A Livable Minimum Wage

[iceaura]

The reality is that the rich do have a higher standard of living.

Which they obtain at lower cost than a poor person could.
Every standard of living costs the rich less than the poor. Including the minimum one, which they can choose whenever they want to.
So their minimum cost of living is lower.

btw: You have never met a miser? Odd. They are not that rare. My favorite was a neighbor of mine, old guy, who had worked as a janitor his entire life and made himself a small fortune. He was retired. His routine included coffee and doughnuts - free - in the VIP lounge at one of the big downtown banks (where he was not the only guy dressed from dumpsters and dead acquaintances, although he may have been the only one who used twist ties from bread bags to fasten his shoes) followed by a stroll to the Dorothy Day Center for midday charity chile, and a stroll home with a newspaper or magazine fished from a bin. He was the first self-made millionaire I ever shook hands with. He had the lowest cost of living I have ever seen implemented - but even he could have lowered it a notch by using his wealth: he insisted on living in a big city in northern America, and renting a room of his own. He could have made other arrangements, because he could have fronted the cash for them - his choice.

 

[Vociferous]

Apples to oranges. The rich do not live "every standard of living", and their cost of living is significantly higher than the poor.
And your only example is one that doesn't even prove your point.

 

[iceaura]

The rich do not live "every standard of living",

They can. It's their choice. Some do.

And at each one, including the minimum ones, their cost of living at that standard is lower than a poor person's at that standard - apples to apples.

 

[Vociferous]

They can. It's their choice. Some do.

And at each one, including the minimum ones, their cost of living at that standard is lower than a poor person's at that standard - apples to apples.

Considering you last example failed to prove your point, I won't hold my breath.
And even assuming what "some do" is a special pleading, at best. In reality, the rich have significantly higher standards of living.

 

[iceaura]

In reality, the rich have significantly higher standards of living.

Of course. Every standard of living is cheaper for the rich, so naturally they will tend to have higher ones even if they are miserly or prudent.

It's like buying anything - if better quality is available to you at a lower price than to others, you will more often than they choose better quality.

 

[Vociferous]

Of course. Every standard of living is cheaper for the rich, so naturally they will tend to have higher ones even if they are miserly or prudent.

It's like buying anything - if better quality is available to you at a lower price than to others, you will more often than they choose better quality.

So you're finally agreeing the rich have a higher standard of living?
Good, we agree.

 

[iceaura]

So you're finally agreeing the rich have a higher standard of living?

They have whatever standard of living they choose. Many choose a higher one - which is cheaper for them than for others. Some choose a lower one - which is also cheaper for them than for others.
Their cost of living is lower than other people's, at all standards of living.
So their minimum cost of living is lower than poor people's minimum cost of living.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Apples to oranges. The rich do not live "every standard of living", and their cost of living is significantly higher than the poor.
And your only example is one that doesn't even prove your point.

simple example a person whom is working and renting
as opposed to someone
whom owns their own house/appartment.
the home owner recieves around 8% per annum capital gains on their home
add average house price at around $650,000.00 USD
= $52,000.00 USD per annum capital gains

average 1 bedroom house is around $300.00 USD per week
= $15,600.00 USD cost to rent each year as an expense add tax on top for income tax at around 20% = $3,000.00 = $19,000.00 rounded up off their income
average US yearly income is around $30,000.00 USD per annum (generous rounding to top average)

= $52,000.00 USD per annum capital gains
+ lost expense
= $15,600.00 USD cost to rent each year

rounded up to $68,000.00 per year gain against the renters loss.

thats quite a margin

and that is not accounting for food and living costs like transport etc.

it doesnt take an economics degree or mathamatics degree to figure out the basic situation.

 

[Vociferous]

They have whatever standard of living they choose. Many choose a higher one - which is cheaper for them than for others. Some choose a lower one - which is also cheaper for them than for others.
Their cost of living is lower than other people's, at all standards of living.
So their minimum cost of living is lower than poor people's minimum cost of living.

Still making arguments disconnected from reality.

simple example a person whom is working and renting
as opposed to someone
whom owns their own house/appartment.
the home owner recieves around 8% per annum capital gains on their home
add average house price at around $650,000.00 USD
= $52,000.00 USD per annum capital gains

average 1 bedroom house is around $300.00 USD per week
= $15,600.00 USD cost to rent each year as an expense add tax on top for income tax at around 20% = $3,000.00 = $19,000.00 rounded up off their income
average US yearly income is around $30,000.00 USD per annum (generous rounding to top average)

= $52,000.00 USD per annum capital gains
+ lost expense
= $15,600.00 USD cost to rent each year

rounded up to $68,000.00 per year gain against the renters loss.

thats quite a margin

and that is not accounting for food and living costs like transport etc.

it doesnt take an economics degree or mathamatics degree to figure out the basic situation.

Those capital gains are profit on selling a house. Profit over purchase price is determined by the market.
Median house price is around 199,200 USD, not 650,000. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/what-the-median-home-price-of-200000-will-get-you-across-the-us.html
Playing with wildly unsourced numbers doesn't prove the rich live a "minimum standard of living."

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Still making arguments disconnected from reality.

Those capital gains are profit on selling a house. Profit over purchase price is determined by the market.
Median house price is around 199,200 USD, not 650,000. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/what-the-median-home-price-of-200000-will-get-you-across-the-us.html
Playing with wildly unsourced numbers doesn't prove the rich live a "minimum standard of living."

