EBERLY

They stack in like sardines.
#27 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

my guess is that wasn't necessary....they were just taking in freeloaders. Am I right?
#29 | POSTED BY EBERLY

My sister in law. She works for her parents at the campground they manage.
She can come and go as she pleases, shows up late, or not at all...because she's a drunk (so is my brother, her husband). She's like 60 years old and this is pretty much the only job she's ever had.
#28 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Just because Eberly's sister in law is a freeloader doesn't mean everyone who works for minimum wage is a freeloader.

Meanwhile, states and municipalities are bending over backwards with tax incentives which allow companies to operate as freeloaders... as long as they promise to bring some jobs with them!

#177 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sincere question as it relates to a place like San Diego:

How can employers expect to hire workers at such low wages when there's no housing for those low-wage workers to live in? How far are employers going to expect their low-wage workers to travel if housing is no longer affordable in the employers' immediate region?

Affordable housing is in the top three issues affecting San Diego's economy because the outlook for the above referenced scenario is on the immediate horizon. Communities all over San Diego fight back against any affordable housing projects being erected in their areas. AirB&B model has ransacked all of the housing that was once considered affordable. Out of state buyers without permanent residence by up the houses and rent them as AirB&B, often buying in cash, which undermines any low-income to middle-income individual interesting in buying a home with a 30 year mortgage attached. It's why renting a typical one-bedroom apartment now costs almost $1,800 per month (timesofsandiego.com). There is no sustainability with the path we are on. San Diego has terrible public transportation.

Please, someone convince me that my perception is erroneous. This situation is becoming dire for many people I converse with on a daily basis.

#178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 07:37 PM | Reply

To add context to my point:

Employers require low-wage workers. Should every low-income housing unit be bought up by AirB&B investors, there will be a significant lack of "help." And this isn't Silicon Valley we're talking about. The County of San Diego is very large, relatively speaking. Anybody want to talk about local priority sectors?

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 07:45 PM | Reply

"How can employers expect to hire workers at such low wages when there's no housing for those low-wage workers to live in? How far are employers going to expect their low-wage workers to travel if housing is no longer affordable in the employers' immediate region?"

How many people live in Tijuana and come across the border to work in San Diego? 100,000? 250,000?
That's what the trolley is for. It's really the only reason to have it. To bring people up from the border into downtown and the Fashion Valley or whatever it's called commercial zone.

"Please, someone convince me that my perception is erroneous."

Eberly's done for the day, but I'm sure MadBomber can explain to you how it's better for San Diego when rental properties are converted into AirBnB's for tourists rather than for low-wage workers.

Fun fact, I lived in various AirBnB arrangements for about six months, until I got my first job after completing my program. On the low end, it worked out maybe 25% more expensive as renting your own share of a multi-bedroom house or apartment, except you don't ever really feel like you're at home there.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 07:48 PM | Reply

except you don't ever really feel like you're at home there.
#180 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'd hate that. But, for someone really interesting in living here, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

It's just too bad there's a whole segment of the population that will be facing homelessness when they get evicted and have no means of traveling to an area with housing they can afford.

That's how this ---- works. And it's frustrating to read people's opinions that continue to press on the 'pull yourselves up by the bootstraps' tripe.

#181 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 07:56 PM | Reply

The one main thing that would be hard to overcome would be leaving family behind. Uncertainty is next.
NYS is generous toward the unemployed. EBT and public assistance along with HUD is easy to get.
$15/hr jobs are plentiful in normal times.
#139 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

So you're acknowledging that for this group of people, socialism is a significant portion of the formula?

#182 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 07:57 PM | Reply

I was never a fan of govt owned housing projects but if there is no other viable alternatives I guess it's time to build more projects. I have always advocated for free trade schools in this country. Minimum wage should be raised but also it should be a stepping stone. Average salary for a LVN/LPN is close to 25.00 an hour and the certificate can be done in 18 months. HVAC techs are in high demand so are electro mechanical techs. We as a country need to start investing in people. All we ever do is give corporations tax breaks expecting them to train employees. It just doesn't happen. The corporations just give the extra money to upper management. And then they complain they can't find skilled people to hire. The Fed should keep the tax break and use it to give people training so they can better themselves.

#183 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#183 | Posted by byrdman

I don't recall the name of the program, but my sister went to college to study computer programming and a government program paid her tuition and gave her a monthly stipend. As a result, she had a good career.

Reagan ended that program.

#184 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2020-07-16 08:27 PM | Reply

Reagan ended that program.

#184 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

My parents loved him. The more I learn about him the more I despise him. He was the beginning of the end. Just think if Carter had won. Strong unions, better public schools. Maybe even Universal healthcare.

#185 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-16 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you're acknowledging that for this group of people, socialism is a significant portion of the formula?
#182 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

Actually its a hand up to help get settled. Its not intended to be a hand out.

#186 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 09:06 PM | Reply

Actually its a hand up to help get settled. Its not intended to be a hand out.
#186 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You're splitting hairs, IMO. And why specific to getting settled? There's specific programming for that in your area?

