I don't know how to interpret this in that context: is this proposal absurd, or is the medical / labor system in the US absurd? (or both??)
A $21/hr tax-free job minus driving costs is still equivalent to a $15/hr job. It's definitely not equivalent to a $21/hr job riding around in someone else's ambulance burning someone else's gas. And from what I'm seeing, residents make ~$60k/yr. That job is also a stepping stone to a much more lucrative profession.
That’s only if you believe in the fairy tale that Social Security and Medicare taxes (close to 15% including the employer’s side) go into a separate account and that those taxes don’t go into the same bucket as regular tax revenues.
Improving society and equalizing society can mean lifting everyone up, not keeping others down.
It's crazy to me that they feel taken advantage of, but decide the best option is to try and push down those who are even or below their pay grade, instead of focusing their sights higher at those at the top.
>While any one crab could easily escape, its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise.
Unfortunately, that's not exactly how things end up working in practice when it comes to pay because of a pesky little thing called inflation.
Inflation is amazing for debtors as it eats away at their debt over time, which is what happened for baby-boomers who were given the opportunity purchase property on credit during the long post-war US economic boom.
But if it will make you feel any better, the same argument holds for pediatrics residents, who will go on to make an average of about 135 after their decade-plus of training and loans.
Getting paid equally for both of those positions, regardless of future expectations, indicates that something might be off.
Think of it like grad school cranked to 11. More hours, harder entry requirements, bigger stipend, massive payoff at the end.
Is it really insane that people should get paid a living wage, regardless of whether it's a 'skilled job' or not?
And that is, in fact, insane, as it's contrary to the experience of anyone who has worked two jobs, shared a flat, budgeted, or otherwise been creative in making ends meet.
"Nuh uh, some people have been creative and survived under the current system!"
"Nope, because we care so much, your lifestyle is illegal."
Why can't that be a job you do on the side for a little extra cash on the weekends? Why does every job need to provide a "living wage"?
There was an article posted on HN a while back where they said the average franchise owner makes around $40K a year - and that’s with them working 60+ hours a week. Where is the money suppose to come from?
Usually when I ask this question, I get the response that those companies don’t deserve to exist. Which is saying a lot considering how many people on HN probably work for a money losing startup living off of VC funding.
Choose one: "yes", "I want to pay higher taxes so independent adults can survive on such a wage via government assistance", "people who work 40+ hours a week so I can eat cheap burgers do not deserve to live", "I would be okay with much slower service and business hours that don't intersect with school days, as well as high local unemployment and probably homelessness."
>Where is the money suppose to come from?
Raise prices or cut other costs. If that doesn't do it, well, perhaps they should listen to you and develop more marketable skills, right? I find it weird that you arbitrarily decided on a "skill threshold" where flipping burgers isn't deserving of a livable wage, but for some reason entrepreneurship is.
So the independent pizza shop owner doesn’t deserve to be in business since they have to actually be profitable but the startup founder who can lose money for a decade supported by granddaddy VC backer does?
And by the way, up until the current administration, every Republican and Democratic administration as well as most conservative and liberal economists has said that the best and least disruptive way to support a “livable wage” for heads of household is to increase the earned income tax credit. I would add make that a reverse payroll tax to make it easier for employers to distribute it to workers during the year. Yes, I’m okay with increased taxes if necessary.
That really helps “equality”...
https://news.crunchbase.com/news/untapped-opportunity-minori...
Is he working 40 hours a week? If so, then yes.
Are we better off if he can’t be in business and has to work for someone else?
If someone were to approach you on the street and ask you to do something for them that will take an hour of your time, what amount of money do you think would be a fair compensation for just the time expense? Now add to that the fact that it's not just an hour of someones time, it's also an hour of use of an expensive machine they own and maintain.
I've found that when minimum wage is thought of in this way, anything less than $20-25/hour sounds absurd.
It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.
Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?
The primary purpose of a business is to maximize profits for its stakeholders.
On average, educated people contribute more value to the functioning of society. I can drive myself around. I can't perform my own heart surgery.
The argument that all humans are inherently equally valuable is specious reasoning. I can come up with all sorts of trolly car conundrums that if you were forced to choose, you'd make a value judgement about which person to save because they have more value.
Some things are scarce resources and should be priced accordingly.
There are many ways to cover your basic needs that don't require you to live on your own in a one-bedroom apartment and three square meals a day. In fact, most of humanity survived by pooling resources. The ability to live entirely on your own being common is a very recent phenomena as is three square meals a day.
