CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law |
||
|
CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law
Zerowone said: » Was that the totality of the American economy? Was every ship successful in crossing the Atlantic? No we lost hundreds of millions in arms, goods and capital. Germany did sink a few ships, but if we lost as much as you are revisin...I mean implying, then how did Britain survive the onslaught of the German war machine until American officially came into the war? Go ask your history teacher that. Shiva.Viciousss said: » FDR saved the US, then he saved the world. er.... I would argue millions of russians did.
[+]
Siren.Mosin said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » FDR saved the US, then he saved the world. er.... I would argue millions of russians did. It wasn't an equal effort from all 3, but combined would have had the most significant effect in that war. Siren.Flavin said: » Idk man... I think the nukes had something to do with it... in the pacific theater, I was speaking to the european. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Good luck with that. thanks! Asura.Kingnobody said: » I would argue that it was a combined effort of British, Russian, and American forces (mainly, but other countries did help) that saved the world. that's a statement I would've let slide. let's not stroke our american ego's so hard that our kids start to think FDR flew in on a dragon, had a glorious lightsaber battle with Hitler, then rode on to slay Hirohito with nuclear cruise missles from underneath the dragon's wings.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Zerowone said: » Was that the totality of the American economy? Was every ship successful in crossing the Atlantic? No we lost hundreds of millions in arms, goods and capital. Germany did sink a few ships, but if we lost as much as you are revisin...I mean implying, then how did Britain survive the onslaught of the German war machine until American officially came into the war? Go ask your history teacher that. That's a farce, the only reason that WWII was profitable is because we were SELLING armaments to our allies while we weren't fighting. Shutting down our economy to build armaments for ourselves lessened our profit from the war. You can debate the new deal all you want, but war is very marginally profitable if you're engaged. The aftereffects of the new deal building an infrastructure are another major contributor to the economic booms post WWII. And the building of the interstate highway system opened the door for a whole new level of shipping efficiency that furthered it. You're trying to boil 30 years of complex economic causality down to paying Ford to build Jeeps. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Zerowone said: » Was that the totality of the American economy? Was every ship successful in crossing the Atlantic? No we lost hundreds of millions in arms, goods and capital. Germany did sink a few ships, but if we lost as much as you are revisin...I mean implying, then how did Britain survive the onslaught of the German war machine until American officially came into the war? Go ask your history teacher that. I should stab myself in the eye for even replying but the conjecture and opinion is strong in you and I'm sure the entertainment provided for the other's is immense: The total losses from the lend-lease program in the Atlantic: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships carrying a total of 14.5 million gross tons and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives. The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-quarters of Germany's 40,000-man U-boat fleet. Now lets quantify 14.5 million gross tons which is approx. 32,480,000,000 pounds. That's 32.48Billion pounds. Conservatively if we estimate at $1USD/pound we lost 32.48Billion dollars without counting the cost of the loss of ships since not all of those were American. Again thank you for bringing us to the inevitable "Hitler" drain pipe dance that debates on the internet eventually come to. You did so by focusing solely on WWII as the reason Roosevelt was able to pick America out of the mess created by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...which ultimately proved my point that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess that Harding, Coolidge and Hoover created. Now excuse me as I go stab myself in the eye and bid you a good day. PS. I am a Republican.