#187 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 09:31 PM | Reply

The more I learn about him the more I despise him. He was the beginning of the end. Just think if Carter had won. Strong unions, better public schools. Maybe even Universal healthcare.
#185 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

2020 is just full of surprises
I was not expecting Byrdman to secretly be Danni!

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-16 09:35 PM | Reply

Well rusty you seem to be pushing an agenda but I don't know the fine points of public assistance.
I've always had a job.

#189 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-16 10:34 PM | Reply

Hey look, someone is apparently following around eberly, again

You know, "following around" when you post to a thread and someone retorts kind of "following around"!

Given that we now know eberly is from a family of uninspired drunks, this totally makes sense

The dudes got some trauma

#190 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-07-16 11:23 PM | Reply

#189 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Sad that's your interpretation. Unless your willing to parse out what makes you think that, I'll take that as admission you have no valid response.

#191 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-16 11:27 PM | Reply

Minimum wage workers in the 50's had a living wage

And the "conservative" know-it-all's here on the DR pine away all the time for something few to none of them actually experienced

Union membership was at its zenith and working stiffs made a livable wage
When they needed a new fridge, they could buy one.

Phesters piety is all blow. Something tells me this subject is all to familiar for him

#192 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-07-16 11:40 PM | Reply

"Something tells me"

Turn your size 3 hat around.. It will become clear.

#193 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-07-17 07:55 AM | Reply

"I was not expecting Byrdman to secretly be Danni!"

Sorry, I can't take credit for Byrdman's posts no matter how much I agree with them. I have never had and will never have a sock puppet here. I post under my real name and have done so for many years.

#194 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-17 08:41 AM | Reply

"My parents loved him. The more I learn about him the more I despise him."

I came from a politically divided home. My Dad couldn't stand Carter and did support Reagan. My Mom loved Carter and despised Reagan. My Dad died before the truth about Reagan's treason with the Ayatollah of Iran was well known but he did acknowledge how wrong the Vietnam War was before his demise, something I had believed since about 1968 and which kept us quite distant until after the birth of my first daughter, his first grandchild in 1976. We reconnected then and that's when he admitted to me that he had been wrong about that tragic, idiotic war. And he had actually participated in that war in a significant, deadly way.

#195 | Posted by danni at 2020-07-17 08:45 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

I like to listen to both sides and form my opinion. I also try to judge the individual and not the party. I do think the country has shifted to far in support of the wealthy and corps. That is both parties btw. I however support my second amd rights. I was raised in a gun owning house and if used responsibly I feel they can be fun and a useful tool. I don't support the NRA though. They don't support any restrictions and as a common sense gun owner I realize that the public shouldn't have access to what the Army does.

#196 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-17 09:00 AM | Reply

Just another question - PLEASE tell me when the minimum wage was ever able to support the cost of rent, utilities, etc.?

#12 | POSTED BY MSGT

In 1933 when the minimum wage was $.25 the monthly rent was $18.00

And sometimes that included meals.

Can you do the math?

#197 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-07-17 10:28 AM | Reply

#196 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

I don't understand why your ability to have guns for reasonable purposes like hunting, sport shooting, and home defense would require the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Guns are part of American culture. Nobody could, in practice, ever "take all our guns".

Besides, wouldn't the guns people stockpile to "stave off tyranny" protect them from the tyrants taking their guns? Otherwise, what good are they?

#198 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-17 12:44 PM | Reply

#196 Our gun problem stems from the Second Amendment. Other countries can successfully control guns because they're not dumb enough to allow everyone to have one.

Repealing the Second Amendment doesn't automatically ban guns. The problem with the Second Amendment is more subtle: it makes it a right that can't be denied. Imagine what the roads would be like if that were the case for driving. Imagine what finding a doctor would be like if that were the case for practicing medicine. Some things need to be regulated. Crazy people having access to firearms is an example of a thing that needs to be regulated.

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-17 12:50 PM | Reply

The reason why is so that the govt could never do what they did in Australia. They could however still make training requirements, limits on magazines and banning certain types of guns.

#200 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-17 12:53 PM | Reply

the cost of his goods must be increased, expenses cut, or both.

#171 | POSTED BY PETROUS

So? It gets passed on to the consumer.

But the increase to the consumer will not harm competitiveness, if your competitors have to do the same.

#201 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-07-17 01:04 PM | Reply

This is a whole logic trap for poor people to get caught in. Don't be selfish. Don't worry about rich people. Don't worry about things getting "passed onto the consumer" -if it costs too much nobody will buy it. Look at the corporate profits and how few large fish there are. Focus on the big fish, not the bait.

#202 | Posted by Brennnn at 2020-07-17 03:58 PM | Reply

"I don't understand why your ability to have guns for reasonable purposes like hunting, sport shooting, and home defense would require the protection of the 2nd Amendment."

The second amendment is not intended to protect one's right to hunt or shoot for sport. It's there to offset tyrannical government.

Hunting is not protected under the constitution. It may be a collateral benefit...but that's it.

