Fight for $15. (Fast food protest)

People seem to deny the fact that, as the poor grow larger and larger in number, the rich must solve the problem or be destroyed. They have the power. They have the responsibility.
I was dirt poor when I started working. I made the minimum wage for a while. I worked my butt off to do better. Many years later, I have earned compensation many times over minimum wage for the job that I do. I'm sure there are many people on this board that have done the same, but I think we'd all say that it was our responsibility. If people who make minimum wage do not take care of their responsibility, their earnings are commensurate.

While we're on that tack, there's also a direct correlation between poverty and violent crime. Minimum wage inherently increases the latter and is a feasible cause of the former.

Do you want more spree shootings? Only that's how you get more spree shootings.
I understand and agree that there is a correlation between poverty and violent crime, but that usually extends to robberies, thefts, and murders as a result of their smaller crimes. Usually mass shootings are as a result of an individual that is in the extreme vast minority of a minority (socioeconomic or psychological). Whereas I agree that if more people are unemployed, crime would increase, but serious felonies are a product of something more complex.
 
That's the biggest reason why people don't move. I want to move to the west coast, but I can't save money to move because it all goes to paying rent, food, and utilities. I don't have much in assets either, maybe $5,000 if I also sell my car. I don't know anyone out there I could stay with. How did people migrate to America with no money and no job? Where did they sleep? What did they do? I would only move over 50 miles away if I was guaranteed a job nearby.

You live in a backpackers or some similar low rent place. Here it costs about $150 a week, and the advantage is that you immediately meet people in a similar situation, and backpackers are prime spots for recruiters looking for basic workers. You should be able to get yourself something to cover your "rent" and food almost immediately, if you're not picky about doing whatever you have to do in order to survive.

From there you can expand into finding a real job, whatever your profession has to be. If you have a car, you have the option of living in your car. If you don't like that, stay in the backpackers until you have a real place to stay. You'll likely be able to organise a flat with several other people in the backpackers if you wish, or hold out till you can afford your own place.

It's not impossible, and it's not even particularly risky. What it does require is that you're willing to live on a shoestring for a bit and work real hard, because you're going to be doing hours at your job AND hours looking for a better job and accommodation and such.

I kid you not when I say I moved from New Zealand to Australia on $800. I moved into a backpacker for a couple of weeks, bought a crappy car for $200 and lived out of that afterwards. I found a crappy warehouse job, worked that for a couple of weeks, and moved into an apartment where the landlord bought me a few meals and spotted me a weeks rent in return for helping paint the inside. I kept working, and found some temp work in my field (which didn't really pay any better, but it was experience). I worked my way up to better jobs, which let me afford things like furniture and a computer. Eventually I got back to what most people would deem a normal situation after a year or two.

You could do the same, but you don't want to because of what you'd have to give up to do so. I don't blame you, those were hard times and I would prefer not to do them again. But if my options were that or working 75+ hours a week to barely make ends meet, then I'd probably do it. It could hardly turn out worse.

Sometimes you just have to take a deep breath and roll the dice again. If you're on minimum wage, you're going to have to do something to make a way out for yourself, not just wait for somebody in government to decree that you get more money simply for existing.
 
I understand and agree that there is a correlation between poverty and violent crime, but that usually extends to robberies, thefts, and murders as a result of their smaller crimes. Usually mass shootings are as a result of an individual that is in the extreme vast minority of a minority (socioeconomic or psychological). Whereas I agree that if more people are unemployed, crime would increase, but serious felonies are a product of something more complex.
Individual spree shooters are... well, diverse, but usually they are fervently adherent to some ridiculous ideology, have a history of mental illness or are actually stupid.

However, the majority of shootings occur in areas of significant poverty. I have heard the statistic that if one were to remove shootings that occur in a selection of districts in Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore and Cleveland, the US gun murder rate would be roughly equivalent to most Western European countries. I'm not sure how true that stat actually is - it's pretty difficult to pin down raw numbers - but New Orleans and Detroit's murder rates run at ten times the US average (50-55/100,000 compared to 5/100,000)... If we're kind, and say those five cities (totalling 25m population) have a murder rate of 30/100,000 - and that is kind, considering New Orleans topped 90 one year not so long since - that's 7,500 murders a year. The USA's total is 15,000 murders a year... extrapolate the numbers and the US murder rate becomes 2.5/100,000, and that's not a huge walk away from Norway's 2.2/100,000.

