SF becomes first US city to top $10 minimum wage

[cybrsage]

Minimum living wage should be based on the area where the person lives. $8 an hour is more than enough in some areas while $40 an hour is not enough to live in Manhattan.

 

[dmcowen674]

Holy shit - seriously??!! You don't just get to add hourly wages from both jobs together together to find out your net hourly wage.

Edit 1: Now - I really hope someone points out something I am missing because I feel like I HAVE to be missing something and that no one could really fail this badly at math. I have re-read the posts like 6 times looking for something that would explain this thought process...

Edit 2:I mean maybe if we are talking about the net difference made after he worked for 1 hour at each job? But it wouldn't make much sense as it would involve an arbitrairily picked time frame...

Edit:3 But then he says which isn't true so I don't know what the fuck is going on....

I know it's difficult for you Rich Republicans because you don't have to work so many hours like many Americans or even at all.

Many people like this guy go to work at 11pm to 8am and then work 2nd job 9am to 6pm so that is 16hrs a day. Each job at $10hr.

Any comprehension now???

 

[ShawnD1]

Minimum living wage should be based on the area where the person lives. $8 an hour is more than enough in some areas while $40 an hour is not enough to live in Manhattan.

This. Things like federal minimum wage are just stupid. $10/h in assfuck nowhere is good money, but $10/h in Los Angeles is extreme poverty. It should vary from city to city. If a city doesn't want a minimum wage, then that's fine too.

 

[Exterous]

I know it's difficult for you Rich Republicans because you don't have to work so many hours like many Americans or even at all.

Many people like this guy go to work at 11pm to 8am and then work 2nd job 9am to 6pm so that is 16hrs a day. Each job at $10hr.

Any comprehension now???

Ok - lets take your example:
11pm-8am is 9 hours
9am - 6pm is 9 hours
We will assume 1 hour unpaid
We end up with 16 hours of work at $7 an hour under the old wage and $10 an hour under the new wage:
7x16=$112
10x16=$160

The difference of pay is $48 for the day

Divide by the number of hours worked so:
48/16 = 3

Where does

a net difference of $6hr

come in? If you look at the math the difference is $3 an hour

 

[ShawnD1]

I know it's difficult for you Rich Republicans because you don't have to work so many hours like many Americans or even at all.

Many people like this guy go to work at 11pm to 8am and then work 2nd job 9am to 6pm so that is 16hrs a day. Each job at $10hr.

Any comprehension now???

And if he worked both a $7h and $10/h job, each for 8 hours per day, that would make his RMS wage = $8.63/h while his ripple wage is $1.50/h.

 

[momeNt]

I know it's difficult for you Rich Republicans because you don't have to work so many hours like many Americans or even at all.

Many people like this guy go to work at 11pm to 8am and then work 2nd job 9am to 6pm so that is 16hrs a day. Each job at $10hr.

Any comprehension now???

You have made me lose faith in America.

 

[dmcowen674]

Ok - lets take your example:
11pm-8am is 9 hours
9am - 6pm is 9 hours
We will assume 1 hour unpaid
We end up with 16 hours of work at $7 an hour under the old wage and $10 an hour under the new wage:
7x16=$112
10x16=$160

The difference of pay is $48 for the day

Divide by the number of hours worked so:
48/16 = 3

Where does come in? If you look at the math the difference is $3 an hour

Why do you keep the guy only at one job?

If only at the one job which went from $7 hr to $10hr then only $3 net gain but he is working two separate jobs.

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why do you keep the guy only at one job?

If only at the one job which went from $7 hr to $10hr then only $3 net gain but he is working two separate jobs.

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

He has the guy working 16 hours a day... what more do you want?

 

[momeNt]

Why do you keep the guy only at one job?

If only at the one job which went from $7 hr to $10hr then only $3 net gain but he is working two separate jobs.

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

Calling troll. There is no way the amount of math performed by others in this thread has not convinced you there is wrong.

 

[Exterous]

Why do you keep the guy only at one job?

If only at the one job which went from $7 hr to $10hr then only $3 net gain but he is working two separate jobs.

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

One job? I have him working at both:

11pm-8am is 9 hours
9am - 6pm is 9 hours

The first job is from 11pm-8am. The second job is from 9am-6pm

Both jobs are now paying him $10 per hour right?

Both jobs went from $7 per hour to $10 per hour right?

So.....

Job 1 making $7
8 hours of work x 7$ per hour = $56

Job 2 making $7
8 hours of work x $7 per hour = $56

Total for the 16 hours worked = $112

Now change that to $10 per hour
Job 1 making $10
8 hours of work x $10 per hour = $80

Job 2 making $10
8 hours of work x $10 per hour = $80

Total for the 16 hours worked = $160

$160-112 = 48
48/16 = 3

Feel free to show your math if you feel otherwise

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why do you keep the guy only at one job?