All your stating is that people shouldn't have options where they can pool resources. As someone supporting two older adults in my household, you're saying that if they can't get hold a livable wage jobs (unlikely given that one has Parkinson's) but still still could earn money and contribute to the household. You've not made my circumstances harder by legislating away opportunities for them to contribute.
Healthcare should be provided to all by the government for free, but until then we must live under the system.
Does the pizza owner also deserve an adequate return on investment to make his risk worthwhile or should he also work for minimum wage at a larger corporation?
Also, how do you classify “the rich”? People in the 90th percentile of household income? That would be approximately $130K a year.
Finally, only 15% of federal spending goes to the military. Most of our spending is already for social security, Medicare, education, retirement benefits, etc.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...
Social security and Medicare are funded directly via payroll taxes, they are not part of he general fund and you pay for them separately. Comparing them is like comparing medical insurance premiums or 401k savings to military spending.
No, they never had. In fact, 47% of the population doesn’t pay income taxes at all, just payroll taxes, which are capped rather than progressive (anti progressive, actually).
The government does borrow money via IOUs to fund things like military mostly, but they also borrow money via treasuries, are you saying China’s export surplus should be mixed with regular income taxes as well?
Once the tide turns and social security is running at a deficit, regular income tax will have to pay for social security. It’s all the same money.
It reduces the incentive to sacrifice other things for additional income once you've already reached the level at which the increased tax kicks in, yes.
Why is this a bad thing?
I reject both the concept and it's relevance; no marginal tax rate below 100% is an income ceiling, and setting marginal tax rates at particular levels neither requires nor implies that a single such “fair” amount exists.
> I bet the people living in the Midwest would love to tax the “liberal west coast elite” living in Silicon Valley 90%
I bet most of the low income population of the West Coast (and Bay Area in particular) would like that—and benefit from it, in terms of effects on local cost of living—more than anyone in the Midwest.
> Should 90% start at $150K? $200K?
I didn't actually endorse a 90% marginal rate for federal income tax; disagreeing with a particular argument against a thing isn't endorsing it.
If I were to propose rewriting marginal rates, I'd probably do something like drop the 32% bracket down to start at about the 90th individual income percentile (instead of about the 95th, where it is currently), and drop the existing higher brackets in favor of adding additional +8% brackets at the 95th, 97th, 98th, and 99th percentiles, topping out at a 64% rate.
But more important, I'd tax capital gains as normal income, with options for both advance recognition and deferment to handle irregular streams (whether from capital events or otherwise.)
https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what...
See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.
$3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent.
That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes).
I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered.
The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5.
Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?
When I was driving, I could make abut $1000 a week when working 60 hours.
$150 of that would be gas 35 would be insurance 15 would be oil changes $50 per week should be set aside for savings to reinvest into the vehicle in the form of proper maintenance.
the final number, $750 for working 60 hours 12.5/hr
Edit: From the proposal: "drivers would earn a minimum of approximately $21 per hour while on a trip, including the costs of their average expenses"
So yeah, it looks like it would only apply to time spent on a drive. I hope it at least includes the time it takes to get to a customer as well. I had an interesting conversation with a Lyft driver a while back who explained that if you're mainly moving people short distances in the suburbs, you're hardly breaking even. It would be neat if a pay structure could incentivise being available in lower-demand areas but I guess we're not there yet
I think we need to just be smarter about helping the poor. How about we get rid of income tax for people under the poverty level (or multiple there of)? How about we give them some basic income to make up the difference? We can tax more on the high side to make up the difference. Also, giving poor people more fluid income will likely increase the velocity of money which should make rich people richer negating any increased taxation.
Doctors work hard, and so does my barista making my coffee. But let's be honest: they shouldn't be paid the same simply because they both work hard.
The fully loaded rate is potentially much lower.
In my high CoL state, EMTs make roughly $15-$18.75/hr, work multiple back-to-back shifts and often nights.
So this wording is essentially fraudulent.
If you're talking fire department-based EMTs, then yes, but these make up a significant minority of EMTs who are often running on minimum wage and often given the bare minimum of health insurance.
Work out the cost per mile, and the average miles per hour, that number comes down quite a bit. Especially in places where car insurance is higher.
If they're going to be paid less, they need to be compensated elsewhere.
It doesn't take much schooling to become an "EMT". However with what they have to deal with and how essential the services are, they definitely should get paid more fairly.