[+]
Siren.Mosin said: » Siren.Flavin said: » Idk man... I think the nukes had something to do with it... in the pacific theater, I was speaking to the european. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Good luck with that. thanks! Asura.Kingnobody said: » I would argue that it was a combined effort of British, Russian, and American forces (mainly, but other countries did help) that saved the world. that's a statement I would've let slide. let's not stroke our american ego's so hard that our kids start to think FDR flew in on a dragon, had a glorious lightsaber battle with Hitler, then rode on to slay Hirohito with nuclear cruise missles from underneath the dragon's wings. I capitulate to you sir. Zerowone said: » I should stab myself in the eye for even replying but the conjecture and opinion is strong in you and I'm sure the entertainment provided for the other's is immense: The total losses from the lend-lease program in the Atlantic: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships carrying a total of 14.5 million gross tons and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives. The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-quarters of Germany's 40,000-man U-boat fleet. Now lets quantify 14.5 million gross tons which is approx. 32,480,000,000 pounds. That's 32.48Billion pounds. Conservatively if we estimate at $1USD/pound we lost 32.48Billion dollars without counting the cost of the loss of ships since not all of those were American. Again thank you for bringing us to the inevitable "Hitler" drain pipe dance that debates on the internet eventually come to. You did so by focusing solely on WWII as the reason Roosevelt was able to pick America out of the mess created by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...which ultimately proved my point that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess that Harding, Coolidge and Hoover created. Now excuse me as I go stab myself in the eye and bid you a good day. PS. I am a Republican. Plus, you included all Allied losses when we are talking about a specific nation before a specific event. Also, you lack the reading comprehension (are you really Pleebo?) to see that I stated that WWII brought the US out of the recession. Would you like me to show you how the New Deal was a temporary fix and WWII was the actual fix?  Here you go.
[+]
Siren.Flavin said: » Now you're just being picky... I'll pick you, cutie.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Average cost of living in CA? I've read from $11+ per hour. Maybe you can provide some numbers for the average cost of living in CA, broken down by city or county. My point earlier about the rent wasn't to circumvent your question fyi. The problem is that calculating an average cost of living for a state whose economy is more complex than some countries. Texas and New York fall into that category too. You have some of the highest costs of living in the country which throw off the average to show a somewhat inaccurate number. It's like me averaging Downtown Dallas and some bad part of Fort Worth and saying that's an accurate representation cost of living in DFW, Texas. So yeah you can survive on minimum wage. Survival entails just that survival. Society owes one nothing when one is providing bare minimum skills to the labor force.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Zerowone said: » I should stab myself in the eye for even replying but the conjecture and opinion is strong in you and I'm sure the entertainment provided for the other's is immense: The total losses from the lend-lease program in the Atlantic: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships carrying a total of 14.5 million gross tons and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives. The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-quarters of Germany's 40,000-man U-boat fleet. Now lets quantify 14.5 million gross tons which is approx. 32,480,000,000 pounds. That's 32.48Billion pounds. Conservatively if we estimate at $1USD/pound we lost 32.48Billion dollars without counting the cost of the loss of ships since not all of those were American. Again thank you for bringing us to the inevitable "Hitler" drain pipe dance that debates on the internet eventually come to. You did so by focusing solely on WWII as the reason Roosevelt was able to pick America out of the mess created by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover...which ultimately proved my point that Roosevelt cleaned up the mess that Harding, Coolidge and Hoover created. Now excuse me as I go stab myself in the eye and bid you a good day. PS. I am a Republican. Plus, you included all Allied losses when we are talking about a specific nation before a specific event. Also, you lack the reading comprehension (are you really Pleebo?) to see that I stated that WWII brought the US out of the recession. Would you like me to show you how the New Deal was a temporary fix and WWII was the actual fix? Here you go. You post a chart. I only have one eye now but thats a nice chart it shows the % values of change in the GDP. You want us to focus on the spike but ignore the build ups that predate 1940? Should we ignore 1934 1935 1936 1937? For the sake of your point? Hey look at that dip in 1938 isn't that then the war started in Asia oh wait no it was 1937 so obviously it was affected by the outbreak of war...oh look at 1939 its below the line. Didnt the war in Europe start in 1939? Then 1940 and 41' its less than 1935 and 36'. Tell me more oh wiseone about why on this nice chart that there is higher GDP between 35-37 than 38-41? Remember FDR was president starting in 1932. Please change your point to the hyper industrialized war machine post 42' versus the point you're arguing that it was arms dealing prior to entering the war that turned the economy around cause man those numbers from 1930-34', two years of which are Hoover, coupled with numbers from 35'-39' really really back your point up..... NOT! PS I'm hoping your next post has more creative ad hominem attacks then just refering to me as someoneelse you don't like on this forum. PPS!!! Oh wait you said the War was the actual fix and that the New Deals were a temp fix right? Then can you explain 1946-50' Cause FDR was dead then and if the war was such a major fix the % shouldn't be negatives if what you say were true. Oh and PPPS: Stop moving the goal posts of your argument remember mine is simply Roosevelt cleaned up Harding, Coolidges and Hoovers mess. Your chart proves that.
