Donald Trump running for president

$24.16 is 48k per year.

$24.16/hour = $48,320/year

If you work 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year, you will make an annual salary of $48,320 if you make 24.16 per hour. Calculate between an hourly salary and a yearly salary.
 
nostrum420 said:
I don't think that should be the minimum, but I do think it should be the goal for the mean, median and mode ie, most people should be able to get a job that pays around that amount.

If the wages had kept up with productivity the average working class individual would be making around $24/hour.
Click to expand...
Average working class individual =/= minimum wage through, so this is miles different than what Warren wants, which would make her view “extreme.” Or are you saying $24/hour minimum wage isn’t an extreme view?

And a mean/median/mode of $50k would logically mean that half of the people can’t get a job that pays that amount, not that most people can.
 
nostrum420 said:
You just want the rich to have less Gov available to buy?

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I want the bribes and lobby to be over to be illegal. Kinda like when Obobo promised he would never take a single penny of lobby money until quadrillions bought his phony ass out, thats should be a Federal crime.

If your agaisnt that Im a trillion percent got your back on that one.
 
justhere4comm said:
$24.16 is 48k per year.

$24.16/hour = $48,320/year

If you work 40 hours per week and 50 weeks per year, you will make an annual salary of $48,320 if you make 24.16 per hour. Calculate between an hourly salary and a yearly salary.
Click to expand...
Are you assuming they have 2 weeks of unpaid vacation? Because there’s 52 weeks in a year, no?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Average working class individual =/= minimum wage through, so this is miles different than what Warren wants, which would make her view “extreme.” Or are you saying $24/hour minimum wage isn’t an extreme view?

And a mean/median/mode of $50k would logically mean that half of the people can’t get a job that pays that amount, not that most people can.
Click to expand...

It would take out incentives to work other jobs because the minumum wage increase would need to go with an increase all across the board which may make it impossible for so many epecially middle class business.

Why should somebody go to college and borrow 10s of thousands for a job that may make $25 an hour when they can flip burgers or swipe credit cards for almost as much?

Then the cost of life would go up anyways at $24/hr isnt enough, it beats its purpose and more people will sink into poverty.
 
Last edited:
muscleupcrohn said:
Average working class individual =/= minimum wage through, so this is miles different than what Warren wants, which would make her view “extreme.” Or are you saying $24/hour minimum wage isn’t an extreme view?

And a mean/median/mode of $50k would logically mean that half of the people can’t get a job that pays that amount, not that most people can.
Click to expand...

Not if it's both the median and mode as well as the mean. I just have a lot of people making around the same amount.

In my ideal model not many people should be very far below that $24/hr mark but I don't think it should be the floor. So, while Warren is to the left of me in her rhetoric on this issue, I wouldn't call her position "extreme" per se. I just don't agree with it. If someone starts calling for real communism ie throwing the rich in jail for crimes of hording and repatriating 100% of their wealth, etc. I would call that person extreme.
 
ax1 said:
I want the bribes and lobby to be over to be illegal. Kinda like when Obobo promised he would never take a single penny of lobby money until quadrillions bought his phony ass out, thats should be a Federal crime.

If your agaisnt that Im a trillion percent got your back on that one.
Click to expand...

Right I'm just also saying it's no coincidence that wages flatlined at the same time as we made bribes legal.
 
ax1 said:
It would take out incentives to work other jobs because the minumum wage increase would need to go with an increase all across the board which may make it impossible for so many epecially middle class business.

Why should somebody go to college and borrow 10s of thousands for a job that may make $25 an hour when they can flip burgers or swipe credit cards for almost as much?

Then the cost of life would go up anyways at $24/hr isnt enough, it beats its purpose and more people will sink into poverty.
Click to expand...

Find me an example of this happening as a result of a min wage increase and I mean real evidence, not one of your personal anecdotes.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I work in civil engineering; I’d hope I get at least a little bit more than what would be minimum wage lol.
Click to expand...

A rising tide lifts all ships. If the higher skill jobs don't increase their pay, they'll lose all their skilled workers who will just go do something "easier."
 
nostrum420 said:
Not if it's both the median and mode as well as the mean. I just have a lot of people making around the same amount.

In my ideal model not many people should be very far below that $24/hr mark but I don't think it should be the floor. So, while Warren is to the left of me in her rhetoric on this issue, I wouldn't call her position "extreme" per se. I just don't agree with it. If someone starts calling for real communism ie throwing the rich in jail for crimes of hording and repatriating 100% of their wealth, etc. I would call that person extreme.
Click to expand...
Wait, so the only thing that’s extreme is a literal overhauling of the entire basic economic system and literally jailing the rich? I think there can be multiple levels/tiers of extreme views on a topic. I don’t think that only absolute farthest view on a given side can be called extreme, but I guess this is sort of pointless classifications at this point, as neither of us agree with her.
 
nostrum420 said:
A rising tide lifts all ships. If the higher skill jobs don't increase their pay, they'll lose all their skilled workers who will just go do something "easier."
Click to expand...
So if McDonalds goes from paying $9/hr to $24 (let’s use Warren’s example of a family sustaining wage) for entry level work, then I assume that their supervisor, who was making maybe $12 or so, now also makes $24, or does he now make $27? And what of the manager? Say they made $15 an hour? Do they now make $30? Or does the manager just make the same money as the entry level worker at the same place, but with more experience and responsibility?
 
nostrum420 said:
Find me an example of this happening as a result of a min wage increase and I mean real evidence, not one of your personal anecdotes.
Click to expand...

