50 States + DC + Puerto Rico ranked by minimum hourly wage required to afford 2-bedroom housing

[chri'stina 190]

Where we plan to move in Alabama, Sujeet can make the same pay in Birmingham as in Tampa, and the housing costs in AL are much less.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My argument is that there needs to be less of an income disparity between those jobs and typical minimum wage jobs

Your argument is some people's services should be compensated more than they're actually worth?

I'm saying if the job market dictates the types of jobs people work, then those jobs should sustain them, particularly when you look at a local economy - who is going to live there, pay the mortgages, pay the rent, etc., if 80 percent of the jobs in that area put people around poverty level.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My argument is that there needs to be less of an income disparity between those jobs and typical minimum wage jobs

Your argument is some people's services should be compensated more than they're actually worth?

I'm saying if the job market dictates the types of jobs people work, then those jobs should sustain them, particularly when you look at a local economy - who is going to live there, pay the mortgages, pay the rent, etc., if 80 percent of the jobs in that area put people around poverty level.

If you're saying that a minimum wage should account for the cost of living, I agree in principle. I do think, however, that there are lots of details there that could be problematic. I think I addressed that point a few pages ago.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

My argument is that there needs to be less of an income disparity between those jobs and typical minimum wage jobs

Your argument is some people's services should be compensated more than they're actually worth?

I'm saying if the job market dictates the types of jobs people work, then those jobs should sustain them, particularly when you look at a local economy - who is going to live there, pay the mortgages, pay the rent, etc., if 80 percent of the jobs in that area put people around poverty level.

I would have thought that for the most part housing would be priced according to what local people can afford. With a few expections, such as areas where people buy second homes/vacation hot spots (i.e. Hawaii). I think what has happened in recent years in places like California has been driven by external factors (the availability of cheap and easy credit) and will correct itself to some degree.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think what has happened in recent years in places like California has been driven by external factors (the availability of cheap and easy credit) and will correct itself to some degree.

I agree. Of course, our federal govt being what it is, they will 'intervene' but most likely they will do so once the correction has already been made or is well under way...

[Dan J 277]

My argument is that there needs to be less of an income disparity between those jobs and typical minimum wage jobs

Your argument is some people's services should be compensated more than they're actually worth?

I'm saying if the job market dictates the types of jobs people work, then those jobs should sustain them, particularly when you look at a local economy - who is going to live there, pay the mortgages, pay the rent, etc., if 80 percent of the jobs in that area put people around poverty level.

If you're saying that a minimum wage should account for the cost of living, I agree in principle. I do think, however, that there are lots of details there that could be problematic. I think I addressed that point a few pages ago.

But economically that doesnt quite work. If we determine the living wage to be $13 an hour. Companies pay more for thier workers, then they charge more for thier goods and services. Then cost of living increases.

It doesnt really matter what the poorest people get paid, they will always remain poor. The economy is relative.

Instead of legislating a higher minimum wage, the only way we can reduce the effect that poor people have on society (crime and whatnot), is to make sure all basic needs are provided for.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Instead of legislating a higher minimum wage, the only way we can reduce the effect that poor people have on society (crime and whatnot), is to make sure all basic needs are provided for.

Ok, fair enough. But to provide them with the necessities, one must spend money and that money must come from somewhere. Taxes or fees or tolls. Net effect is an increase in the overall cost of doing business anyway.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My argument is that there needs to be less of an income disparity between those jobs and typical minimum wage jobs

Your argument is some people's services should be compensated more than they're actually worth?

I'm saying if the job market dictates the types of jobs people work, then those jobs should sustain them, particularly when you look at a local economy - who is going to live there, pay the mortgages, pay the rent, etc., if 80 percent of the jobs in that area put people around poverty level.

If you're saying that a minimum wage should account for the cost of living, I agree in principle. I do think, however, that there are lots of details there that could be problematic. I think I addressed that point a few pages ago.

I guess my larger argument is that letting the job market shape our economy is reckless. We've basically put the future of our economy into the hands of corporate interest and turned a blind eye under the false presumption that only a free market will bring us prosperity. What it has done is changed the landscape from a job market of productivity, to a job market of consumerism. We're consuming our economy out of existence.