[+]
Zerowone said: » You post a chart. I only have one eye now but thats a nice chart it shows the % values of change in the GDP. You want us to focus on the spike but ignore the build ups that predate 1940? Should we ignore 1934 1935 1936 1937? For the sake of your point? Hey look at that dip in 1938 isn't that then the war started in Asia oh wait no it was 1937 so obviously it was affected by the outbreak of war...oh look at 1939 its below the line. Didnt the war in Europe start in 1939? Then 1940 and 41' its less than 1935 and 36'. Tell me more oh wiseone about why on this nice chart that there is higher GDP between 35-37 than 38-41? Remember FDR was president starting in 1932. Yup, you have no economic background. Just as I thought. Here is a hint: Policies generally take 1 to 2 years to show any sign of effect on real GDP (hey, whatcha know, I posted a chart on the changes of real GDP!). You can also see from the chart that the New Deal did help the economy slightly, but it also was a very temporary fix (as it was). Yet, you praise that temporary fix as it was the silver bullet that solves every problem! Guess what, 1936 was the end of the New Deal and guess what, ***just went back to ***! Oh no! FDR isn't our savior we made him out to be??? How can that be???? It must be Bush's fault! Quote: Please change your point to the hyper industrialized war machine post 42' versus the point you're arguing that it was arms dealing prior to entering the war that turned the economy around cause man those numbers from 1930-34', two years of which are Hoover, coupled with numbers from 35'-39' really really back your point up..... NOT! More babble from the unintelligent. Quote: PS I'm hoping your next post has more creative ad hominem attacks then just refering to me as someoneelse you don't like on this forum. Done Quote: PPS!!! Oh wait you said the War was the actual fix and that the New Deals were a temp fix right? Then can you explain 1946-50' Cause FDR was dead then and if the war was such a major fix the % shouldn't be negatives if what you say were true. Well, considering that the war was ending, we didn't need to mass-produce bullets and such, and the transition between making machine guns to baby bottles didn't happen overnight (plus, our workforce wasn't truly back from the war until 1946) then you have that dip in real GDP. But if you had any knowledge in economics, you would have understood that. Quote: Oh and PPPS: Stop moving the goal posts of your argument remember mine is simply Roosevelt cleaned up Harding, Coolidges and Hoovers mess. Your chart proves that. My argument wasn't that FDR was "cleaning" other president's messes, it was that FDR wasn't the "savior" that you made him out to be. Also, my argument was also that the New Deal wasn't a permament fix, and that what really got us out of the Great Depression wasn't the New Deal, it was WWII, which you so blatantly ignore. Revising history again? Shame on you! Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Average cost of living in CA? I've read from $11+ per hour. Maybe you can provide some numbers for the average cost of living in CA, broken down by city or county. My point earlier about the rent wasn't to circumvent your question fyi. The problem is that calculating an average cost of living for a state whose economy is more complex than some countries. Texas and New York fall into that category too. You have some of the highest costs of living in the country which throw off the average to show a somewhat inaccurate number. It's like me averaging Downtown Dallas and some bad part of Fort Worth and saying that's an accurate representation cost of living in DFW, Texas. So yeah you can survive on minimum wage. Survival entails just that survival. Society owes one nothing when one is providing bare minimum skills to the labor force. Most of those averages are also not normalized, so they take hyper-expensive places to live at a 1:1 ratio with subsidized or transitional housing. Obviously $50 per month in a transitional facility vs. 50K+ in the Hollywood hills aren't anywhere near a 1:1 ratio in respect to the median cost of living. A more responsible way is to throw out the fringes and base your averages on the middle 80%.