Those capital gains are profit on selling a house.

i like how you soo generousely throw everything into "capital gains" to attempt to render the facts un factual

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20...e-prices-brooklyn-queens-hit-new-record-highs

capital gains on a house enable the owner to leverage mortgage against it to produce more profit from low lending rates compared to personal lending rates.
though you would already know that if you were actual read on the subject.

getting a small mortgage to buy a car enables you to pay less than half the interest rate.
just as a very simple example for anyone else who might be reading.

person with house(mortgage) pays e.g 5% to buy a car(pays it off faster enabling them to save several hundred % on the lending rate.(this would be obvious to anyone who did the math)
person with no house(personal loan company/car-yard financing) pays 25% to buy a car

new york / queens house price is correct as i mentioned.
which is the point about being forced to pay the cost of housing where the jobs are.
which is much the point.
i concede i used the upper end.
half that cost does not make your income suddenly become twice as much.
companys do not suddenly pay you 3 times as much because the cost of housing is more in that area.

so it begs the question where you are going with your point ?

 

[Vociferous]

i like how you soo generousely throw everything into "capital gains" to attempt to render the facts un factual

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20...e-prices-brooklyn-queens-hit-new-record-highs

capital gains on a house enable the owner to leverage mortgage against it to produce more profit from low lending rates compared to personal lending rates.
though you would already know that if you were actual read on the subject.

getting a small mortgage to buy a car enables you to pay less than half the interest rate.
just as a very simple example for anyone else who might be reading.

person with house(mortgage) pays e.g 5% to buy a car(pays it off faster enabling them to save several hundred % on the lending rate.(this would be obvious to anyone who did the math)
person with no house(personal loan company/car-yard financing) pays 25% to buy a car

new york / queens house price is correct as i mentioned.
which is the point about being forced to pay the cost of housing where the jobs are.
which is much the point.
i concede i used the upper end.
half that cost does not make your income suddenly become twice as much.
companys do not suddenly pay you 3 times as much because the cost of housing is more in that area.

so it begs the question where you are going with your point ?

You're the one who said, "the home owner recieves around 8% per annum capital gains on their home."
Home value appreciation is not capital gains, unless you sell the house. If you don't like me talking about capital gains, maybe you should learn what the term means before you use it.
Appreciation, not capital gains, is what allows a homeowner to refinance with better terms. And appreciation is determined by the market, not a set rate.
And citing Brooklyn does nothing to support your median house price argument.

As I've repeatedly told other uniformed people, cost of living does not factor in the cost of money, like loans.

 

[iceaura]

As I've repeatedly told other uniformed people, cost of living does not factor in the cost of money, like loans.

Odd that you think one can determine how much it costs to live without including major costs.

Poor people have to pay more for money than rich people. They also have to borrow more - it's not always a choice, as it always is for rich people.

Still making arguments disconnected from reality.

Rich people can choose their standard of living. And whatever they choose, it will cost them less than it would cost a poor person.
That's reality.

 

[Vociferous]

Odd that you think one can determine how much it costs to live without including major costs.

Odd that you can't understand the factors used by every other person to determine cost of living.

Rich people can choose their standard of living. And whatever they choose, it will cost them less than it would cost a poor person.
That's reality.

Not a factor of cost of living. That's reality.

 

[iceaura]

Odd that you can't understand the factors used by every other person to determine cost of living.

You are underestimating the percentage of people who can budget and calculate their household expenses. Poor people can do it, rich people, lots of people.
It's not just me. Lots of people can even balance a checkbook - you'd be surprised. Apparently.

Rich people can choose their standard of living. And whatever they choose, it will cost them less than it would cost a poor person.
That's reality.
Not a factor of cost of living.

One's cost of living does not include several major costs one must pay to live? - seems a bit odd. Not much use for a cost of living that omits the costs one must pay to live.
But if you insist - we need a term, then, for the cost that includes all of the costs. Suggestions?

 

[Vociferous]

You are underestimating the percentage of people who can budget and calculate their household expenses. Poor people can do it, rich people, lots of people.
It's not just me. Lots of people can even balance a checkbook - you'd be surprised. Apparently.

Lots of noise from you, but a dearth of cited definitions.

One's cost of living does not include several major costs one must pay to live? - seems a bit odd. Not much use for a cost of living that omits the costs one must pay to live.
But if you insist - we need a term, then, for the cost that includes all of the costs. Suggestions?

"Must"? Must would be an absolute that applies equally to everyone. So everyone has the same amount of debt?

 

[iceaura]

"Must"? Must would be an absolute that applies equally to everyone.

Not at all. The poor must do many things the rich can choose to avoid - such as borrow money for medical care or posting bail.

 

[Vociferous]

Not at all. The poor must do many things the rich can choose to avoid - such as borrow money for medical care or posting bail.

Exactly. Comparing apples to oranges.

 

[iceaura]

Exactly. Comparing apples to oranges.

Comparing a lower minimum cost of living - that the rich can choose if they want to - with a higher one - that the poor must pay.

When setting the minimum wage, the minimum cost of living the poor must pay will be the measure of its adequacy.

 

[Vociferous]

Comparing a lower minimum cost of living - that the rich can choose if they want to - with a higher one - that the poor must pay.

When setting the minimum wage, the minimum cost of living the poor must pay will be the measure of its adequacy.

Repeating nonsense doesn't improve it.

But while you're polishing turds, I can throw you some poo.

 

[river]

Recently picked up , DEMOCRACY , a journal of ideas . (American Journal )

It was an article called , The Pro-Growth Minimum Wage , by Robert Atkinson

Fundamentally he argues that than increase in the minimum wage is a good thing .

Would actually improve both jobs and GDP .

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/49/the-pro-growth-minimum-wage/

the full article