LogFAQs > #950007152

Balrog0 posted...

You're the one oversimplifying things. Like I said already, making a certain percentage of the minimum wage or the prevailing wage isn't what's meaningful. What's meaningful is what you can get with your money. The research is pretty clear that low wage workers, including those making above the minimum wage, benefit based on that standard.

Would you like me to show you some of the best research in the area? I would be happy to share it with you.

You show you dont know what are talking about with each post. Going to websites that promote raising the minimum wage doesn't change the math on the current salary value of one's job today and its value after the finalized wage increase.

Even your terrible argument isn't mathematically sound. 1500/month in bills to someone who makes 1000/month has a different affect on a second individual who makes 1500/month. The cost of bills affects the lower income worker more.

Your argument that everyone benefits equally or that salaries of jobs were not devalued for individuals who do not see the same exact percentage of a wage increase is mathematically false. It just is.

Your argument tries to falsely argue for example you can give one person making 7 an hour, an 8 dollar raise. While the 2nd person making 15 an hour getting a 3 dollar raise means both parties benefited equally since they both got "something." That's mathematically not true.

Piggybacking off the already argument used earlier.
Your argument falsely tries to argue Person X's $5 raised to $10 wage, and Person Z's whos wage goes from 10 to 15 is an equal raise. You incorrectly argue that the latter didn't see their job become less valuable. This is mathematically incorrect. You cant word your way out of the math, you can only delude yourself, or try to argue feelings to distract from the fact that Person Zs job is valued 50% less.

Person Z formerly made 2 times more than than Person X, when the gap was 5 and 10. Now the gap is 10 and 15 which means Person Z now makes 1.5 more than Person X. Your argument that Person Zs job didn't become less in value is literally mathematically false.

You are promoting this kumbaya argument to offset mathematically, peoples job values will factually see less value if they do not see the same exact percentile increase in their wage.

Your argument would be entirely different if you were saying you don't care about the gap closing between Person X and Z. However you are trying to spin the math when you are mathematically just plain wrong. Person Z in that scenario had the value of their job decrease when the gap between someone who made less closed by any percentage.

There's literally nothing you can show that changes the math that the gap between the workers has closed some and someone job has became less valuable. Instead of Person Z making double the minimum wage, they now make less than double. You only have just kumbaya talk, andor I dont give a shit talk that tap dances around the math on Person Zs salary valued less than what it used to be which was formerly 2 time above minimum wage, now only 1.5 times more.