Its just common sense, I can think for myself on this one.
 
Last edited:
muscleupcrohn said:
So if McDonalds goes from paying $9/hr to $24 (let’s use Warren’s example of a family sustaining wage) for entry level work, then I assume that their supervisor, who was making maybe $12 or so, now also makes $24, or does he now make $27? And what of the manager? Say they made $15 an hour? Do they now make $30? Or does the manager just make the same money as the entry level worker at the same place, but with more experience and responsibility?
Click to expand...

And then the business owners are getting a paycut too, not just from paying their workers more but the entire chain of supply, overhead and network increased expense and everything will eventually trickle down back to the minumum wage worker who by that time needs $34 an hour, repeat cycle.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Wait, so the only thing that’s extreme is a literal overhauling of the entire basic economic system and literally jailing the rich? I think there can be multiple levels/tiers of extreme views on a topic. I don’t think that only absolute farthest view on a given side can be called extreme, but I guess this is sort of pointless classifications at this point, as neither of us agree with her.
Click to expand...

Haha, no, not only that. There's just this thing on the left where if someone else on the left doesn't agree with you 100% on everything, they're bad and wrong and maybe a secret sexist (yes, I'm bitter) So, anyway, I didn't want to characterize her view as "extreme" just because I don't completely agree, nomsayin'?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So if McDonalds goes from paying $9/hr to $24 (let’s use Warren’s example of a family sustaining wage) for entry level work, then I assume that their supervisor, who was making maybe $12 or so, now also makes $24, or does he now make $27? And what of the manager? Say they made $15 an hour? Do they now make $30? Or does the manager just make the same money as the entry level worker at the same place, but with more experience and responsibility?
Click to expand...

No, everyone gets bumped up not just entry level. Otherwise employers will lose their management teams who will go take entry level positions elsewhere and make the same money for easier work
 
nostrum420 said:
No, everyone gets bumped up not just entry level. Otherwise employers will lose their management teams who will go take entry level positions elsewhere and make the same money for easier work
Click to expand...

And how is all this going to paid for? Do you know how significant this costs adds up to the end of the year? Your not concerned with people losing jobs and businesses shut down by regulating salary?
 
ax1 said:
And how is all this going to paid for? Do you know how significant this costs adds up to the end of the year? Your not concerned with people losing jobs and businesses shut down by regulating salary?
Click to expand...

Until the 70s companies were able to do this and the 50s through the 70s were some of our most productive years and the rich still got richer. Companies can afford to go back to giving the workers the same size slice of the pie as they did in the 60s and it will not cause them to fire their workforce. CEOs and shareholders want you to believe they will because then they've got you by the balls but it's a bluff.
 
nostrum420 said:
Haha, no, not only that. There's just this thing on the left where if someone else on the left doesn't agree with you 100% on everything, they're bad and wrong and maybe a secret sexist (yes, I'm bitter) So, anyway, I didn't want to characterize her view as "extreme" just because I don't completely agree, nomsayin'?
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying. She’s made some statements and whatnot that are pretty objectively wrong, compared to this wage view of hers that, while pretty far to the left, at least doesn’t rely on calling the character of anyone who questions her into question.
 
nostrum420 said:
Until the 70s companies were able to do this and the 50s through the 70s were some of our most productive years and the rich still got richer. Companies can afford to go back to giving the workers the same size slice of the pie as they did in the 60s and it will not cause them to fire their workforce. CEOs and shareholders want you to believe they will because then they've got you by the balls but it's a bluff.
Click to expand...


The big issue is how this all translates to middle class businesses. With what you propose the regulations are only going to weed out the small competition and benefit the bigs in the long run.

With what you propose, this entire country is going transform into one huge Walmart from coast to coast and rename the US to "The Republic of Slavelandia." But at least you make a "living" minum wage I guess putting Ramen Noodles on the store shelves.

A note with big companies, its a more complex forumla, whats the overhead costs, insurance, SS payments, cost of life, cost of chain supply, etc....along with giving incentives to hire the best talent and not losing them to others. You also want companies to grow, create more jobs and not go bankrupt. You do know alot of big businesses go bankrupt right?
 
nostrum420 said:
No, everyone gets bumped up not just entry level. Otherwise employers will lose their management teams who will go take entry level positions elsewhere and make the same money for easier work
Click to expand...
Ok, at least it’s consistent then. But would these employers not just raise costs of goods/services to account for increased employee costs?
 
ax1 said:
The big issue is how this all translates to middle class businesses. With what you propose the regulations are only going to weed out the small competition and benefit the bigs in the long run.

With what you propose, this entire country is going transform into one huge Walmart from coast to coast and rename the US to "The Republic of Slavelandia." But at least you make a "living" minum wage I guess putting Ramen Noodles on the store shelves.