That's fagpacket maths of course and doesn't really touch on gun crime specifically - the numbers are really hard to find, not least due to the politicisation of such numbers and the definitions of "gun" crime and murder - but the concept is apt. The most impoverished parts of the most impoverished cities in the USA are the most violent.
 
Individual spree shooters are... well, diverse, but usually they are fervently adherent to some ridiculous ideology, have a history of mental illness or are actually stupid.

However, the majority of shootings occur in areas of significant poverty. I have heard the statistic that if one were to remove shootings that occur in a selection of districts in Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore and Cleveland, the US gun murder rate would be roughly equivalent to most Western European countries. I'm not sure how true that stat actually is - it's pretty difficult to pin down raw numbers - but New Orleans and Detroit's murder rates run at ten times the US average (50-55/100,000 compared to 5/100,000)... If we're kind, and say those five cities (totalling 25m population) have a murder rate of 30/100,000 - and that is kind, considering New Orleans topped 90 one year not so long since - that's 7,500 murders a year. The USA's total is 15,000 murders a year... extrapolate the numbers and the US murder rate becomes 2.5/100,000, and that's not a huge walk away from Norway's 2.2/100,000.

That's fagpacket maths of course and doesn't really touch on gun crime specifically - the numbers are really hard to find, not least due to the politicisation of such numbers and the definitions of "gun" crime and murder - but the concept is apt. The most impoverished parts of the most impoverished cities in the USA are the most violent.

$15/hr won't help a city that has no jobs. We, as a country, need a big project to work on. A massive infrastructure reinvestment (and the millions upon millions of jobs it would produce) I think would solve so many problems. Lets fix all of our bridges, damns, railroads, airports, and DMVs. Lets bring genuine high speed rail to the states. Lets build. Less idle people, more employed people, and an actual benefit to the country. It's also something that wouldn't have to be regulated within an inch of its life to work (like bringing outsourced jobs backed to the US would entail). It would just take a lot of money. But we are ****ing rich, so why not?
 
Some places around my area like Dunkin Donuts have said that if the 15 dollar an hour wage stays, a lot of their stores will close as they won't be able to afford the wages.
 
Who would it help?

Minimum wages lead to four things inevitably:
* Short term inflation, as lowest paid workers' wealth increases
* Short term devaluation, as highest per income spenders (lowest paid workers) push more currency into the money pool
* Medium term unemployment, as lowest paid workers' jobs are removed to save on expenditure or replaced with automation
* Long term increase of the minimum wage, as money is worth less and fewer people are paid so some bright spark thinks the solution is to get those people paid more


Minimum wage hurts the lowest paid workers, by reducing the value of their salary and by prompting their employers to seek ways to replace them with automation. It makes it illegal for them to accept a job at $5/hr (or whatever) because the law says they can't be paid $9/hr - so they either need the skills to exceed the value of automation or they do not work. It also kills small businesses, by making it illegal for them to employ people that they can afford to pay.

It also generally leads to a fifth thing - the increase of property prices, though this isn't inevitable and it depends on the climate at the time. As we saw from the sub-prime lending fiasco, it can lead to the tanking of property prices through oversupply (from people being sacked due to minimum wage and losing their houses), but this may lead to a sudden increase as property developers and landlords buy up vacant properties and lease them, increasing demand...
Blah blah blah, same old argument I've heard a million times and I know there's numbers out there that prove it wrong. It's funny how the USA has one of the lowest income rates for the general population and when we try to raise it up everyone has an argument about how it'll screw everyone in the long run. What's even funnier is that people that don't even live here think they know better when it doesn't even effect their lives. Maybe if they moved here and worked a minimum wage job for a few months they would see how hard it is and change their tune.
 
Blah blah blah
Cracking rebuttal, good to see the effort you put into it.

You don't have to take my word for it of course. You can just look at what happens every time a minimum wage is implemented. One example was already cited earlier in the thread. As for this:

What's even funnier is that people that don't even live here think they know better when it doesn't even effect their lives
You know that the USA does not have exclusivity on nationally mandated minimum wages, right? It also doesn't get to ignore basic economics.