[Dan J 277]

Instead of legislating a higher minimum wage, the only way we can reduce the effect that poor people have on society (crime and whatnot), is to make sure all basic needs are provided for.

Ok, fair enough. But to provide them with the necessities, one must spend money and that money must come from somewhere. Taxes or fees or tolls. Net effect is an increase in the overall cost of doing business anyway.

Right but you are less likely to generate inflation. On top of that its more likely the money will go to needs as opposed to other stuff.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I guess my larger argument is that letting the job market shape our economy is reckless. We've basically put the future of our economy into the hands of corporate interest and turned a blind eye under the false presumption that only a free market will bring us prosperity. What it has done is changed the landscape from a job market of productivity, to a job market of consumerism. We're consuming our economy out of existence.

We've never had a command and control economy, Steven. This country has done quite well for itself, over the long term.

Instead of legislating a higher minimum wage, the only way we can reduce the effect that poor people have on society (crime and whatnot), is to make sure all basic needs are provided for.

Ok, fair enough. But to provide them with the necessities, one must spend money and that money must come from somewhere. Taxes or fees or tolls. Net effect is an increase in the overall cost of doing business anyway.

Right but you are less likely to generate inflation. On top of that its more likely the money will go to needs as opposed to other stuff.

I am skeptical. Two towns down from me is a town that is much poorer than we are. Lots of hispanic immigrants. Plenty of affordable housing, I've never seen a homeless person. Yet, crime is rampant. I don't know that simply taking care of basic needs is enough.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm not sure I necessarily subscribe to the notion that when it comes to the economy the sky is falling.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not sure I necessarily subscribe to the notion that when it comes to the economy the sky is falling.

The sky isn't falling. We have an economy today that is much more agile than it used to be, change is constant and some people's lives get disrupted in the process.

[Dan J 277]

I guess my larger argument is that letting the job market shape our economy is reckless. We've basically put the future of our economy into the hands of corporate interest and turned a blind eye under the false presumption that only a free market will bring us prosperity. What it has done is changed the landscape from a job market of productivity, to a job market of consumerism. We're consuming our economy out of existence.

We've never had a command and control economy, Steven. This country has done quite well for itself, over the long term.

Instead of legislating a higher minimum wage, the only way we can reduce the effect that poor people have on society (crime and whatnot), is to make sure all basic needs are provided for.

Ok, fair enough. But to provide them with the necessities, one must spend money and that money must come from somewhere. Taxes or fees or tolls. Net effect is an increase in the overall cost of doing business anyway.

Right but you are less likely to generate inflation. On top of that its more likely the money will go to needs as opposed to other stuff.

I am skeptical. Two towns down from me is a town that is much poorer than we are. Lots of hispanic immigrants. Plenty of affordable housing, I've never seen a homeless person. Yet, crime is rampant. I don't know that simply taking care of basic needs is enough.

You can still be poor and have a house to live in (Probably with alot of other people). But not all crime is driven by being poor. So its not going to fix everything.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm not sure I necessarily subscribe to the notion that when it comes to the economy the sky is falling.

The sky isn't falling. We have an economy today that is much more agile than it used to be, change is constant and some people's lives get disrupted in the process.

Almost everyone I grew up with in Detroit was the first in their families to go to college and had a parent that worked at Ford/GM - most have generally so far done better than their parents economically in many regards. I suspect they all pay more as a percentage of income for their mortgages and find raising their children to be a little more expensive, and they certainly don't have a union-protected job for life but most of them didn't want that anyway. I know I didn't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not sure I necessarily subscribe to the notion that when it comes to the economy the sky is falling.

The sky isn't falling. We have an economy today that is much more agile than it used to be, change is constant and some people's lives get disrupted in the process.

I agree with that. I think though that the labor force should have more a say in terms of pay and benefits. The less of a disparity of income levels between blue collar jobs and skilled labor, the easier and less destructive it is to our economy as the job market fluctuates.