Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans insist 500k is a bigger number than 16.5 million (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To anything, there's always a trade-off. (6+ / 0-)

    Helping 16.5 million while temporarily inconveniencing 500,000 seems like a decent trade-off.

    :) the above thoughts come from a crazy mind. ;)

    by Shreve on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:30:29 PM PST

    •  16.5 million is a hell of lot of people. But (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, kalika, Sparhawk, nextstep

      I wouldn't label it an "inconvenience" to the 500k.  To them its a fucking disaster.

      If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

      by thestructureguy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:40:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  General minimum wage principle. (11+ / 0-)

        Having ANY minimum wage reduces the total amount of jobs, with the upside of benefiting the remaining people who work.

        The questions we need to be asking are:

        * What policy goals do we want the minimum wage to accomplish?

        * What hourly wage would accomplish those policy goals?

        My proposed answers:

        * The minimum wage should ensure that anyone who works full-time is above the poverty line for a 3-person household. Say, 110% of poverty.

        * "Full-time" should be defined as 32 hours a week, with mandatory overtime for anything above 32 hours. (This would push business to hire more currently-unemployed people, instead of working their current people more.)

        The federal poverty level for a 3-person household for 2014 is $19,790. Multiply by 110%, divide by 50 weeks a year (figuring 2 weeks off for illness of worker & kids & elderly relatives, teacher conferences, transportation issues, etc.), divide by 32 hours a week, and you get the HeyMikey minimum wage: $13.60 an hour.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:58:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, this would probably result (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in a net gain of available jobs right away, as people drop their second or third jobs. Also, I haven't read the report, but I'm assuming that that 500k is job equivilants, not actual jobs, so in a lot of cases it would be people losing some hours while still making as much or more overall.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site