$15 an hour == $100k a year, Apparently.
$15 an hour == $100k a year, Apparently.
Apparently
40 comments
-
-
Lots of great comments in here but somehow no one brought up that the federal minimum wage is still only $7.25/hr.
-
Some moron on Facebook was talking about how Trump raised the minimum wage because major brands like Walmart started paying $15 an hour (or whatever specific amount) at the lowest they offer new hires. I told her that, no, that's not what "raising the minimum wage" means. She insisted that because of Trump's brilliant economic prowess it allowed these companies to pay more.
Like, yeah, turns out of the federal minimum wage is so low that basically no one wants to work for it then people need to pay more to get workers. (I'm aware people still work for the actual minimum wage in case that isn't somehow abundantly clear.)
-
-
People can work for less, under the table or via wage theft. Very common in the lowest tiers of sex work, in house cleaning services, and in the agricultural sector where human trafficking is common place
-
Lol that's amazing. And sad.
It's sad how little people know about how their world works. I always knew they knew less than they let on, but hoo boy are they just putting shit like this out there these days. Proudly ignorant.
I promise I'm raising my kids better. Almost done with the first! Shame there's such a gap between em though...
-
-
-
Could not get it through a coworker's head that there is something fundamentally wrong with expecting people to work at jobs lower than COL. They just say that person should get a better job if it doesn't pay bills... Not everyone gets that opportunity.
Fuck you-got mine mindset.
-
They're just admitting that they think that the folk who put their food on the shelves, answer phones for them and clean the facilities don't deserve a good life.
They have no problem being served by capitalism's underclass.
-
They just say that person should get a better job if it doesn’t pay bills…
And someone else will have to fill the position they left behind.
People who argue that certain jobs don't merit a living wage are just admitting that they believe society is dependent upon the economic exploitation of a permanent underclass. This is the same exact argument the pro-slavery movement made prior to the Civil War.
-
-
365 days a year * 24 hours a day * $15 = $131,400. So their estimate was short by $31,000, but it was just an estimate! Stop making fun of them for being a little wrong in their math.
-
Who needs to sleep anyways!
-
365.25 days * 18 hours, 15 minutes and 14 seconds * $15 = $100,000
Since the average human can stay alive for extended periods with 5 hours of sleep per night, there is nearly 45 minutes of free time per day included where the employees can take toilet breaks and eat! What a great job actually.
-
-
People opposed to a living wage honestly don't give a shit about the math.
They're not thinking. They're just regurgitating something they saw on social media or their preferred news agency.
-
Maybe it's just an own-goal admitting it costs $100k a year to live wherever they do.
-
If that guy could read, he'd be super mad you called him out.
-
He could read the
conservativesgrifters arguing against a livable wage just fine.
-
-
-
I'm wondering if genius twitter here didn't negociate an hour rate that he thought would get him in the 6 figures club and is learning that... hell no it won't!
-
Would actually get quality service at that price.
-
The rule of thumb is super easy: 2x hourly rate = yearly income in thousands. How can someone screw up this badly?
40 comments
$100k a year at 40 hours a week is $48.08 an hour, which might be even easier to see how far off of reality they are.
I'd vote for that as min wage
Generally everyone has two weeks off so I use $/h * 2000 to get earnings pre tax, or 15(50*40). There are also
sick daysmental health days and bank holidays, so it could be better, but 2,000 is such a nice numberI wouldn't go quite that high right off the bat, but...
Just peg a full time, min wage, locally (metro area locally), to
1/33x (EDIT, whoops, mathed backwards) the median price of renting a studio apartment.Would this be an economically perfect policy?
Fuuuuck no.
Would this actually enable, at least theoretically, an 18 yo kicked out of the family house upon high school graduation, as is the cultural norm in most of America, to actually be at least theoretically capable of providing for themselves and starting their own life?
Again, assuming jobs actually exist, yes.
This would be the bare minimum needed to make the insanely out off touch asshole boomer logic even mildly line up with reality.
...
For my next policy:
All those with student loan debt, where those students were goaded into that student debt by their parents saying they'd never have a good paying career without a college education, where those students have also been underemployed (a job or jobs not actually crtitically reliant on their degree) for a period of 5 years or more...
Congrats students! That debt is now dischargable in a bankruptcy, and it becomes the responsibility of said parents, for whom it is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Unrealistic?
Yes.
Fundamentally legally impossible?
Also probably yes.
... Morally correct, in spirit?
Oh, oh hell yes, yes.
...
For my third policy:
Graduated municipal landlord taxes based on how much a landlord charges a rental tenant for rent, in addition to existing property taxes.
If you are renting out a property for say, double area median rent for comparable sq ft, num bedrooms, etc? Well, now the landlord pays additional tax on that exorbitant rent.
Doesn't totally murder the profit motive, but highly disincentivizes putting high value homes and condos on the market for rent (and would thus incentivize putting them on the market actually for sale, at a reasonable price), incentivizes building modest new apartment buildings instead of only 'luxury' apartments.
All the proceeds of this tax of course go into funding housing subsidies for the poor, or directly building new, municipally operated, non profit apartment complexes.
... Just play the uno reverse card on the landlords, tax their rent extraction.
If you don't get paid time off do you have to take it? Up here in Canada most full time jobs (at least all the ones I've had) have two weeks paid vacation after the first year. Here's an Indeed article being way more clear than I could be.
Min wage hourly doesn't come with guaranteed time off, but I think the pay gets added to each paycheck? Don't quote me, it's been ages since I was an hourly guy.
After m'roads?