If only at the one job which went from $7 hr to $10hr then only $3 net gain but he is working two separate jobs.

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

So he's working both jobs simultaneously? Talk about fuzzy math.

 

[momeNt]

Testing out my sig thanks to this epic thread.

 

[ShawnD1]

Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.

Bush might be retarded but he does have his grade 12. He can do basic math

 

[dmcowen674]

One job? I have him working at both:



The first job is from 11pm-8am. The second job is from 9am-6pm

Both jobs are now paying him $10 per hour right?

Both jobs went from $7 per hour to $10 per hour right?

So.....

Job 1 making $7
8 hours of work x 7$ per hour = $56

Job 2 making $7
8 hours of work x $7 per hour = $56

Total for the 16 hours worked = $112

Now change that to $10 per hour
Job 1 making $10
8 hours of work x $10 per hour = $80

Job 2 making $10
8 hours of work x $10 per hour = $80

Total for the 16 hours worked = $160

$160-112 = 48
48/16 = 3

Feel free to show your math if you feel otherwise

Jeesh. OK, strip away all of it except the $3hr difference

If he worked one job for $3hr $24 for the day
The pay gets bumped $3 to $6 so add another $24

$6 worth of pay sure beats 3$.

Like I said you Rich Republican lackeys wouldn't know.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Maybe he is employed at one job while an independent contractor at another on the same site wearing two different hats. Double billable time!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Jeesh. OK, strip away all of it except the $3hr difference

If he worked one job for $3hr $24 for the day
The pay gets bumped $3 to $6 so add another $24

$6 worth of pay sure beats 3$.

Like I said you Rich Republican lackeys wouldn't know.

Ok using your math, $24 + $24 = $48. Now he worked 16 hours to get that $48. $48 divided by 16 = $3.

 

[drebo]

yes california has a problem with unemployment. This has more to do with our population growth then it does with $10 minimum wages in a expensive city.

And, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, a large part of the reason the city is so much more expensive than other places is BECAUSE of it's higher minimum wage?

 

[Exterous]

Jeesh. OK, strip away all of it except the $3hr difference

If he worked one job for $3hr $24 for the day
The pay gets bumped $3 to $6 so add another $24

$6 worth of pay sure beats 3$.

We are not discussing what beats a previous rate of pay. We are discussing how you came up with the additional $6 per hour figure - which I still have yet to see any math proving your claim

Like I said you Rich Republican lackeys wouldn't know.

Republican (or Democrat) has nothing to do with your currently unsupported claim about a $6 per hour increase. This is about Math

 

[bfdd]

lol @ craig saying higher wages = lower barrier to entry. seriously? you're a fucking moron craig. you have no idea why "lefty" areas do better. it's because they're generally "high tech" areas which demand lots of capital.

dmcowen, this is pretty funny btw not a lot of people are working two jobs, a lot of people aren't working a single job.

 

[Craig234]

And, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, a large part of the reason the city is so much more expensive than other places is BECAUSE of it's higher minimum wage?

A tiny bit, under 1 percent. Higher wages and higher wealth are complementary.

 

[Atreus21]

It's an incredibly competitive market for restaurants, and one of the few best places for dining in the country IMO (New York being the other leader).

Ahem.

 

[momeNt]

A tiny bit, under 1 percent. Higher wages and higher wealth are complementary.

Has Krugman and other Keynesians taught you nothing of cost push inflation?

 

[Atreus21]

There are times when I wish I could get a show of hands of people in the San Francisco city government who have taken a SINGLE MICROECON COURSE.

 

[matt0611]

A tiny bit, under 1 percent. Higher wages and higher wealth are complementary.

You have to look at more than nominal wages, you have to look at what the money can buy, you have to look at REAL wages.

The minimum wage is a terrible law that sounds great on the surface (yay! we'll just legislate ourselves higher wages!) but like all lefty ideas, is idiotic when examined in any detail.

I wonder what's taking so long for Africa to catch up with us, don't they know they can just enact a $15 minimum wage and presto! Instant prosperity!

 

[ShawnD1]

There are times when I wish I could get a show of hands of people in the San Francisco city government who have taken a SINGLE MICROECON COURSE.

How would that change their mind? The price of goods goes up 10% but the wage of the guy making the burger goes up by 50%. That sounds like a sweet deal to me. If someone offered me a 50% pay raise but said my taxes would go up 10%, I would totally be on-board with that idea.