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Quote: PPS!!! Oh wait you said the War was the actual fix and that the New Deals were a temp fix right? Then can you explain 1946-50' Cause FDR was dead then and if the war was such a major fix the % shouldn't be negatives if what you say were true. Well, considering that the war was ending, we didn't need to mass-produce bullets and such, and the transition between making machine guns to baby bottles didn't happen overnight (plus, our workforce wasn't truly back from the war until 1946) then you have that dip in real GDP. But if you had any knowledge in economics, you would have understood that. Except that even before we bombed the Japanese mainland we were fighting in the south pacific and preparing for an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The war wasn't winding down at all, at least from an armament production standpoint. Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Quote: PPS!!! Oh wait you said the War was the actual fix and that the New Deals were a temp fix right? Then can you explain 1946-50' Cause FDR was dead then and if the war was such a major fix the % shouldn't be negatives if what you say were true. Well, considering that the war was ending, we didn't need to mass-produce bullets and such, and the transition between making machine guns to baby bottles didn't happen overnight (plus, our workforce wasn't truly back from the war until 1946) then you have that dip in real GDP. But if you had any knowledge in economics, you would have understood that. Except that even before we bombed the Japanese mainland we were fighting in the south pacific and preparing for an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The war wasn't winding down at all, at least from an armament production standpoint. Like I said, the conversion between war products to consumer products didn't happen overnight. We still had a few skirmishes even after Japan surrendered. Also, our workforce didn't come back all at once (like you see on the movies). That didn't help with productivity in 1945-46. Here's my chart:
 Notice the peak in the middle of 1928, now look at the drop weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bottoms out at just before 1933. Notice that the peak of 1928 is right around 825 Billion. Now look at this period of time before the war. Look at that we surpass the peak of 1928 in 1935. There is a bit of a dip but the GDP doesn't go below the mid 1928 peak. Then this war starts and it just skyrockets..... Here's the other thing. New Deal policies are still in effect to this very day. Though you may presume a person doesn't have an economic background, your persumption is wrong. Economic policies take a time before one sees the fruit of their labor correct. So then how can one conflate the maturity of programs at the same time a global war occurs? In that very statement you have outted yourself and your argument. You simply just want to be right even though you have been wrong. If FDR's New Deal policies weren't so effective; then why did Eisenhower (a Republican president) expand them? Why would there still be New Deal policies in effect today? Which in it's very essence means that all of America's prosperity and even it's failings (repealng of Glass-Steagall for instance) are tied to the New Deal in one way or another. Check and mate. Why don't you go FV=PMT(1+i)((1+i)^N - 1)/i instead of pretending that people don't have experience with things like AD = GDP = C(Y - T) + I(r) + G + NX or ∆Y/∆G= 1/1-m or ∆Y/∆T= -m/1-m or BBM= ∆Y /∆G + ∆Y/∆T. Peace you are the kingnobody. Ps: To the noble observer: As much of a derailment as this may appear as off topic diatribe and mental masturbation. Minimum wage is a New Deal policy. Post Edit: Oh and about that "reading comprehension" comment: Asura.Kingnobody said: » My argument wasn't that FDR was "cleaning" other president's messes , it was that FDR wasn't the "savior" that you made him out to be. No, you weren't I was arguing that he did clean up the mess and that your attempt to diminish the effect of his policies was wrong. Nice try though. Also like how you quoted line for line like it was 2001. Way to out your reading comprehension or lack thereof in the first clause of that sentence. Remember it's 2013 and you're in a thread regarding "minium wage" a product of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 of the New Deal II enacted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and you're the one saying his policies haven't had an impact.
[+]
The new deal had more far reaching impact that most can comprehend, infrastructure spending is always good for the economy.
We could use about 3 trillion dollars of it right now. Instead of cutting unemployment checks, throw them on buses and have them go make roads, rail (high speed) power plants, etc. You'll get several the return in the long run.
[+]
Zerowone said: » Here's my chart: Notice the peak in the middle of 1928, now look at the drop weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bottoms out at just before 1933. Notice that the peak of 1928 is right around 825 Billion. Now look at this period of time before the war. Look at that we surpass the peak of 1928 in 1935. There is a bit of a dip but the GDP doesn't go below the mid 1928 peak. Then this war starts and it just skyrockets..... Here's the other thing. New Deal policies are still in effect to this very day. Though you may presume a person doesn't have an economic background, your persumption is wrong. Economic policies take a time before one sees the fruit of their labor correct. So then how can one conflate the maturity of programs at the same time a global war occurs? In that very statement you have outted yourself and your argument. You simply just want to be right even though you have been wrong. If FDR's New Deal policies weren't so effective; then why did Eisenhower (a Republican president) expand them? Why would there still be New Deal policies in effect today? Which in it's very essence means that all of America's prosperity and even it's failings (repealng of Glass-Steagall for instance) are tied to the New Deal in one way or another. Check and mate. Wait, your defense is nominal GDP? How is nominal GDP better than real GDP? Oh wait, it isn't. We know that the New Deal isn't effective, but it was necessary at the time that we needed it. I'm pretty sure that if we had the knowledge of today as of for that time, the New Deal wouldn't have even been discussed, as there has been better and more effective ways to handle recessions. Quote: Ps: To the noble observer: As much of a derailment as this may appear as off topic diatribe and mental masturbation. Minimum wage is a New Deal policy. Yes, it is. It has also been proven to not only be a complete waste of air, but also counterproductive to society as a whole. Quote: Post Edit: Oh and about that "reading comprehension" comment: Asura.Kingnobody said: » My argument wasn't that FDR was "cleaning" other president's messes , it was that FDR wasn't the "savior" that you made him out to be. No, you weren't I was arguing that he did clean up the mess and that your attempt to dimnish the effect of his policies was wrong. Nice try though. Also like how you quoted line for line like it was 2001. Way to out your reading comprehension or lack thereof in the first clause of that sentence. Remember it's 2013 and you're in a thread regarding "minium wage" a product of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 of the New Deal II enacted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and you're the one saying his policies haven't had an impact. I stated that WWII was Roosevelt's saving grace, without that war he would have been demonized like Hoover was. Here, you can even see the post yourself Your "sources" involve a popularity poll and a graph that shows the wrong information you are trying to convey. How is that helping your argument at all? Also, spell-check is your friend. If you want to figure out why China's economy is falling, I wouldn't suggest using the Nelson Ratings as a source...
