Economic geniuses, all of them

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I was going to snip the article past its lede but...

kpete (31,390 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

SF becomes first US city to top $10 minimum wage

By BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press – Mon Dec 12, 9:21 am ET
SAN FRANCISCO – David Frias works two minimum-wage jobs to squeak by in one of the most expensive cities in America.

Come New Year's Day, he'll have a few more coins in his pocket as San Francisco makes history by becoming the first city in the nation to scale a $10 minimum wage. The city's hourly wage for its lowest-paid workers will hit $10.24, more than $2 above the California minimum wage and nearly $3 more than the working wage set by the federal government.

It won't put much more in Frias' wallet. But it gives him a sense of moving on up.

"It's a psychological boost," said Frias, who is a 34-year-old usher at a movie theater and a security guard for a crowd control firm. "It means that I'll have more money in my wallet to pay my bills and money to spend in the city to help the economy."

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111212/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sf_minimum_wage

 

1. You're 34 y/o and haven't found a way on to even the lowest rungs of the management ladder that mere longevity alone should be able to provide...what did you do wrong?

2. Crowd control security? In SF? During the OWS crackdown.

I'm not judging. In fact you could earn better than $10/hour from decent, civilized people who would tip you.

3. Did you ever wonder that the MW was suppressing your wages because your employer has to pay extra for vendors and services so he isn't passing that on to you?

EvolveOrConvolve (3,566 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

2. That's great and all

But have you seen the cost of living in SF? At $10.24/hr, you're probably living in a homeless shelter or sharing a two bedroom apartment with 13 other people.

Meanwhile, cities without this absurd rate DON'T have that problem.

RUMMYisFROSTED (30,493 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

3. 40% shy for that great city.

It's a start?

24601 (1,826 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

4. Only $10.24 per hour? It's an outrage. With all

the rich dudes there - take their wealth and pay everyone else no less than $70 per hour.

Pictured above: Sal "Big Sal" Gaspucci, worth $70/hour...minimum

Freddie Stubbs (27,578 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

7. How do you fund it after you have taken all of the rich dude's wealth?

I swear the lights dimmed from all the alerts going off.

Shoe Horn (83 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail

5. This will attract and retain the working poor.

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 11:00 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Unlike some other towns I could mention that priced themselves right out of the very people who are the blood, sweat and tears that RUN THE CITY.

Priorities.
We can live okay without billionaires, we cannot do the same minus the garbage men!
 

Slightly misleading photo. Its from Chicago and is tagged under "inauguration." I don't know if it's Obama's or Rahm's but obviously democrats are slobs and this photo is about a less-than-usual event.

That being said: this won't attract anyone as taxes and prices continue to rise. If economics was a simple matter of people passing money to each other we could all earn $100/hr. and call it good, but the world doesn't work like that because some people--most people--aren't worth $100/hour.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141561

[NHSparky]

An average one bedroom apartment in San Freaksicko goes for just under $1900/month.  A two bedroom place is pushing $2400/month.

http://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/

So, at $10/hour, that means our fair friend only has to work (assuming 1.5 OT after 8 hours/day per CA law) 45 hours per week.

Oh, but wait--that was AFTER taxes.  Shit.  Let's recalculate.  To bring home $475 a week you'd have to gross a little over $650 a week, meaning you're now up to 57 hours per week.  That's for RENT.

Now throw in food, vehicle/transporation, utilities, entertainment, phone, and other basic necessities of another $1000/month, or $350/week before taxes.  That means our intrepid loser has to pull in $1000/week, or work the equivalent of 80 hours/week in the liberal shithole known as San Freaksicko.

$52,000 a year for a job that is barely starvation level survival in Blue City hell.  I know a lot of places where one can live quite well on that kind of coin.

[vesta111]

An average one bedroom apartment in San Freaksicko goes for just under $1900/month.  A two bedroom place is pushing $2400/month.

http://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/

So, at $10/hour, that means our fair friend only has to work (assuming 1.5 OT after 8 hours/day per CA law) 45 hours per week.

Oh, but wait--that was AFTER taxes.  Shit.  Let's recalculate.  To bring home $475 a week you'd have to gross a little over $650 a week, meaning you're now up to 57 hours per week.  That's for RENT.

Now throw in food, vehicle/transporation, utilities, entertainment, phone, and other basic necessities of another $1000/month, or $350/week before taxes.  That means our intrepid loser has to pull in $1000/week, or work the equivalent of 80 hours/week in the liberal shithole known as San Freaksicko.

$52,000 a year for a job that is barely starvation level survival in Blue City hell.  I know a lot of places where one can live quite well on that kind of coin.

Minimum Wage has a problem.  One finds that when working at a job that starts at $5.00 and hour and gets a $.50  raise the first year, new hires are paid at $5.75 ph.    Goes on, the longer the worker , the less money they get then new hires. It may take a year or so of work to get the raise someone walking in the door is hired at.

Drove me nuts when I found out a 20 year worker was making just 25 cents an hour more  then myself a new hire.

As the minimun wage went up the long time workers that made that wage had to watch as new workers came in making the same wage they had worked for for years. --Worse was we had to train them.

Interesting that when the minmum wage went up. it never had a place for long time workers-----a new worker that had no idea of the operations were paid  in some cases the same of a 5 year worker.   

[Texacon]

"It's a psychological boost," said Frias, who is a 34-year-old usher at a movie theater and a security guard for a crowd control firm. "It means that I'll have more money in my wallet to pay my bills and money to spend in the city to help the economy."

How long will it take this genious to figure out that the cost of goods and services are going to rise due to this so he won't have the extra money he thinks he's going to have?

KC

[NHSparky]

Newsflash, vesta--this story is horseshit.  My illustration was merely proof of same.

Less than 3 1/2 million people work full-time at minimum wage, and in most of those cases, they are combined with other income streams into the family.  Minimum wage was NEVER meant to be a subsistence or living wage--it was a starting point, a stepping stone to higher paying and better jobs once one became more skilled and educated.

Of course, if one chooses not to seek out those opportunities and is stuck at the bottom of the ladder, this is whose fault, exactly?

[jukin]

Liberal doctrine will always bring about the two tiered social-economic strata. San Francisco and NYC are a gleaming examples.

Make it very expensive to build anything and the housing prices and rent will soar.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Exactly jukin.  Every program they want to have to 'Help' the poor, ends up keeping them poor, because it incentivizes staying eligible for the benefits rather than climbing the steep hill out of poverty and moving up under your own power.

[NHSparky]

Liberal doctrine will always bring about the two tiered social-economic strata. San Francisco and NYC are a gleaming examples.

Make it very expensive to build anything and the housing prices and rent will soar.

Actually, it goes even deeper than that.  NYC, SF, and other liberal havens demand "affordable" housing and achieve at best token success by the creation of rent controlled properties, etc.

So what happens?  Landlords don't do shit for maintenance (or minimal at best) on the rent control properties, and make up the difference in rent on other properties, creating a system where you have a few relatively affordable units which never have any turnover, and outrageous properties--think $4500/mo for a 1-bedroom (700 sq. ft.) in midtown Manhattan.