#203 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-17 04:06 PM | Reply

"It's there to offset tyrannical government."

In theory only. Practically speaking, the use of the term 'offset' is a complete misnomer.

#204 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-07-17 04:45 PM | Reply

"It's there to offset tyrannical government."

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Whiskey Rebellion was crushed by a tyrannical government that called up the militia.

#205 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-17 07:17 PM | Reply

"It's there to offset tyrannical government."

So then why did The South have to fire on Fort Sumter?

Why didn't their guns protect them from the Republicans Tyranny emanating from Washington, D.C.?

There's no lie you won't believe, if it suits your politics.

#206 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-17 07:26 PM | Reply

The second amendment is not intended to protect one's right to hunt or shoot for sport. It's there to offset tyrannical government.

#203 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-07-17 04:06 PM

Yes agreed. There has never been an issue that mobilized enough gun owners to unite as of yet though. I think it would have to be something like a president saying he was king for life and all those not in agreement are to be executed. That would probably cause an armed insurrection.

#207 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-07-17 08:25 PM | Reply

I still don't get it. There are more private guns in this country than there are people. If guns will prevent tyranny, how the hell can the tyrants take your guns? And if they can't do that, what's the point?

#208 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-17 11:11 PM | Reply

"There has never been an issue that mobilized enough gun owners to unite as of yet though."

Locally, there have been plenty of examples of gun owners mobilizing.

The 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre is just around the corner, for example.

#209 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 12:06 AM | Reply

What I don't get is why some people today believe that in 1789-91, a bunch of lawyers would insert a stipulation that if you don't like their laws you can shoot them.

#210 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-07-18 12:56 AM | Reply

What I don't get is why some people today believe that in 1789-91, a bunch of lawyers would insert a stipulation that if you don't like their laws you can shoot them.

#211 | Posted by madscientist at 2020-07-18 12:56 AM | Reply

"I still don't get it."

You don't get the constitution?

#212 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-18 02:38 AM | Reply

And they can take your guns. They just have to get rid of the second amendment first.

#213 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-07-18 02:39 AM | Reply

So if guns protect us from tyranny, why couldn't women vote until 100 years ago?

Or does that not rise to the level of tyranny?

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 01:39 PM | Reply

"I still don't get it."
You don't get the constitution?
#212 | POSTED BYMADBOMBER

We don't get why you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate the assassinations of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy.

Because you're saying that's the purpose. To get rid of tyrants, like those four.

So, should we celebrate the deaths of those tyrants, or what?

This is what we don't get.

But since you and Byrdmam do, bring us up to speed.

#215 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 01:46 PM | Reply

And they can take your guns. They just have to get rid of the second amendment first.

#213 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Or they could just ignore the 2nd Amendment. Then what?

#216 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-18 01:55 PM | Reply

Every armed rebellion against the US government in the last 231 years has been put down by the government. What's different now?

#217 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-07-18 01:57 PM | Reply

And they can take your guns. They just have to get rid of the second amendment first.
#213 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Except that's not what happened after Hurricane Katrina, now is it?

Why are so many Republicans of the opinion that some psychopath who really only wants a gun to stalk Eberly's daughter should be allowed to have guns? There are so many disconnects here, I really don't get it. Unless they are psychopaths themselves; then I guess it makes sense.

#218 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 02:04 PM | Reply

What role did privately owned firearms play in preserving the tyranny of slavery?

What role did privately owned firearms play in ending the tyranny of slavery?

In which role did privately owned firearms play the bigger part?

This is so obvious, you'd have to be willfully blind not to see it.

And I'd say just about every Republican and Independent is just that; willfully blind to the role guns play in American history and American life and death.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 02:08 PM | Reply

Maybe this is the tyranny Byrdman was talking about?

Maskless man wields gun after getting kicked out of Arizona yogurt shop ktar.com

But definitely not the tyranny that allowed this to happen to American citizens!
State health officials report daily high of 147 COVID-19 deaths and 2,742 cases. ktar.com

#220 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 04:33 PM | Reply

Is this tyranny?

Black disabled veteran sentenced to spend 60 months in prison for medical marijuana www.alreporter.com

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 04:35 PM | Reply

Is this tyranny?

Troubling video appears to show Oklahoma police zap man dozens of times before death abcnews.go.com

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 04:37 PM | Reply

Is this tyranny?

Fired cop charged with murder for using chokehold on Latino man www.cbsnews.com

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 04:42 PM | Reply

Is this tyranny?

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A prosecutor who is pursuing charges against an Iowa newspaper reporter who was arrested while covering a protest in May told a judge Thursday that his office shouldn't have to give body-camera footage and other evidence to the journalist's lawyer because his office was too busy. abcnews.go.com

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 05:22 PM | Reply

Is this tyranny?

Bodycam footage from Phoenix arrest reveals new details about Black man's death in custody www.cnn.com
With at least three officers on his legs and back " and yet another applying a knee to his head and neck " the Black man in his 40s cries out "I can't breathe" multiple times.

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-07-18 05:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort