What should minimum wage be?

[opebo]

Also, I notice the term 'miserable situation'. You assume just because they don't make a lot of money that they are miserable - a basic psychology course would tell you you are wrong. The happiness levels of the rich and the poor are generally the same, with the exception of only those who are the worst off and can not even get the basic needs of food and shelter(which the majority of working class people do get).


Now, on the idea that minimum wage causes unemployment - this is true depending on the level it is at. $5.15 with the current value of the dollar does not really cause unemployment, and most employers will pay more anyways. A level of $15, or even $10 would likely cause unemployment - either that or inflation due to rise in prices. Most companies will sell as cheap as possible, but if they make a loss they must cut costs or raise prices - lay off employees or make prices higher. Either way, a high minimum wage has the opposite effect as intended - people without jobs become destitute, or prices are raised so that everyone is worse off until the wage/salary market evens out, and even after it evens out you are right back back where you started - the minimum wage is not liveable anymore.

I definitely stand by my opinion that the working class are generally miserable, and certainly more so than the owning class.

As for your comments on minimum wage and unemployment - a better way to increase wages would be to simply reduce the supply of labor rather than institute a statutory minimum.  One way to do this is of course by providing a very generous welfare state.  If the dole is comfortable, people won't get off it for less than a livable wage.

[David S]

As for your comments on minimum wage and unemployment - a better way to increase wages would be to simply reduce the supply of labor rather than institute a statutory minimum.  One way to do this is of course by providing a very generous welfare state.  If the dole is comfortable, people won't get off it for less than a livable wage.

Great plan Opebo. I'm all for it as long as we fund it with your money! Then you can work your a__ off to support some lazy f___ who never did a bit of work in his life! Brilliant plan!!

[John Dibble]

Also, I notice the term 'miserable situation'. You assume just because they don't make a lot of money that they are miserable - a basic psychology course would tell you you are wrong. The happiness levels of the rich and the poor are generally the same, with the exception of only those who are the worst off and can not even get the basic needs of food and shelter(which the majority of working class people do get).


Now, on the idea that minimum wage causes unemployment - this is true depending on the level it is at. $5.15 with the current value of the dollar does not really cause unemployment, and most employers will pay more anyways. A level of $15, or even $10 would likely cause unemployment - either that or inflation due to rise in prices. Most companies will sell as cheap as possible, but if they make a loss they must cut costs or raise prices - lay off employees or make prices higher. Either way, a high minimum wage has the opposite effect as intended - people without jobs become destitute, or prices are raised so that everyone is worse off until the wage/salary market evens out, and even after it evens out you are right back back where you started - the minimum wage is not liveable anymore.

I definitely stand by my opinion that the working class are generally miserable, and certainly more so than the owning class.

You can have whatever opinion you like, but in this case you are wrong. You have no scientific proof whatsoever to validate yours. I do with mine. Read this article for an example. Happiness and wealth are not related in any great way. In fact, the single biggest factor in happiness is having a partner - married people on average report about twice the happiness that single people do. On my list of desires, a good, intelligent woman to share my life with comes before money, power, sex, or anything else I want, and that is by a great degree. I could be happy with someone if I was poor or wealthy - money is nice, but it is not all there is to life, and those that think it is are often miserable.

An interesting note - religious people on average report a slightly greater amount of happiness than secular people. The particular religion in question doesn't normally matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for your comments on minimum wage and unemployment - a better way to increase wages would be to simply reduce the supply of labor rather than institute a statutory minimum.  One way to do this is of course by providing a very generous welfare state.  If the dole is comfortable, people won't get off it for less than a livable wage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A welfare state won't solve the problem. A very generous welfare state would make it worse. The solution would only be temporary - the productivity of the nation would greatly stagnate, decrease, and the system would likely collapse, making things worse than before. Such a nation would have high taxes, and business wouldn't want to move there - they'd move to more capitalist countries.

If you really want to increase quality of life, you need strong capitalism.

"The capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably means also production for the masses. . . . The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." - Joseph Schumpeter

You'll notice in the U.S. that many supposedly 'poor' people have televisions and air conditioning, which are both luxuries. Now computers make their ways into their homes. The capitalist engine is an engine of innovation, making food, technology, and virtually all necessities and luxuries more affordable for all. Newer innovations are not cheap or affordable, but those new innovations often make the old ones cheaper and available to those who could not previously afford them. Capitalism enhances life in the long term, socialism is a quick fix that only works in the short term.

[opebo]

As for your comments on minimum wage and unemployment - a better way to increase wages would be to simply reduce the supply of labor rather than institute a statutory minimum.  One way to do this is of course by providing a very generous welfare state.  If the dole is comfortable, people won't get off it for less than a livable wage.

Great plan Opebo. I'm all for it as long as we fund it with your money! Then you can work your a__ off to support some lazy f___ who never did a bit of work in his life! Brilliant plan!!

Hey, I'm one of those lazy f's who never did a bit of work in his life!

On the other hand, its because my family owns things.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

[A18]

There's no such thing as slave labor in the free market. If you don't like the pay check, don't take the job.

[John Dibble]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

Reducing executive salaries - Let's demotivate our execs so they don't work as hard.

Reducing dividends - Let's demotivate our investors so they don't bother investing, since it isn't profitable.

Raising prices - Let's make it harder for people, poor people in particular, to afford our products(isn't this the opposite of your intent?). Let's also increase inflation.

Small businesses - So if they can't afford to pay the wage you think is suitable, they go out of business, making it so their employees have no income at all instead of a small one - great plan.

[Engineer]

Gosh John, you take all the fun out of arguing by bringing in those pesky little things called facts.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

Small businesses - So if they can't afford to pay the wage you think is suitable, they go out of business, making it so their employees have no income at all instead of a small one - great plan.

I don't think it should be the wage I think is suitable, it should be based on the typical basket of goods one needs to achieve an acceptable standard of living, as decided by economists.  Certainly our current minimum wage could not meet this criteria.

Ideally, people who are made unemployed by a higher minimum wage could find employment through a public works program.  Again, anyone who is willing to work full time should be able to earn a living wage, whether paid by the government or private industry.

As for your other points, if your defense against a higher minimum wage is that rich people are greedy and the only way to make our economy work is feed this greed, I think this is an unacceptable defense.  I don't think incentives for those who are particularly talented or ambitious should be removed entirely, but at some point people who a privileged with talents need to take some social responsibilty and use those talents toward the public good.

[David S]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

You are willing to put the guy who owns the local donut shop out of business because he can't afford to pay someone $15.00/hr to sweep the floor. So now you put him out of business and his floor sweeper out of work too. Another great plan! What gives you the right? Being the generous philanthropist that you are, why don't you pay the floor sweeper the extra money out of your pocket to bring his salary up to $15.00.

Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

You are willing to put the guy who owns the local donut shop out of business because he can't afford to pay someone $15.00/hr to sweep the floor. So now you put him out of business and his floor sweeper out of work too. Another great plan! What gives you the right? Being the generous philanthropist that you are, why don't you pay the floor sweeper the extra money out of your pocket to bring his salary up to $15.00.

Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.

I never said the minimum wage should be $15.00 as hour.  I think this is too high, as it is very close to the nationwide median wage, and someone must be below the median if we are going to provide any incentives at all.  I think $10-12/hour would be much more appropriate.

I don't think employers should be able to hire below a living wage because I think it is an affront to human dignity.  Why shouldn't the donut shop owner be allowed to hire the floor sweeper in exchange for sexual favors?  Or in exchange for one of their kidneys?  Even if the employee is willing to sacrifice these things in the face of exigent circumstances, it is offensive to us as citizens of a affluent and enlightened society to allow such transactions.  I think laboring at below-poverty wages is similarly offensive, whether is in in some sense consented to on an individual basis or not.

[A18]

So if I want to pay someone $5 an hour to stand there and say "Hello" as customers walk in, I shouldn't be allowed?

Should the owner of that donut store have to sweep the floor himself?

[John Dibble]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

Small businesses - So if they can't afford to pay the wage you think is suitable, they go out of business, making it so their employees have no income at all instead of a small one - great plan.

I don't think it should be the wage I think is suitable, it should be based on the typical basket of goods one needs to achieve an acceptable standard of living, as decided by economists.  Certainly our current minimum wage could not meet this criteria.

Ideally, people who are made unemployed by a higher minimum wage could find employment through a public works program.  Again, anyone who is willing to work full time should be able to earn a living wage, whether paid by the government or private industry.

As for your other points, if your defense against a higher minimum wage is that rich people are greedy and the only way to make our economy work is feed this greed, I think this is an unacceptable defense.  I don't think incentives for those who are particularly talented or ambitious should be removed entirely, but at some point people who a privileged with talents need to take some social responsibilty and use those talents toward the public good.

1. Economists don't always agree. So, ultimately, someone decides what they is acceptable, and they probably don't even have to live such a lifestyle so they really couldn't possibly know. I'm a college student - I know how to pinch pennies, especially on food(Ramen noodle cups, a hearty meal, are 3 for $1, canned sardines, another good meal, are $1 a can, and various other frugal solutions to money problems). Living on minimum wage would be tough, but it's possible - you just have to be careful with your money. You can also do what many of the low paid hispanic workers do - pool your money with others in your situation. Ultimately, if I had to be poor, being poor in the U.S. would be the best. As I said before, only in the U.S. do we have poor people with televisions.

2. Public works programs are funded by the government. They require much higher taxes to function. And like most big government solutions they don't work in the long term.

3. 'Greed' and 'self-interest' are the motivators of the human race - it is a natural instinct in almost all animals to be self-interested. Communism doesn't work simply because people are self-interested. The same logic you use is the same logic that made communist nations oppressive - people don't meet our standards so we will use force to make them comply. Plenty of rich people give to charity of their own free will, anyways.

4. As I said before, capitalism eventually makes the lives of the poor better. You see that people suffer. Good for you. You want to fix it. Good for you. You want it to be a quick fix. That's too bad, because quick fixes rarely work. As stated before, 'poor' people in the U.S. are very well off compared to poor people in third world countries - luxuries such as television and air conditioning is not out of their reach. The 'poor' in the U.S. will inevitably be far better off than they are now in 100 years simply because capitalism will make things more affordable for them. Capitalism helps in the long term, but you have to tolerate the fact that there will always be poor people.

5. Did you ever consider that some 'poor' people are at fault for their own situations? Not in the amount of money they make, but how they spend it. Once again - televisions and air-conditioning. What else? Cable, cigarettes, alcohol, and various other non-necessities are bought by them - why should we give them more money when they can't even wisely spend what they get now? As I stated, you can live just fine on minimum wage, but you have to sacrifice the non-necessities.

[John Dibble]

I don't think employers should be able to hire below a living wage because I think it is an affront to human dignity.  Why shouldn't the donut shop owner be allowed to hire the floor sweeper in exchange for sexual favors?  Or in exchange for one of their kidneys?  Even if the employee is willing to sacrifice these things in the face of exigent circumstances, it is offensive to us as citizens of a affluent and enlightened society to allow such transactions.  I think laboring at below-poverty wages is similarly offensive, whether is in in some sense consented to on an individual basis or not.

"I know better than you what's right for you, so do as I say!"

[David S]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

You are willing to put the guy who owns the local donut shop out of business because he can't afford to pay someone $15.00/hr to sweep the floor. So now you put him out of business and his floor sweeper out of work too. Another great plan! What gives you the right? Being the generous philanthropist that you are, why don't you pay the floor sweeper the extra money out of your pocket to bring his salary up to $15.00.

Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.

I never said the minimum wage should be $15.00 as hour.  I think this is too high, as it is very close to the nationwide median wage, and someone must be below the median if we are going to provide any incentives at all.  I think $10-12/hour would be much more appropriate.

OK make it $10.00 per hour. I still haven't heard you say you're willing pay the extra $4.85 out of your own money, only with someone else's money.

I don't think employers should be able to hire below a living wage because I think it is an affront to human dignity. 

Yes I'm sure the poor bastard will be much better off starving to death with no job than having to suffer the indignity of working for $5.15/hr.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

You are willing to put the guy who owns the local donut shop out of business because he can't afford to pay someone $15.00/hr to sweep the floor. So now you put him out of business and his floor sweeper out of work too. Another great plan! What gives you the right? Being the generous philanthropist that you are, why don't you pay the floor sweeper the extra money out of your pocket to bring his salary up to $15.00.

Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.

I never said the minimum wage should be $15.00 as hour.  I think this is too high, as it is very close to the nationwide median wage, and someone must be below the median if we are going to provide any incentives at all.  I think $10-12/hour would be much more appropriate.

OK make it $10.00 per hour. I still haven't heard you say you're willing pay the extra $4.85 out of your own money, only with someone else's money.

Raising the minimum wage this high may result in higher private sector unemployment, which will have to be compensated for with an expanded public works program.  To the extent that this program requires increased government revenue, I am certainly willing to pay my fair share in increased taxes to accomplish this.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

Small businesses - So if they can't afford to pay the wage you think is suitable, they go out of business, making it so their employees have no income at all instead of a small one - great plan.

I don't think it should be the wage I think is suitable, it should be based on the typical basket of goods one needs to achieve an acceptable standard of living, as decided by economists.  Certainly our current minimum wage could not meet this criteria.

Ideally, people who are made unemployed by a higher minimum wage could find employment through a public works program.  Again, anyone who is willing to work full time should be able to earn a living wage, whether paid by the government or private industry.

As for your other points, if your defense against a higher minimum wage is that rich people are greedy and the only way to make our economy work is feed this greed, I think this is an unacceptable defense.  I don't think incentives for those who are particularly talented or ambitious should be removed entirely, but at some point people who a privileged with talents need to take some social responsibilty and use those talents toward the public good.

1. Economists don't always agree. So, ultimately, someone decides what they is acceptable, and they probably don't even have to live such a lifestyle so they really couldn't possibly know. I'm a college student - I know how to pinch pennies, especially on food(Ramen noodle cups, a hearty meal, are 3 for $1, canned sardines, another good meal, are $1 a can, and various other frugal solutions to money problems). Living on minimum wage would be tough, but it's possible - you just have to be careful with your money. You can also do what many of the low paid hispanic workers do - pool your money with others in your situation. Ultimately, if I had to be poor, being poor in the U.S. would be the best. As I said before, only in the U.S. do we have poor people with televisions.

I don't see why this is a problem.  Economists calculate inflation and poverty levels based on an basket of goods.  These methods may be flawed, but not so flawed that it is impossible to come to consensus.  The minimum wage should perhaps be set at a percentage of the poverty level, although I admit the exact percentage would have to be decided by the political process.  But it is completely unacceptable that there is no mechanism by which the wage naturally increases with inflation absent specific congressional action.

[opebo]

Dibble, Philip, the point isn't what is 'right' or economically most practical.  The point is what would the majority of people vote for - and given that the majority of people are working class, I think its pretty clear a minimum wage is an inevitability in a democracy.

I personally believe that it is currently lower than the proletariate would normally demand, due to the whole religion/patriotism/gay-hating subterfuge.  While this is testimony both to the stupidity of the working class and the cleverness of the GOP, I think in the long run it will be raised, if not to $15 an hour, at least to a starvation level.

[Confabulator]

When we have no minimum wage the immigrants get taken advantage of.  There's a reason we got it in the first place.  Ever read The Jungle?

[Engineer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why this is a problem. Economists calculate inflation and poverty levels based on an basket of goods. These methods may be flawed, but not so flawed that it is impossible to come to consensus. The minimum wage should perhaps be set at a percentage of the poverty level, although I admit the exact percentage would have to be decided by the political process. But it is completely unacceptable that there is no mechanism by which the wage naturally increases with inflation absent specific congressional action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we then regionally adjust these rates to reflect area cost of living?  To curb inflation, do we have price controls?  Tell the donut shop owner that he can't raise his prices, but must pay his employees more?  Who cares if he loses money.  And wasn't it the owner who put up his own money (or borrowed it) to start the business in the first place, and could lose it?  But hey, as long as the government is there to give him welfare, who cares.

Dibble, Philip, the point isn't what is 'right' or economically most practical. The point is what would the majority of people vote for - and given that the majority of people are working class, I think its pretty clear a minimum wage is an inevitability in a democracy.

I personally believe that it is currently lower than the proletariate would normally demand, due to the whole religion/patriotism/gay-hating subterfuge. While this is testimony both to the stupidity of the working class and the cleverness of the GOP, I think in the long run it will be raised, if not to $15 an hour, at least to a starvation level.

Raising the minimum wage causes the cost of goods to raise in order to offset the cost associated with the insreased wages, thus raise the cost of living, thus the poverty level.  The only thing this would serve to most likely do, is to lower the standard of living for the middle class, as they wouldn't get a corresponding increase in their wages.

[ATFFL]

If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees a living wage, then you should not be in that business.  Msost minimum wage employers are large corporations that could easily afford to pay their workers more by reducing executive salaries, reducing dividends, or slightly raising prices.  Some small businesses may not be able to do this and may be forced out of business, but respect for small busines does not justify permitted slave labor-level wages.

You are willing to put the guy who owns the local donut shop out of business because he can't afford to pay someone $15.00/hr to sweep the floor. So now you put him out of business and his floor sweeper out of work too. Another great plan! What gives you the right? Being the generous philanthropist that you are, why don't you pay the floor sweeper the extra money out of your pocket to bring his salary up to $15.00.

Being generous with other people's money is not a virtue.

I never said the minimum wage should be $15.00 as hour.  I think this is too high, as it is very close to the nationwide median wage, and someone must be below the median if we are going to provide any incentives at all.  I think $10-12/hour would be much more appropriate.

OK make it $10.00 per hour. I still haven't heard you say you're willing pay the extra $4.85 out of your own money, only with someone else's money.

Raising the minimum wage this high may result in higher private sector unemployment, which will have to be compensated for with an expanded public works program.  To the extent that this program requires increased government revenue, I am certainly willing to pay my fair share in increased taxes to accomplish this.

And to fund all those public works you need to raise taxes.  This raises prices requiring an increase in the minimum wage.  The circle goes on until everyone works for the government and all the closet Stalinists are happy.

Tell me how your plan stops the cycle?  The only way is to massively raise taxes, accept massive unemployment, cut military spending drasticly and create a Nanny State.  In other words, follow the European model.  Their doing just spiffy, aren't they?

[John Dibble]

I don't see why this is a problem.  Economists calculate inflation and poverty levels based on an basket of goods.  These methods may be flawed, but not so flawed that it is impossible to come to consensus.  The minimum wage should perhaps be set at a percentage of the poverty level, although I admit the exact percentage would have to be decided by the political process.  But it is completely unacceptable that there is no mechanism by which the wage naturally increases with inflation absent specific congressional action.

Ignoring my other points I see. Well, that 'basket of goods' is the basket they choose - rarely would it be the most efficient, frugal basket. Also, 'poverty' is a relative term, which as you said is subjective - it's opinion and nothing more. And there is a mechanism that naturally increases the wage with inflation - have you seen this thread? Many jobs presented in that thread were once always mimimum wage jobs, but they get paid more than minimum wage. Many people simply refuse to work for minimum wage, as they don't feel it's enough - since enough of the market demands a higher wage the wage rises.

Dibble, Philip, the point isn't what is 'right' or economically most practical.  The point is what would the majority of people vote for - and given that the majority of people are working class, I think its pretty clear a minimum wage is an inevitability in a democracy.

I personally believe that it is currently lower than the proletariate would normally demand, due to the whole religion/patriotism/gay-hating subterfuge.  While this is testimony both to the stupidity of the working class and the cleverness of the GOP, I think in the long run it will be raised, if not to $15 an hour, at least to a starvation level.

No. That's not the point. Nobody asked what the minimum wage should be based on what the voters want. You interpret it as that, wrongly. Phillip is the one who asked the question, and considering his answer, it is pretty much clear he means that if you had the say in it, what would you set it at. So, your point is moot in this case.

And I've already pointed out the flaws in your arguments anyways - biggest one being that too many people don't vote, and those who don't vote are more often those who are on the lower spectrum of the income ladder, so the demand for higher minimum wage is greatly deflated. Second, we are a republic, which puts another check on the demands of the masses. And also, those who really want to bitch about wages are usually in unions, so they will try to get it done that way rather than through the ballot box. There's so many factors keeping the minimum wage down. Will it rise again - probably, but not to $15 as you suggested. More likely it would be $7.

When we have no minimum wage the immigrants get taken advantage of.  There's a reason we got it in the first place.  Ever read The Jungle?

Illegal immigrants already work for lower than minimum wage. Raise it and the demand for illegal, under-the-table labor will rise.

[opebo]

And I've already pointed out the flaws in your arguments anyways - biggest one being that too many people don't vote, and those who don't vote are more often those who are on the lower spectrum of the income ladder, so the demand for higher minimum wage is greatly deflated. Second, we are a republic, which puts another check on the demands of the masses. And also, those who really want to bitch about wages are usually in unions, so they will try to get it done that way rather than through the ballot box. There's so many factors keeping the minimum wage down. Will it rise again - probably, but not to $15 as you suggested. More likely it would be $7.

You're quite correct that few poor vote.  I don't think the republic would put much of a check on the demands of the masses if they would bother to vote - it didn't in the New Deal era.

As for $7 an hour being the likely rate, you're probably right.  But surely you can see that this is a frightfully low income.  It would certainly lead to a miserable life.  Lets look at the minimum cost of living in the USA:

Apartment -  Midwest/South $500/mo        Coasts:  $1,000/mo
Car/insurance                           300                                 300
Food                                         300                                300
Dining out/entertainment         200                                300
Medical insurance                     150                                150
utilities/cable                            150                                150
savings/safety buffer                +10%                            +10%
Taxes                                        +15%                            +15%
Total                                       $2024                      $2,783
Annual                                    $24,288                  $33,396 
Divided by 2000hr/year           about $12/hr  about $17/hr                     



                     

             

[John Dibble]

Opebo - you've said you haven't worked a day in your life. Whether this is really true or not I don't know. But I do know from your list that you really don't have much knowledge in the way of spending, especially since you really haven't had to save that much money, now have you? As a college student, I know how to save money, and what the prices would be like.

Apartment -  Midwest/South $500/mo        Coasts:  $1,000/mo

Apartments vary in cost. I think you're going in for way too much. They could find a lower end one, or getting a roommate or two splits the cost. Let's say one roommate or lower end apartment and cut the cost in half.

250/mo 500/mo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

$300 monthly? I only pay $89 a month, and I'm under 27. They would not be driving a fast sports car or SUV(which greatly increase price) but not having taken a defensive driving course, which also cuts prices, or having good grades, which also gives a discount. Ultimately I get about 25% off.  So let's say $120 a month.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I might be able to accept this, maybe not. I calculated that for a single person the costs of having enough food would be about $180 if you were frugal and didn't buy too much variety. I also did take into account that man can't survive on bread alone - I considered the prices of a variety of canned meats, vegetables, fruits, and ramen noodles in a cup so all the necessary food groups are accounted for, so they should get proper nutrition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Non-necessities. Really a moot point. Cutting in half since I can't really expect them to only work, eat, and sleep, but they should still be frugal with their money. There are many ways to save a buck here.

$100/mo  $150/mo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a necessity, per se, but important enough that I'll leave it alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cable is a non-necessity, but I'm actually raising this, putting gasoline into the mix.

$200/mo on both(gas prices vary too much, averaging $50 for now)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leaving alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do consider they'll get some money after filing. I'll leave that factor out though. Leving alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

                     

Using my frugal calculations:
Total:                                         $1,250               $1,625
Annual:                                      $15,000             $19,500
Divided by 2000hr/year: about $7.50/hr   about $9.75/hr

The problem with many people calculating what a 'liveable' wage would be is that they don't consider that people should be frugal. They also fail to take out many non-necessities.

[opebo]

By 'car/insurance' I meant the cost of the entire car plus insurance.  Like the car payment, repairs, etc.

You make a good point about roomates, but on the other hand $500 in St. Louis is a bare minimum apartment now - like a studio or one bedroom.  I suspect $1,000 represents a similar minimum in CA/NY, etc.  So your frugal wage-earners might have to sleep in bunkbeds together in one room.  (is that even legal.. zoning?  codes?)

Also it actually isn't the case that I've never worked a day in my life.. more like I've never really had to work, and only worked very minimally and part time, and partially for fun.  Anyway it was years ago, when I was in grad school.