A note with big companies, its a more complex forumla, whats the overhead costs, insurance, SS payments, cost of life, cost of chain supply, etc....along with giving incentives to hire the best talent and not losing them to others. You also want companies to grow, create more jobs and not go bankrupt. You do know alot of big businesses go bankrupt right?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm gonna need some proof because there were waaaaay more small businesses in the 50s-70s
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok, at least it’s consistent then. But would these employers not just raise costs of goods/services to account for increased employee costs?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the price increases are generally nominal ie to get everyone at McDonald's up to $15/hr, it increases the cost of the average big Mac by like $0.75.
 
nostrum420 said:
Yes, but the price increases are generally nominal ie to get everyone at McDonald's up to $15/hr, it increases the cost of the average big Mac by like $0.75.
Click to expand...
So you’re claiming that price increases won’t be the same magnitude as wage increases, meaning that the net result is the average worker has more “buying power,” even though goods cost more?
 
ax1 said:
Yeah, and I’m trying to stop it from getting worse.
Click to expand...

So, let's go back to the way things were done at that time where workers got a bigger piece of the pie, min wage was higher as compared to the buying power of the dollar, the super wealthy and big business paid a little more and Gov bribes and monopolies were illegal.
 
Last edited:
nostrum420 said:
So, let's go back to the way things were done at that time where workers got a bigger piece of the pie, min wage was higher as compared to the buying power of the dollar, the super wealthy and big business paid a little more and Gov bribes and monopolies were illegal.
Click to expand...

Why dont you try to start a group and build a business and pay people $25 to start with no qualifications or work experience and try to expand with all the extra money you make and create even more worthless jobs that pay alot for nothing?

Or why dont poor people get together and build an Amish like community and create their own economies?
 
nostrum420 said:
the super wealthy and big business paid a little more and Gov bribes and monopolies were illegal.
Click to expand...

What your doing is setting it up where big companies would love minimum wage to go up to further screw the little guy and make them all slaves to their corporation. Its a disaster.
 
nostrum420 said:
the super wealthy and big business paid a little more and Gov bribes and monopolies were illegal.
Click to expand...

Are you voting for Bitten? Im guessing your are and a BIG RRRFFFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL because of nothing but hypocrisy on your part.

If your not then please disregard above, lol
 
ax1 said:
Why dont you try to start a group and build a business and pay people $25 to start with no qualifications or work experience and try to expand with all the extra money you make and create even more worthless jobs that pay alot for nothing?

Or why dont poor people get together and build an Amish like community and create their own economies?
Click to expand...

I did make my own company and I pay myself about that much.

Plenty of poor people form black markets in order to have their work value more equitably shared with them.
 
nostrum420 said:
I did make my own company and I pay myself about that much.

Plenty of poor people form black markets in order to have their work value more equitably shared with them.
Click to expand...

We need more than of that, thats for sure ... and getting this corrupt fascist government out of the way of the people so we can all grow including you.
 
ax1 said:
We need more than of that, thats for sure ... and getting this corrupt fascist government out of the way of the people so we can all grow including you.
Click to expand...

So that we can be ruled by corrupt, fascist corporations, instead! 🙌 🙌
 
nostrum420 said:
So that we can be ruled by corrupt, fascist corporations, instead! 🙌🙌
Click to expand...

Governments role is to protect peoples liberties and freedoms and can act as a referee (the courts for example) when some go out of line. Then you have States regulate everything else within the framework of the US Constitution.

We will never live in a perfect world, but this system is probably the least worst of them all.
 
nostrum420 said:
You don't think the corporate masters will be able to hire more guys with better equipment?
Click to expand...

Hey, the US Military has the most powerful weaponry in the world and they still havent beaten the Caveman after 19 years the other side of the world. Crap, couldnt beat out jungle tree chewers a few decades earlier too.
 
nostrum420 said:
You don't think the corporate masters will be able to hire more guys with better equipment?
Click to expand...

On another thought, we have National Guard and an incredible policing system. We as a people can grow the power of the Militias or join the forces or become "good" police. Balance is beautiful.
 
ax1 said:
Governments role is to protect peoples liberties and freedoms and can act as a referee (the courts for example) when some go out of line. Then you have States regulate everything else within the framework of the US Constitution.

We will never live in a perfect world, but this system is probably the least worst of them all.
Click to expand...

I think the states should be free to set different numbers based on their different costs of living but required by the federal gov to show that the wage they've set as the min is a living wage for their state. If not, no federal contracts for that state.
 
ax1 said:
On another thought, we have National Guard and an incredible policing system. We as a people can grow the power of the Militias or join the forces or become "good" police. Balance is beautiful.
Click to expand...

What you're describing sounds more like chaos than balance.
 
nostrum420 said:
I think the states should be free to set different numbers based on their different costs of living but required by the federal gov to show that the wage they've set as the min is a living wage for their state. If not, no federal contracts for that state.
Click to expand...

Thats a far smarter and fair idea and a great direction with the Fed refereeing the states. Thats what should have been done with this recent "bailout (ROFL!)" having a flat $600 unemployment nationwide was just silly. You can do far more in Wyoming than NY with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top