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Average cost of living in CA? I've read from $11+ per hour. Maybe you can provide some numbers for the average cost of living in CA, broken down by city or county. My point earlier about the rent wasn't to circumvent your question fyi. The problem is that calculating an average cost of living for a state whose economy is more complex than some countries. Texas and New York fall into that category too. You have some of the highest costs of living in the country which throw off the average to show a somewhat inaccurate number. It's like me averaging Downtown Dallas and some bad part of Fort Worth and saying that's an accurate representation cost of living in DFW, Texas. So yeah you can survive on minimum wage. Survival entails just that survival. Society owes one nothing when one is providing bare minimum skills to the labor force. My claim: Quote: Minimum wage does not cover the average cost of living in CA and even with this increase it will not cover that. Your response and claim: Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » It does in some areas, even some areas of LA County. And that's a problem. Since this mininum wage primarily impacts the supposed poverty bracket it literally is turning this pseudo-poor class and pushing them along side the middle class in some areas. Nothing you've stated or posted backs up this claim. Middle class, btw, is usually calculated between 30,000-100,000. But it depends on the area and the standard of living in that area. It goes beyond basic necessities into saving, purchasing assets, etc. Also, I have never said it should or should not cover average cost of living. I have just stated that it does not and how do you/others propose people support themselves. The numbers I looked at, even accounting for supplementing programs, does not do this accross CA. The $10 wage will not go into effect until 2016, when the average cost of living will most likely be higher than it is now. Edited~
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Zerowone said: » Was that the totality of the American economy? .... Germany did sink a few ships, but if we lost as much as you are revisin...I mean implying, then how did Britain survive the onslaught of the German war machine until American officially came into the war? Go ask your history teacher that. That's a farce, the only reason that WWII was profitable is because we were SELLING armaments to our allies while we weren't fighting. Shutting down our economy to build armaments for ourselves lessened our profit from the war. You can debate the new deal all you want, but war is very marginally profitable if you're engaged. The aftereffects of the new deal building an infrastructure are another major contributor to the economic booms post WWII.... King, I am educated in history, raised in the shadow of WW II, and Jewish. IMHO Hitler made three great mistakes, the first was not launching operation sea lion immediately after Dunkirk. This was matched and raised by Churchill's genius, if horrid, bombing of German cities. The object of the Germans was never to take England, although it should have been and the plans were drawn up, but after Churchill's "daring nighttime raids" it became flatten London. Jassik... about those lend lease and deferred payment sales of all those war goods... did you know that the only country to pay off those WW II debts was the USSR? St. Ronald the President, in his rush to turn this country from the biggest creditor on the planet to the biggest debtor, FORGAVE all those debts. No the war was profitable because the home front scrimped and struggled to fight the good fight and industry was rewarded. Edit: But WWII is WAY off topic if fun.
[+]
I didn't know that, but it's not surprising.
Zerowone said: » The total losses from the lend-lease program in the Atlantic: between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships carrying a total of 14.5 million gross tons and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives. The Germans lost 783 U-boats and approximately 30,000 sailors killed, three-quarters of Germany's 40,000-man U-boat fleet. Now lets quantify 14.5 million gross tons which is approx. 32,480,000,000 pounds. That's 32.48Billion pounds. Conservatively if we estimate at $1USD/pound we lost 32.48Billion dollars without counting the cost of the loss of ships since not all of those were American. Not on topic but I found this to be really interesting. I never thought about how many gross tons were lost via the sinking of ships. Finding precise numbers of tonnage lost seems to be a bit difficult, although I found a UN report on Japanese tonnage loss. Casualties: U.S. Navy and Coast Guard Vessels, Sunk or Damaged Beyond Repair during World War II, 7 December 1941-1 October 1945 This link just lists those that sunk when US was at war, not any that were sunk before. The US merchant marines have there own listing of their ships that were sunk and mentions some gross tons lost. U.S. Merchant Ships Sunk or Damaged in World War II Quote: Officially, a total of 1,554 ships were sunk due to war conditions, including 733 ships of over 1,000 gross tons.  United States Coast Guard ship and some listed tons lost Total ships lost: 40
