Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "You Can't Afford A One-Bedroom Apartment On Minimum Wage" video.

Gil B You are making the assumption that prices wont' go up and hours won't be cut, both of which do happen when the min. wage goes up.
3
Completely deceptive. Say a one bedroom in an area (like I live in) cost $500/month, a 2 bedroom cost $575. Now get a roommate and now you have $280/month. Now you are living more frugal. Get a third roommate and it goes down to less than $200/month. This is one of the many arguments I have against the asinine arguments the left makes on the min. wage. How well do you want these people to live? The left doesn't have one single good argument in raising the min. wage because one doesn't exist.
3
Wendell Wright There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
2
Ylze Tyr It isn't deflection, it is me pointing out your hypocrisy. I ended up citing the source. Also I will ask you the same question, if Walmart, or any company can simply raise their prices 1 to 5% and not lose customers, why don't the do it already and earn that much more profits?
2
Edward Epperson Economics is the study of numbers. You just have to know how to use the numbers. You are looking at something micro and comparing it to something macro. The min. wage is a small part of the economy. There are several other factors involved as well when it comes to overall employment. My home state has a min. wage higher than the federal but due to our low taxes and business regulations we just had a company come in that is creating numerous jobs. They start their employees at a $26/hr pay. So when then came were they more concerned about the $8.50/hr min. wage or the low taxes? When you look at the min. wage it is so small right now that any negative effects are lost in the statistical noise (those who earn an MBA have to take advanced stats for a reason). What you have to do is remove that noise. What economist do is that they look at select groups that are effected the most by the min. wage. They are typically low skilled workers, teenagers for example. We have seen a strong correlation between an increase in teenage unemployment and a min. wage increase. The state of WA has a higher teenage unemployment than the average, as in they are in the top 5. When you look at businesses that typically pay low wages you see negative effects as well. Subway in Seattle said they have to raise prices already. That decreases consumption because higher prices deters customers. That then decreases employment hours. It may be minor as in maybe Subway closes their doors down an hour early but it does exist. Seattle averages around 14 workers per restaurant, the average is 17 in the US. If the min. wage had not negative side effects then why not $50/hr? The reason why is because then the raise will be high enough that the variable becomes strong enough to where the negative impact rises up from the statistical noise. At $15/hr that increase is so small (only 1500 employees in SeaTac were effected by such a raise) that the negative impact is hidden. Then those on the left, you for example, justify buy pointing directly to the increase and something macro as in unemployment dropping which isn't the case. A min. wage increase of $7 is not going to effect the workers in Silicon Valley or Google or professors at universities or the new workers at the factory that is being built at my state that starts out at $26/hr. It effects select groups and when the numbers are looked at we see a negative effect and zero positive effects from a min. wage increase.
2
Spartacus You can't compare the US to other countries. To many variables. If you insist on doing so you have to realize that cost of living is lower in the US and productivity is higher. But in the end to say that the UK is doing better is completely shallow.
2
Gil B Well your assumptions are not correct. 1. Around 5% of workers have multiple jobs and several are in rural areas due to being farmers and are seasonal. A correlation exist for those in areas of low unemployment thus those who work multiple are in areas where jobs are not a shortage of. Those who work min. wage are typically part time and you are making the assumption that they wont' lose hours to begin with in any job. 2. I actually pay more for groceries and goods. I feel that the local grocery store up the street is better overall and I am willing to pay more. But I am the minority. People shop at Walmart due to low prices and convience, and they are not poor people either. If prices were to go up then they might as well shop elsewhere. And there are people who work on low income (and earn more that $15/hr), a small increase in prices will hurt them. The stat you said about the 1 to 5% increase is completely made up. If Walmart (who pays above the min. wage to begin with) could raise their prices that much and not lose businesses or units per hour then why don't they raise prices and earn that much more in profit? I mean, as you said, they are greedy and want their employees to starve. It is also funny how you are so quick to point towards a major corporation like Walmart but not the small local business up my street. They will suffer more. 3. This is where you get emotional just like your first comment. A business, if being forced to pay workers more, can jut close their doors at 10 pm instead of 11 pm. A business can stay open as late as 11 pm for those who work late and want a late snack (like me for example), but in reality they receive the lowest amount of customers during time. It is no longer economically smart to remain open when they receive so little business. It then behooves them more to close down early. So they can remain open as a business, they will just adjust their hours. You said this in the end "If they want to just make money and let their employees starve they should go down under." and this "If those companies can't adapt, too bad." I can easily say that if those workers can't adapt and become more profitable then too bad. Or if they can't earn more money then too bad. You can come at me all you want, I heard of all the shallow arguments for the min. wage. As I said, there isn't one single good reason why we need one.
1
Ylze Tyr But I bet you won't attack Gil B for not citing anything they say.
1
Ylze Tyr The only stat I stated was the 5% working multiple jobs. l got that from USAtoday from an article entitled States where the most people work two jobs
1
Ylze Tyr "you hate proof so much that you ignore it from other people." Tell me, where is that other guy's citation on the 1 to 5% price increase? What you did was pure hypocrisy.
1
Ylze Tyr If I were to come on here under a different name and make the claim that the min. wage lead to strong economic growth without citation you will support that. It shows how dumb you are.
1
Ylze Tyr That is for a min. wage of around $10/hr, not $15 as the previous person said. And it is talking about restaurants where the previous person said Walmart. Also, a 1 to 4% increase for low income people is a lot. Jimmy Johns raised their prices a few months ago and I stopped going there as much. The same is for other low income people. Really this goes against what you are saying and doesn't support you at all.
1
Ylze Tyr No, I actually have a life where I eat and work. You are actually supporting my side of the argument in a way. I said that the min. wage will lead to a price increase. You said in the past that it doesn't, but now you are saying it does. We are starting to agree. There is hope for you yet. Yes a small percent is hard on low income people. You sent me 2 sites that one, had the min. wage at $10/hr and another at $15/hr. Which do you support? Let us assume $15/hr. What about the people currently earning $15.05/hr? or $16/hr? Or those on salary. Myself and my colleagues earn $1850/month. A person on full time at $16/hr earns, before taxes, $2560/month (assuming 4 weeks a month). So myself and my colleagues will be harmed a lot with that 4% increase. And we don't get a raise. Your other problem is that you are assuming, like the previous poster, that hours wont' be cut. Forbes had an article entitled "We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage" It has several interesting points in that how restaurants are closing higher than normal, or that in Seattle there is an average of 14 employees per restaurant when the national average is 17. In the follow up article it is mentioned how when even look at overall job growth and consider factors such as a larger population and increase wealth, jobs are not created due to the min. wage increase. People won't be earning double, one of your articles even said that businesses will cut hours. This is a complex situation. I have shown you time and time again how the min. wage doesn't lead to any positive effects. You even shown me the negative effects but yet you insist on that I am somehow wrong. As I said, you are improving though. At least you are admitting there is a negative effect in the min. wage. And you are looking at the areas effected by it. Now you just need to realize that nothing positive comes from the min. wage.
1
***** Min. wage workers are low skilled/short term workers. They work "crazy hours" because they work hours that full time staff don't want to work. They are also part time because they are short term and a higher risk so a business doesn't want to put them on full time and when the quite have to hire someone new to take over a large amount of hours. 2. How does it elude you. The simple fact is that Gil B. made a claim but failed to give support. They also fail to realize that if all it took was a 1% increase in prices and them not losing any customers, then why not do it and get that much more in profits? Gil B. also points towards a corporation that hires a lot of people, but doesn't look at smaller businesses. And doesn't realize how that small increase hurts those on low income. "and my guess is: you are probably a "good Christian"" Actually no, and I don't watch Fox News. Jumping to that makes you sound ignorant. I don't come on here and say to Gil B. "you have been watching too much CNN, that Communist News Network....ha ha ha". I actually remain intelligent here, I suggest you do the same. The fact is that businesses don't pay more because they simply can't afford it. If you look at productivity of those why are low wage it has stagnated, thus the min. wage has out paced productivity. Just look at unit labor cost on the BLS site and look at areas such as full service restaurants. The term "living wage" doesn't mean anything. And if all min. wage workers quit one of two things will happen, they will be replaced by people who actually work. Or people simply won't care. They are paid little because they are not valued high in the market. If Mcdonalds doesn't exist or because of a higher min. wage the price of their food goes too high then people will just eat at home. It is a cost analysis thing. If they quit for on month no one will care. Seriously, who cared about these fast food strikes? No one.
1
Ylze Tyr Let us break down how you are constantly wrong. 1. You said in the past that there isn't any evidence of jobs being lost or prices going up due to the min. wage. In reality you said that it led to job creation. I have pointed out how jobs are lost and prices go up. You seem to be accepting that now and are now saying that it is a small effect, something I have been saying the entire time. In the end, though, there are negative effects that get lost in the statistics due to several other variables holding more weight in the economy. 2. You said there are positive effects. What are they? More money in people's hands? As I said, that is under the assumption that people won't lose hours to begin with (which they do). It also goes against the true value of money, more on that later. You also said that people will be paid double if the min. wage is raised to, I assume, $15/hr (you give sources pointing to $15/hr and $10/hr, a lack of consistency in your argument, what value do you support and why). That isn't true though. What about the individuals earning $14.50/hr? They only get a 50 cent raise but see prices go up 4% (according to you). Or those earning $15.05, or those on salary. Not every will see their income double, in fact no one will, or a very small amount if any at all. Thus that 4% does play a major role now. You failed to realize that. 3. On the value of money. Money's value is derived from the wealth it creates based on what society demands. A worker at Burger King for example generates little wealth and thus is paid little. Money doesn't have a set value. Just arbitrarily giving it away doesn't help, it lowers the value of the dollar. In order to increase it's value the market has to raise prices and cut hours forcing other workers to work harder. If all it took was more money then why not a) give it away or b) raise the min. wage to $50/hr? That is where your argument really falls apart because you lack understanding of what money is. Giving someone more money to flip burgers isn't going to grow the economy. That doesn't create wealth. I can cook a hamburger along with the vast majority of society. 4. You never debunked that Forbes article 5. You cited certain economist on the min. wage, now how many Steves do you have? Ever heard of project Steve? I am sure I can get a lot of economist named Steve that can outnumber the ones that support on the min. wage. In the end nothing positive comes from the min. wage in both theory and practice. Point to me where someone all of a sudden got rich due to the min. wage being increased. If it were that simple then we would pass it at $50/hr, the fact is that in a complex economy it isn’t that simple. I know it sucks being wrong, I understand your anger. I use to be young and immature like you. But you are getting better. You went from saying that the min. wage led to positive effects at the macro level (such as increasing jobs) without any negative effects to realizing the negative effects and looking at portions of the economy that are most effected by the min. wage. I know eventually you will see how there isn’t one good reason to even have a min. wage.
1
Ylze Tyr You were the same person that gave the the link to the DOL website with an articled entitled "Minimum Wage Mythbusters" That one, had no citations themselves, and two said this " Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs." And this" Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. " You were jumping up and down feeling that you found evidence that the min. wage led to no job loss and actually created jobs. The latter point you gave a source about as well. So yes, you did say that raising the min. wage didn't lead to job loss. You can't keep your own arguments straight. As I said, though. You are getting better. You are learning slowly. I was once young and immature as well. I know it sucks being wrong but trust me, being right makes you sound more intelligent. It is great that you are learning though. There is hope for you yet.
1
Ylze Tyr You said that he min. wage creates jobs. I called you out on it and you then call me a liar. I call you out on it again and then you are now going back to your old arguments. So does the min. wage kills jobs or not? Also, when you increase the min. wage you don't "create new jobs" because those earning the min. wage don't have the skills to work higher paying jobs. That is why you see an increase in unskilled labor unemployment when the min. wage goes up. In the end you said that it created jobs. I also never said the min. wage would lead to doomsday predictions, that Forbes article said that as well. The fact is that nothing positive comes from it. My stance is nothing positive comes from it. Your stance, as of now, is that there are negative results but any positive result is now small. Thus raising the min. wage at best leads to an overall result of nothing. The negatives outweigh the positive according to you now. Here is your argument now 1. It kills jobs but very small (my argument as well) but doesn't necessarily create jobs (even though you said it did, you are still swaying here) 2. It increases prices (my argument as well) 3. People are paid double (not true, what about those earning $14/hr that go to $15/hr, or those on salary). It seems to me that you have 2 negatives and one positive that you have to lie about to make look good (and removes the assumption of people losing hours). Seems like the negatives outweigh the positives. I am proud of you, you are learning. Soon you will realize how dumb min. wage laws are and how, in reality, nothing positive comes from them.
1
Ylze Tyr "they have no mention of certain jobs being lost in certain areas, but being replaced by other, better jobs. " Those workers are unskilled, they won't be able to work those jobs. They are paid low for a reason. You never considered that as well.
1
Ylze Tyr " no, i never said that. how would the minimum wage create jobs? that makes no sense." I know! Right! Then why did you say it in the past. You said several things in the past that fell along the lines of creating demand with an increase in the min. wage which led to more jobs. Or inflation, or more money creating more jobs. But now you are starting to get it. Great job. I knew you can learn. Now what "many" positive effects? We now determined that it doesn't create jobs. So that is off the list. So what positive effects? List them. And I want many. I listed the negatives and can do it again. I want to see the so call positive.
1
Ylze Tyr "no, certain unsustainable jobs will be lost and be replaced by other better jobs. this isn't my claim, it is what we are seeing happening in areas that have raised it." Jobs come and go, that is the evolution of the economy and technology. Netflix put Blockbuster out of business. The tractor replaced the farmer. That is due to wealth creation. But killing jobs should not be a goal. Those jobs you kill due to the min. wage increase are unskilled workers. Any new job that requires skill is something they can't do, thus they are unemployed. And they can't gain skills due to the min. wage eliminating jobs they once could do. You did say people will be paid double. I can find it. But, less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage. So 5% of the population will earn double. I never doubted that. I was asking about those earning $14.50/hr and getting only a 50 cent raise but seeing prices go up 4%. They are now worse off due to only getting less than a 4% raise but seeing prices go up. Also, people on salary don't get a raise. And that doesn't factor in the hours they will lose. You want to regulate how much is paid per hour, but that means nothing if they work less hours. If someone gets paid $7.50/hr at 10 hours a week and then gets 4 hours a week at $15/hr, what is more? That is simple math as well.
1
Ylze Tyr Yes you did. You said it created jobs. Now stop lying or admit you are starting to agree with me.
1
Ylze Tyr If they are paid that low then they are not skilled. "once the min. wage is increased and low income people start spending more money in our economy, more skilled jobs are created." You just said the min. wage doesn't create jobs, and now you are. Really? I am not twisting your words around, you are saying that it will lead to more jobs. You have directly said that. Even saying " but it eventually leads to it" supports it. Really, you need to think before you type. As I told you before, I know it is frustrating being wrong, I am that way as well with an ego. But you are learning, you just need to admit to it now.
1
Ylze Tyr Ok, as usual you present an article and try to say "gotcha" and I have to bring you back down to earth by being intelligent and breaking it down. First the "thinkprogress" article. Ignore it's bias, 200,000 of those degrees were associate degrees. Not a skill developer. Now out of those other degrees, what were they in? What were their grades? What were their job experiences? A college degree does not automatically equal skills. One can get a degree in history and be completely useless because a degree that just requires hours of reading history is not productive, a lot of people can do that. Now that article said that the number of those working a min. wage job double in 2005. This directly correlates to what I said. You raise the min. wage and what happens? Those with low skills, teenagers for example, lose jobs. You removed the lower rungs of the economic ladder. There is probably a reason why they are working a min. wage job, it is their first one. Due to the min. wage they couldn't get a job in high school or college, thus all they qualify for, due to lack of work experience, is the min. wage. You also have the labor to labor substitution. With the increase in the min. wage a business is going to look for more qualified employers, thus they hire a college grad. over a high school grad. This correlates to what I have been saying. You are once again supporting my case. The USNews article is the same way. Same with the Washington Post one. The CNN one is interesting. Noticed that when the min. wage went up in 2007 and 2008 so did those with a college degree working them? There is that labor to labor substitution again. Plus, as you said earlier, the min. wage should create better jobs. Why didn't it? Why are the not getting better jobs? They should be getting jobs left and right? Overall, those articles don't show anything except supports a correlation I have said in the past. And college degree does not automatically equal skills. Remember that.
1
Ylze Tyr " once the min. wage is increased and low income people start spending more money in our economy, more skilled jobs are created." Direct quote from you 17 hours ago
1
"Wage slavery". Slaves were forced to work. And they are not doing their part in society. They are paid low because society values them at a low wage. If you raise their wages then the business has to raise their prices or cut the workers because now they are going to be paid more then what society values them. It is that simple. And using the 2 kids example is the extreme case. It is hypocritical to use it but when one comes up with the argument of why not $50/hr that is supposedly wrong? Wow. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals don't understand economics. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. And I am a moderate. I try everything I can to find a moderate approach on this.
1
4tech69 You are comparing something micro (min. wage) to something macro (overall productivity). Overall productivity has gone up due to technology and innovation. But if you look at the jobs that typically pay low wages and have low skilled workers you will see that wages have actually outpaced productivity. Thus the min. wage is outpacing productivity for the jobs they cover. Inflation is also flawed in that not everything inflates. According to inflation a brick cell phone from the 80s cost $4000, thus my smart phone should have cost at least $4000 (actually more due to it simply being better). But it cost far less to where those in poverty own smart phones. Thus the price of cell phones dropped in price. Just like how prices of certain goods drop so does price of labor. What is the price of the blockbuster employee? $0/hr. That is due to technology and Netflix removing their worth. But according to you not only should they still have a job but should be paid more. Just like you feel that the farm hand running the plow with a horse should still have a job as opposed to be replaced by the tractor.. "In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women." Very deceptive. Look at the BLS, half of min. wage workers were 25 or younger. Funny how you stopped your stat at the age of 20. You also have to consider that when the min. wage goes up we have what is called labor to labor substitution. The risk of hiring a high school age person is greater now thus they will go after someone who is older.
1
***** Costco is warehouse, not retail.
1
David Abbott There isn't one single good argument to have a min. wage. If you raise it the market will stabilize itself with either cutting hours or increasing prices.
1
Spartacus The life expectancy in the UK is around 81 years, in the US it is 78 years. Now consider how the average for the world is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years then that 3 year difference is noise due to several variables. If you look at GDP per capita with PPP taken into account that US is at $53,042 and the UK is at $38,259 with an average of $18,378 in the world and a standard deviation of $21,496. That difference is then considered noise considering how the 2 countries are less than one standard deviation off from each other. You can take a look at any stat comparing the 2 countries are they are very close that due to several variables involved you can't say one is better than the other. That is like saying college student with a 3.90 GPA is better than the one with a 3.50 GPA. If that is all you are looking at then you can't make a comparison. You can say that the US is better than NK because when they have a GDP per capita of $1800 and a life expectancy of 69 years then that is significant enough to say that country is not doing well compared to the US. It is how you use the verified statistics. Those in the UK may have more holiday pay but with a higher cost of living are they really better? And what is your measurement of health? To me it is a productive country. The US is higher in productivity than the UK. But that is due to several reasons. As I said it is hard to compare.
1
Spartacus If your have a society that is ill they are not able to work and thus are not productive. Funny how that is never considered in determining healthcare but other stats are. Those stats that are considered are directly used to make the US look bad (not to mentioned are deceptive as I pointed before).
1
Spartacus What I am saying is that you can't say they are delivering better outcomes. People that say that the UK is doing better clearly cherry picks data or presents it in a deceptive way. I can easily make up an argument saying the US has it better for all.
1
Spartacus And that is what I am talking about in being deceptive. The US has higher GDP per capita when cost of living is factor in. The min. wage is comparable (not to mention an almost non-existent part of the complex economy). Life expectancy? UK at 81.5 years, US at 78.7 years. The world average is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. That 2 to 3 year difference is called noise. due to several variables. Now you would have a point if the US had a life expectancy of say 65 years, but you don't. Considering how the UK is an older country with a smaller population you really can say that the US is doing better. But in the those "verifiable facts" are deceptive in how you presented. What is you measure of health? The US is more productive than the UK. It takes healthy citizens to be productive. What is your definition of work? Sure the US make work more hours but what kind? Also the difference in number of hours work per year is only by 120 hours, once again, noise. Paid holiday is mandatory by law in the UK, so that stat is deceptive. We don't require it and still receive a lot of paid holidays in the private sector. Also, that variable does contribute to the higher cost of living in the UK. In some ways a sick person in the US is better due to shorter wait times. There is a reason why the UK's system is under attack. So yes you were being deceptive in your stats.
1
Spartacus Who leads the way in research and innovation in technology and science? I noticed how you never included that.
1
Jeffer Ddk If those countries had a population of 300 million people and dealt with the same issues the US has to deal with it will be a different story.
1