Incidentally, the USA's disposable income per person and pcm wage per person are both in the four highest in the world.
 
We don't need better payed fast food workers though. We need more jobs that actually produce something. They naturally pay well. An economy is fundamentally based on production, no matter how many layers of service are piled up on it. The less we extract, fabricate, build, and create, the worse off we are. Lets build.
 
Incidentally, the USA's disposable income per person and pcm wage per person are both in the four highest in the world.

Maybe so, but the ratio of CEO to average worker pay is highest in the USA, by more than double that of Switzerland and Germany, and more than four times that of the United Kingdom.
 
That was my point, and ours is quite possibly one of the lowest.
Yet the average salary and disposable income is amongst the very highest in the world. And the cost of living is amongst the lowest...
Maybe so, but the ratio of CEO to average worker pay is highest in the USA, by more than double that of Switzerland and Germany, and more than four times that of the United Kingdom.
Why, even if that is true, does that matter?

Wait, I phrased that as a question.
 
:lol: But seriously, it matters because CEO-to-average-worker inequality on a scale the size of the USA's is unsustainable.
Why?

You also didn't answer why it matters. The average US worker takes home more than $4,000 a month. What does it matter what the few thousand CEOs earn?
 
There is the impression that the middle class is shrinking.

In my community, it was published in the papers that the population increased from ~500,000 to ~625,000 in the last few years. It was published that only 5% of this increase had incomes between $30k and $130k.
 
Why?

You also didn't answer why it matters. The average US worker takes home more than $4,000 a month. What does it matter what the few thousand CEOs earn?
I make more than double the minimum wage and take home just over half that. That number is seriously inflated by all the rich people as Suzuka has stated.
 
Individual spree shooters are... well, diverse, but usually they are fervently adherent to some ridiculous ideology, have a history of mental illness or are actually stupid.

However, the majority of shootings occur in areas of significant poverty. I have heard the statistic that if one were to remove shootings that occur in a selection of districts in Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore and Cleveland, the US gun murder rate would be roughly equivalent to most Western European countries. I'm not sure how true that stat actually is - it's pretty difficult to pin down raw numbers - but New Orleans and Detroit's murder rates run at ten times the US average (50-55/100,000 compared to 5/100,000)... If we're kind, and say those five cities (totalling 25m population) have a murder rate of 30/100,000 - and that is kind, considering New Orleans topped 90 one year not so long since - that's 7,500 murders a year. The USA's total is 15,000 murders a year... extrapolate the numbers and the US murder rate becomes 2.5/100,000, and that's not a huge walk away from Norway's 2.2/100,000.

That's fagpacket maths of course and doesn't really touch on gun crime specifically - the numbers are really hard to find, not least due to the politicisation of such numbers and the definitions of "gun" crime and murder - but the concept is apt. The most impoverished parts of the most impoverished cities in the USA are the most violent.

Glad you cleared that up, in the post quoted by @Jubby you asked about spree-shootings and threw me for a loop.

:lol: But seriously, it matters because CEO-to-average-worker inequality on a scale the size of the USA's is unsustainable.

Do you mean that for the company? The employee? Owner?
Or do you mean the USA as a whole, the entire economy?
 
It is said that the US is nearing the tipping point for the total debt, public and private, to become perpetually unpayable. The same is true for other countries, I'm pretty sure.

It's going to take growth and taxes to turn this situation around. Less than a third of our population is employed, I think, and many of these jobs don't pay enough to generate much tax revenue and pay off personal debt.
 
Well, it comes from Fox News, so there's that..... but it seems that workers in Seattle who now get their $15 per hour are asking for cuts to their hours so they can stay on government benefit programs.

Hey, wait!!!! If I make my own money I don't get the free stuff any more??!?!?!?!

It seems they don't actually want more money, they just want to work less......
 
However, the majority of shootings occur in areas of significant poverty. I have heard the statistic that if one were to remove shootings that occur in a selection of districts in Detroit, New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore and Cleveland, the US gun murder rate would be roughly equivalent to most Western European countries... [snip] The most impoverished parts of the most impoverished cities in the USA are the most violent.
It makes sense that major crime takes place in significant poverty areas. But, I doubt that it is significantly changed by minimum wage. Two cities on that list have other major factors that have been more significant (at least in my opinion) than wage setting.

