Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (106823)	6/6/2001 10:55:54 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Here's your post... and clicking on him gets his.... your continued rant after his post makes no sense to me but whatever: Message 15890651 <Are you with us now? If not, well...we've moved on.> Oh, PLEASE DO move on.... DAK

To: flatsville who wrote (106823)	6/6/2001 11:39:13 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

I assume if they are that age (20+) and working a minimum wage job they could likely not be students. You can't assume that. Not everyone graduates from college by the time they're nineteen or leaves to go the NBA right out of high school. Your arguments are patently dishonest since many of those students are working minimum wage. In fact, if you just extend the age to 24 when many students are in their last year of grad school, you'll find that the over-24 demographic comprise only 42% of the minimum wage workers. If one adds the seniors, many of whom are retired or semi-retired, this demographic falls further. The latter group often is working to get health insurance coverage. Raising compensation costs will not help this subgroup. Another thing Les didn't consider is just because a worker is counted as working part time does not mean they are not responsible for minor dependent children. Many minimum wage earners work more that one part time minimum wage job because they can't get 40 hours a week from their primary minimum wage job employer because the employer does not want to give full time hours so the business can avoid the incidence of overtime and a benefits requirement. That situation is not uncommon and forces them to work multiple part time jobs. The total for these people could well exceed 40+ hours in reality. So a person working two minimum wage jobs would look like part time worker and be counted as such. You can't assume that people working second jobs are working for the same or better pay than their first jobs. In the vast majority, they are lower pay. They may be working second jobs for meet current expenses, to work off heavy debts, to save additional money, or their schedule doesn't accomodate a full-time first job. Of the 11.8 million workers (10.1% of the workforce) that would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised to $6.15 per hour seventy-two percent of these workers are adults (age 20 and older) and 59.2% are female. This is a very different population than what you beleive it to be. Just tack on "head of household" to a good portion of that 59.2% female and you'll have a clearer picture of what this looks like. I don't doubt that many of these workers are are living "at home" with two or three other families because they can't afford to live anywhere else I think you can look up for yourself the demographic for single female head-of-household and find that tacking on a good portion is not very accurate. In fact, your demographic will drop below 10% from the data I've seen online from government sources. But since you're just hand-waving and flailing with ridiculuous assumptions, I'll leave it up to you.