Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Senate Workers Make Less Than A Living Wage" video.

chillbrutha82 It is a sob story. There is something there. Part time flexible hours jobs are harder to come by. That is because businesses pay those workers a lower wage due to them not being as dedicated to the business and not as reliable. But with the min. wage hike businesses are going to look for more workers that have set hours that are not as flexible due to them not being able to pay less. Someone who wants flexible hours could get it with a tradeoff of a lower wage, but the min. wage eliminates that. Thus the min. wage has now hurt this woman.
3
AverageJoe2014 You are right that it will lead to job loss. The hones answer is that there isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Look at this woman, she couldn't find a part time job with flexible hours. That is because those jobs are paid low wage. They are given to workers who are not as dedicated to the job (working part time, flexible hours) and are short term employees. When the min. wage goes up then employers demand more for their money, thus stricter hours. Thus the min. wage hurts those who want more money with part time work. The min. wage also leads to higher prices. The pure fact is that those businesses work on very thin profit margins. The money simply isn't there. If the CEO of Walmart were to take his salary from last year and give it to all the workers they will earn less than a dollar more per hour. The money isn't there. I saw some other arguments that are wrong that were given to you. One is cost of living. Cost of living is higher mainly due to the min. wage. Saying that the min. wage should go up with inflation or cost of living is saying everything in the market should. If that is the case then let me ask you how much did you pay for your computer? Now compare that to a computer in the 60s that cost over a million dollars. Why aren't current computers worth that much. The same concept is with labor. Some jobs lose value (like the person who use to build cover wagons), some are worth more, and some are worth the same. Most low wage jobs haven't increased in value. Another false argument is the "money back in the system" argument. That is false. Money does not drive the economy, wealth creation does. If all it took was more money then why not eliminate the middle man and just give people checks for $20,000 a year? The pure fact is that there isn't one single good argument to even have a min. wage. It doesn't work in theory or in practice.
1
That single mother needs to seek friends and family for help and look for another job. Sorry, but life is work. This isn't heartbreaking at all. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Sorry, one person's cry baby story doesn't cut it. Working your way up doesn't always mean getting a new job. It means making sacrifices like working as a stripper or having friends and family help. Sorry you don't get what you always want. If Kyle said that I would respond that he is using pure emotions instead of reason and facts to push an agenda. His argument has no weight now.
1
ArtForFun Help out your grandparents then.
1
ArtForFun "But why do they even have to be in a situation where they need help? " Because that is what we do in a society, we help out people that we are connected too. We have a problem in society where people don't want to help others but want to force other to do it with government force. The reality is that if you can't find a way to live on your own and if you don't have friends or family to help you out then you are not worth much in society. Resources are limited, what makes your grandparents special? Why should they deserve more than others? Why should the government give them special treatment? Just because you say so?
1
Celrador "So far the discussions I had with him always ended in him not responding" I typically respond to everyone that respond to me. What usually happens is in the end the people I am debating resort to emotions and when I show how wrong they are they stop. You may think I am stupid but you just saying that shows you have no credibility yourself.
1
Celrador You are the one that called me stupid, and now you are blaming me for insults?! And what comment did I respond "really" to? I believe I recall it in that you said something so wrong that after I refuted everything else you said I simply ran out of way to tell you how incorrect you are. I wasn't calling you a fool, I was showing how wrong you were. I never insulted you once unless you insulted me first. That is how I do these discussions. I hardly ever get emotional here because as emotions go up reasoning goes down. As shown with ArtForFun he is showing pure emotions. He clearly cares for his grandparents but his emotions is overruling the thought process of how him and his family is not special and resources are limited. That is the harsh reality in life. Sorry if it hurts that but that is how it is. I know the criticism of capitalism and if you actually knew what I support you will know that I am highly critical of it. I am a moderate that understand that too much government is just as bad as no government. I see people on these videos supporting more government when that just compounds our problems. It takes power from one major entity to another. When I criticize the thought of government action like I did to you then you have the typical democrat statements like "if you don't like it, you can just move" or "you are greedy" or "you are stupid" and so on. If you ever want to have a discussion and not be myopic then by all means come, but until then you are clearly avoiding someone who has a different thought process than you. You are doing the equivalent of plugging your ears and go "la la la", another trait of democrats.
1
Celrador BTW, I am not a republican, I am a moderate. I am highly critical of the republican party and find them to be hypocrites a lot of times. But showing that you automatically assumed that I was a republican showed that you are making assumptions which is another problem you have.
1
Celrador You are not a democrat? Great. See how it looks when someone makes assumptions? When you witness something first hand then you change your ways. "I guess you can't accept people, who are criticizing capitalism and arguing against the typical Republican statements" A direct quote from you, you assumed I was a republican. You really need to learn to read your own comments. "Also... How about instead of responding to me here, you actually respond in the discussion we had?!" Remind me what discussion was that?
1
ArtForFun "My point was that there is an issue when most of our tax dollars are going to insane military spendings and not to help out the countries citizens." Money is not a resource. Money is not food, water or shelter. We can give US citizens more money but if goods and services don't exist such as food, water, shelter and so on then what is the point? That is why I said resources are limited. You are focusing on money, but giving your grandparents more money without increasing the amount of goods and services isn't going to help. You can't consume what you don't produce. "It is wrong in general when you pay enough taxes during your working years to get about $2000 back monthly but you need to give up $1200 to be eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid. Or when people have their food stamps cut down to $80 a month." We can change that by lowering taxes and removing Medicare and Medicaid. You are now seeing the flaw of FICA "taxes". "The government is also made up of people FYI and we pay into social security for SECURITY. We also have other government assistance programs to help the poor and needy." But at what cost? I am all for the government helping out but we need a system where one, government doesn't oppress people to deliver such security, and two, we need to maintain control of government to see that it remains the servants instead of the masters. We do that with smaller more local government. We need a balance. While I am more of a survival of the fittest person I understand the other. Now the other side needs to see my points of too much government is just as bad as no government.
1
Celrador So do democrats not make ridiculous statements? I will be honest, both sides make both. You are showing some partisan here. It doesn't matter the source to me, a ridiculous statement is a ridiculous statement. "It basically was you saying that socialism is stupid and so on and me showcasing, how you basically don't know anywhere nearly enough about socialism to make such false claims." I never said socialism was stupid. That is now two flaws I pointed out you have in this comment alone. I did say, and with justification say it won't work on the large scale. I also showed the flaws, but I never said it was stupid, that is you saying that.
1
Celrador And it doesn't matter where the statements come from, but you seem to care. Oh, those comments. I said that because when I gave an actual definition of capitalism from the Oxford dictionary, pretty much the holy grail of dictionaries, you just brushed it off. At that point I could have given you a definition of capitalism from textbooks but it wouldn't have mattered. You made up a definition that only your recognize but not every other economist in the world. That is why I acted the way I did, you simply acted like a fool that it shocked me. I admit I stepped out of norm for me, but it was really deserving. How about you go and study economics at the grad. level with those terms and try to publish them, see how far you get. Remind me what the questions were, I can't find the thread.
1
Celrador I can do the same for capitalism as well. But either way you were wrong on the definition. "I've studied 4 semesters of economics at a German university, before switching to computer science as I found my passion in Artificial Neural Networks. Should be enough of an education in economics to have a discussion with you on Youtube, don't you think?!" No because you can't even define simple terms. That is a problem. I have said that the US has arguably the best university system in the world, I guess you just showed it right there. If that is what they teach in Germany then I guess the US university system doesn't have much competition. The simple fact is that you are wrong on the definition of socialism. In the US our educational system pushes for people being correct on simple things like that because if you are not you will get called out. If you were to study economics in the US and use the definition you did for socialism you will be ridiculed by your peers. That is the honest truth.
1
Celrador To add on to that i study science for a career. If I were to do something wrong as not properly define that there is an angular dependence for the magnetic field I will get ridiculed. I should know that by knowing that simply a cross product is involved.
1
Celrador "You seem to expect a several page long definition with citations." Nope, a simple textbook definition is all you need. "You just seem to be arrogant and don't want to put up with not only me, but also the other people who called you out on your bullshit." No, this is just convenient. I am working on a project right now to get published so I do take the easier route to get the job done. " If you keep on answering in this comment chain I will just ignore it." Or run away like you did last time, or plug your ears and go "la la la".
1
The min. wage hurt this woman. She could have found a part time job with flexible hours at another job with the tradeoff of working at a lower wage. Being a part time, flexible hour worker is a risk for any business to hire due to them quitting at anytime. But at a low wage they will do it. But due to the min. wage she can't do that, thus she can't find a job. The min. wage hurt this woman..
1
***** No such thing as a living wage, it is all subjective. I make around $15/hr as a grad. student, a job that requires an actual degree.
1
GashPlague No such studies exist. It is completely subjective. Break it down and you will see that.
1
GashPlague Ok, now what about a one bedroom apartment with 2 roommates? Right there, already shot that argument down. The pure fact is that you are not paid to make a living, you are paid the market rate. It is up to you to find out how to make a living. Either find a way to earn more money or cut expenses. My girlfriend earns the min. wage in my state and uses it to pay off her $10,000 car. We live in a one bedroom apartment together. But according to you and Kyle she should be paid more for no other reasons besides some arbitrary number you want to determine to be a "living wage". I earned $5.15/hr at my first min. wage job. I lived just fine because I was using that money to buy video games and eat at Taco Johns. The term "living wage" is subjective. Almost 90% of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor and live in households that average over $47,000 a year. When Kyle talks about this topic he is completely wrong. But the term "living wage" is subjective.
1
Ylze Tyr "who wants to live in a one bedroom apt with two other people? " Well most people want a 5 bedroom house, do we up the wage for that? "that's just a completely moronic statement to make. and even then, who's the third person?" A friend you are helping out. "where do they sleep? on the couch? " Yeah, or another bed. And yes it is a good argument. "citation needed" Look up Sabia and Burkhauser's paper entitled "Minimum Wage and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?"
1
GashPlague " We're talking about what it takes for a single person to live independently." If you want to live independently then you have to make sacrifices. I did for three years. You are not entitled to anything. "I'd like to know where you got the statistic that "almost 90% of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor" because I'm willing to bet you pulled it out of your ass" I cited it in another comment. It is from Sabia and Burkhauser. " If the minimum wage was $5.15/hr when you started working, I'm guessing you've been working for a long time and are basing your opinions off of what it took to live back in the day." Working since 2004, not too long.
1
Ylze Tyr You have yet to prove me wrong. Now go cite a government source that gives zero citations.
1
Ylze Tyr 1. What question did I dodge? 2. If those two like the friend they will help them out. Also it doesn't have to be two people romantically involved, I know of three friends living in a studio together. None of them romantically involved. And did I ever say the friend was staying permanently? No. " sleep on the couch or "another bed" that you're putting who knows where in a one bedroom apt.. " I don't know how many 1 bedroom apartments you have been into, but every single one I have been into has plenty of room for a bed and couch or 2 beds.. 3. Your source is from a known liberal cite. Now that doesn't mean what they say isn't true, but I bet if I were to cite something from the Cato Institution you will flip out while having no problem citing something from the CEPR, a liberal site. Next, that is a "working paper", now to be fair it could be published, but it is a working paper according to your cite. And it didn't debunk what I gave. My source was talking about poverty and the min. wage. This source is referring to another publication talking about job loss and guess what, it still showed job loss. So you haven't proven me wrong in that you haven't given me anything. You haven't shown anything that debunks the publication I cited.
1
Ylze Tyr "says who?" Now I know economics is a foreign subject to you but to answer that question the answer is "opportunity cost". It says when resources are limited you have to sacrifice certain things to obtain other. Like sacrificing time for money, one of the most basic examples. I lived alone for 3 years. I paid $560/month in rent. I could have gotten roommates and paid less. Three of my friends pay $360/month for a 3 bedroom home. They save $200/month but live with other people. Me I like to live alone and feel that it is worth $200 to do so. I am sacrificing $200 to live alone. That is opportunity cost. Right now my girlfriend owns a car. We can sell off one of our cars, we don't need 2. But we felt that it was worth having another one so she bought on. We sacrifice money that could be spent on a better apartment for a car. I could live up the street in an apartment that gives free utilities including Wi-Fi, but I feel that i rather pay extra for a larger apartment. I could live in the ghetto for cheap, a place only charges $450 a month. I feel paying that extra $100 per month is worth my safety. You see you have to make sacrifices. That is opportunity cost. I learned that in 4th grade, it is as basic as it gets. Resources are limited. It isn't an opinion but how the economy works. If you want to live on your own then prepare to have less of something, typically money.
1
Ylze Tyr 1. Why do you assume they are staying there permanently? They could be working to get a better job and get one. " a person should be able to afford a one bedroom apt by themself with any full time job. that is the point." And the reality is that you are not entitled to that. Plus what about part time workers? Or the around 20% in poverty with no job? What about them? And what is full time? 40 hours? 30 hours? 60 hours? Like your living wage term it is all arbitrary and when broken down is meaningless. That is why you have to use emotions to push your ideas. As emotions go up reason goes down, you are showing it here. 2. So if I were to cite something from the Cato Institution you wouldn't care?
1
Ylze Tyr Ok, I will answer you question of "who says?" The answer is every economist that has studied opportunity cost, thus every economist ever. As I said, I know economics is a foreign subject to you, but study opportunity cost. It is studied by every economist. Paul Krugman mentions it in his textbook.
1
Ylze Tyr " first, already said i'm not wasting any more time on your ridiculous argmument of having three people live in a one bedroom apt.. it's stupid and proves nothing." Happens more often then you think. Sorry that you choose to ignore reality. I am not going to get into a posting war of you doing one source and myself doing another. All you will do in the end is say "my source is better than yours" without justification. I just showed you how yours was not even published. You are not off to a good start. "and saying "every economist" blah blah blah is NOT answering the question of "who says?" as it's not true and, as i just said, you have done NOTHING to prove that it is true besides saying it. " It does answer the question, every economist says that. "who still thinks that trickle-down works," I never mention trickle down because it is not an economic term. " but i know about a thousand times more" But you never heard of opportunity cost or that trickle down is not an economic term.
1
Ylze Tyr I have posted several sources, you just refuse to look at them. "no, it doesn't prove anything because you only SAID thae "every economist" says that but you never provided any evidence to prove that that is true." Every economist understand opportunity cost, even very liberal economists such as Paul Krugman. ""you never heard of opportunity cost" yeah, never said that. not sure where you got that from. and, "trickle down is not an economic term." nope, never said that either. only said that you have said in the past that it works. again, i'm too much smarter than you to fall for these pathetic tricks." You don't have to say it, you prove you don't know what it means. When I bring it up you have no clue what I am talking about.
1
ArtForFun 14 year olds can work legally with restrictions.
1