In Detroit, the current significant poverty isn't directly correlative to the minimum wage. The poverty is a result of the dual issue with the crumbling auto industry (which were run into the ground causing unemployment) and the resulting near-bankruptcy of the city itself. Sure, it wasn't great 10, 20, or 30 years ago, but no where near the way it's been in the last 5 years. New Orleans is still trying to deal with the aftermath of Katrina, which it may take many more years to fully recover (at least not in this decade).

How about Oakland? We will see if minimum wage actually fixes anything. The minimum wage in Oakland is $12.25 (started in March), but they've had a nearly 50% decline in homicide in 2014 compared to 2012. It'll be interesting.

My point--- We need to look at something different to explain crime and if wages are to blame, then it is only a very small part. I think we'd be in agreement that raising minimum wage doesn't fix it.

That was my point, and ours is quite possibly one of the lowest.
Nope. Not even close. A study shows us that we have an effective minimum wage that is more than Japan. I don't think Japan is doing bad- do you? (Keep in mind this is just 34 countries) http://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-around-the-world-2015-5

How about we just make our minimum wage around the same as Germany, the UK, or Canada? Since you've read the article that shares the PPP of the different minimum wages (hopefully), you can see that $15/hour isn't necessary. Maybe a 10% increase? How about we be generous and go for 20%. That's between $8-9/hour. That doesn't change the overall dynamic of the argument of "people can't live on minimum wage".
 
How about we just make our minimum wage around the same as Germany, the UK, or Canada? Since you've read the article that shares the PPP of the different minimum wages (hopefully), you can see that $15/hour isn't necessary. Maybe a 10% increase? How about we be generous and go for 20%. That's between $8-9/hour. That doesn't change the overall dynamic of the argument of "people can't live on minimum wage".
If you had read one of my previous posts, I said that I didn't support the $15/hr suggestion but instead something around $9/hr which it appears you agree with.

I'm just stating that a regular person can barely survive in normal society in this country on $7.25/hr. Especially if they are a single parent.
 
If you had read one of my previous posts, I said that I didn't support the $15/hr suggestion but instead something around $9/hr which it appears you agree with.

I'm just stating that a regular person can barely survive in normal society in this country on $7.25/hr. Especially if they are a single parent.
Can you explain how Japan can do it with less?

I think it's... work ethic. [Oh no!]
 
Can you explain how Japan can do it with less?

I think it's... work ethic. [Oh no!]
I don't know much about Japan but I would be interested in knowing their actual living costs compared to the US, including cost of rent, food, health care (which is atrocious in this country) etc.
 
Well, it comes from Fox News, so there's that..... but it seems that workers in Seattle who now get their $15 per hour are asking for cuts to their hours so they can stay on government benefit programs.

Hey, wait!!!! If I make my own money I don't get the free stuff any more??!?!?!?!

It seems they don't actually want more money, they just want to work less......
Of course. Lots of these folks are just lazy, so they want to be able to have their cake & eat it, too.
 
How about Oakland? We will see if minimum wage actually fixes anything. The minimum wage in Oakland is $12.25 (started in March), but they've had a nearly 50% decline in homicide in 2014 compared to 2012. It'll be interesting.

Oakland is gentrifying at an insane rate.
 


Germany - 26 hours/week.
France - 29 hours/week.
Sweden - 31 hours/week.
UK - 32 hours/week.
Japan - 33.3 hours/week.
USA - 34.4 hours/week.
China - 38-42 hours/week.
 
I don't know much about Japan but I would be interested in knowing their actual living costs compared to the US, including cost of rent, food, health care (which is atrocious in this country) etc.
Their COLA is about 6% less. Groceries are about level peg (but they eat less in practice), rents are cheaper, Their crime is less and their healthcare is just a little better. I think the big differential is the national healthcare, as 70% of costs are paid by the government (but they're not taxed to death).

[A side note- I think it's interesting that lower crime (especially homicide) rate also coincides with better national healthcare conditions, we see that in Canada, Germany, and Australia too.]
 
[A side note- I think it's interesting that lower crime (especially homicide) rate also coincides with better national healthcare conditions, we see that in Canada, Germany, and Australia too.]
Those three countries also have strict gun laws which might effect that number.
 
Back