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Nothing you've stated or posted backs up this claim. Middle class, btw, is usually calculated between 30,000-100,000. But it depends on the area and the standard of living in that area. It goes beyond basic necessities into saving, purchasing assets, etc. Also, I have never said it should or should not cover average cost of living. I have just stated that it does not and how do you/others propose people support themselves. The numbers I looked at, even accounting for supplementing programs, does not do this accross CA. The $10 wage will not go into effect until 2016, when the average cost of living will most likely be higher than it is now. Edited~ You even said it yourself middle class depends on the area. Additionally, if you expect assisted living to sustain a minium wage household across CA well lol Assisted living will never put you in lets say Calabasas, CA. I can assure you minium wage in Watts, CA with assisted living will cut it but it OBVIOUSLY won't in let's say La Jolla, CA Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Nothing you've stated or posted backs up this claim. Middle class, btw, is usually calculated between 30,000-100,000. But it depends on the area and the standard of living in that area. It goes beyond basic necessities into saving, purchasing assets, etc. Also, I have never said it should or should not cover average cost of living. I have just stated that it does not and how do you/others propose people support themselves. The numbers I looked at, even accounting for supplementing programs, does not do this accross CA. The $10 wage will not go into effect until 2016, when the average cost of living will most likely be higher than it is now. Edited~ You even said it yourself middle class depends on the area. Additionally, if you expect assisted living to sustain a minium wage household across CA well lol Assisted living will never put you in lets say Calabasas, CA. I can assure you minium wage in Watts, CA with assisted living will cut it but it OBVIOUSLY won't in let's say La Jolla, CA So you cannot prove the statement: Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » It does in some areas, even some areas of LA County. And that's a problem. Since this mininum wage primarily impacts the supposed poverty bracket it literally is turning this pseudo-poor class and pushing them along side the middle class in some areas. Fine. Don't make outragous claims unless you can back them up. You are saying that $10 an hour in 2016 is on par with middle class in some areas....yet you cannot give the data or even a study to back up that assertion. Provide me the cost of living of a single individual(per month) in the cities of:
Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, Fontana, Watts, Escondido, Compton, Boyle Heights, Moreno Valley Oh that's right you won't be able to because data that in detail isn't available. It's only available by county and by the state, which shows nothing. Quote: Fine. Don't make outragous claims unless You spitting out the average cost of a living in the whole state or of a single county in California, shows absolutely. Why? Because as it has be iterated to you several times hyper-expensive places come into the equation and throw off the average. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Provide me the cost of living of a single individual(per month) in the cities of: Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, Fontana, Watts, Escondido, Compton, Boyle Heights, Moreno Valley Oh that's right you won't be able to because data that in detail isn't available. It's only available by county and by the state, which shows nothing. Quote: Fine. Don't make outragous claims unless You spitting out the average cost of a living in the whole state or of a single county in California, shows absolutely. Why? Because as it has be iterated to you several times hyper-expensive places come into the equation and throw off the average. Bacon, seriously, you are claiming and have been throughout this thread that this increase will bring people up to middle class wage levels. In fact your first example was hyperbolic about living in upper-east side manhattan $10 an hour is not middle wage levels in any town/city/state and has not been for many, many years. That is $20,800 a year for full time, 52 weeks. Before taxes. Like I said middle class is defined as $30,000-100,000 a year (low to high variations can be $25,000-150,000) but yes, absolutely, some areas are higher due to the cost of living in that area. I looked up Fresno, CA. I'm not sure if this is more lower middle class or average cost of living, I'm still reading the documentation. The economic policy institute has data on cities. This particular site looks at families, one adult and one child being the lowest. Which means tax calculations should be different than what I used do to having a dependent. http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/ Quote: EPI’s Family Budget Calculator measures the income a family needs in order to attain a secure yet modest living standard by estimating community-specific costs of housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, other necessities, and taxes. The budgets, updated for 2013, are calculated for 615 U.S. communities and six family types (either one or two parents with one, two, or three children). As compared with official poverty thresholds such as the federal poverty line and Supplemental Poverty Measure, EPI’s family budgets offer a higher degree of geographic customization and provide a more accurate measure of economic security. In all cases, they show families need more than twice the amount of the federal poverty line to get by. There are other institutes that keep track of this data and have different interpretations. This data is tracked because it is very important and indicates trends. Edit: methodology for the calculator http://www.epi.org/files/2013/wp297-2013-family-budget-calculator-technical-documentation.pdf Edit2: more middle class in those cities than average. Looking at sources now. Edit 3: well hell, currently the census and other sources not viewable. Quote: Due to the lapse in government funding, census.gov sites, services, and all online survey collection requests will be unavailable until further notice. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at <usa.gov>. Websites affected by this shutdown are all census.gov hosted websites, including: Census.gov American Factfinder Public API FTP Servers FAQs Blogs Online Surveys |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
