A Livable Minimum Wage

[iceaura]

Only prices are factored into cost of living, not the costs of money itself.

You seem to be confusing the consumer price index with the cost of living.

No one is required to go into debt. That happens due to bad decisions.

The wealthy never have to borrow money to meet minimum living expenses. The poor often do.
And then there's education, housing, and the like - very often debt is the best decision, given the choices faced. It can even be the lowest cost decision.

Again, not in price.

Quite often in price, as noted above. Always in total cost.

Rich people have a lower minimum cost of living than poor people - this is just a fact. They have the resources to always get the best deals, have the money up front to buy durability and lower maintenance down the road, and so forth. They can always choose the lowest cost option, for everything.

 

[billvon]

No one is required to go into debt. That happens due to bad decisions.

Well, no. It is certainly true that no one is required to go into debt. But going into debt to avoid death by starvation is a good decision, not a bad one. And in many cases, going into debt to be able to afford an education is another good decision (as long as things like predatory lending and loan fraud are controlled, of course.)

 

[Vociferous]

You seem to be confusing the consumer price index with the cost of living.

Both the COL and the CPI factor in the price of goods and services. But while COL factors more than that, it doesn't factor the cost of money. Since the prices of good are largely the same across the country, CPI is more a measure of inflation than regional cost of living.

The wealthy never have to borrow money to meet minimum living expenses. The poor often do.
And then there's education, housing, and the like - very often debt is the best decision, given the choices faced. It can even be the lowest cost decision.

No one has to borrow to survive.
Since the cost of housing in included in the COL, a lower mortgage than rent is a good thing.

Quite often in price, as noted above. Always in total cost.

Rich people have a lower minimum cost of living than poor people - this is just a fact. They have the resources to always get the best deals, have the money up front to buy durability and lower maintenance down the road, and so forth. They can always choose the lowest cost option, for everything.

You're "total cost" is not a COL factor, and you haven't given any examples of actual price difference between rich and poor.

Well, no. It is certainly true that no one is required to go into debt. But going into debt to avoid death by starvation is a good decision, not a bad one. And in many cases, going into debt to be able to afford an education is another good decision (as long as things like predatory lending and loan fraud are controlled, of course.)

No one in the US has to go into debt to avoid starvation.
College debt has become more a liability than the education.
Again, bad decisions, like racking up major debt for a useless degree.

 

[billvon]

No one in the US has to go into debt to avoid starvation.

==============================
THE COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO ARE STARVING IN SILENCE
Colleges are beginning to address food insecurity on campus, but byzantine government regulations and impossible criteria are making it difficult for hungry students to get ahead.
KIMBERLY YAVORSKI
JUL 6, 2017

• Pacific Standard

The image of the hungry college student is a familiar one, with late-night ramen meals nearly as ubiquitous as the infamous all-nighter study session. But that scene is a comparatively benign one: Many of these students are unaware they have classmates who regularly skip meals because they lack the funds to buy food.

https://psmag.com/education/college-students-starving-in-silence
===========================

Again, bad decisions, like racking up major debt for a useless degree.

So in your world, education does not improve one's future earning potential?

 

[Vociferous]

The image of the hungry college student is a familiar one, with late-night ramen meals nearly as ubiquitous as the infamous all-nighter study session. But that scene is a comparatively benign one: Many of these students are unaware they have classmates who regularly skip meals because they lack the funds to buy food.

Going into debt, for college, and still going hungry seems to be multiple bad decisions.

So in your world, education does not improve one's future earning potential?

Not all degrees are equally marketable or ensure ability to pay off debt.

 

[billvon]

Not all degrees are equally marketable or ensure ability to pay off debt.

I didn't claim that. I said that sometimes going into debt to get a level of education is a very good decision.

If someone needed to borrow in order to get a degree in electrical engineering from Stanford, vs. getting a service industry job immediately with a high school education, what would you advise them? (assuming of course that they had been admitted at Stanford, were capable and a loan was available to them)

 

[iceaura]

No one has to borrow to survive.

Poor people faced with medical costs, eviction (raises death rate), and so forth, do.

Going into debt, for college, and still going hungry seems to be multiple bad decisions.

Not for poor people - the benefits of credentials can add not only quality but years to their lives and the lives of their children, families, etc. Poverty damages one's health.

You're "total cost" is not a COL factor, and you haven't given any examples of actual price difference between rich and poor.

Of course I have. The 5% discount my dentist allows for immediate payment in full, for example. The price difference between bulk purchase and incremental purchase of all kinds of things - from socks to peanut butter. The discounts available on sale items and in season stockups - to those with the ready cash at the right time. The lower prices available from retailers in nicer neighborhoods, on almost any consumer good. These are all mentioned above, as well as being perfectly obvious to everyone here including you.

 

[Vociferous]

I didn't claim that.

So we agree that not all education improves one's future earning potential.

Again, bad decisions, like racking up major debt for a useless degree.

So in your world, education does not improve one's future earning potential?

And your reply to this was a straw man.

I said that sometimes going into debt to get a level of education is a very good decision.

I don't remember arguing against that. Oh right, I didn't.

If someone needed to borrow in order to get a degree in electrical engineering from Stanford, vs. getting a service industry job immediately with a high school education, what would you advise them? (assuming of course that they had been admitted at Stanford, were capable and a loan was available to them)

Depends on their current finances and the years necessary to repay that debt in that career.

Poor people faced with medical costs, eviction (raises death rate), and so forth, do.

Yes, someone could, very rarely, have their home taken to settle a medical debt. Debt can't evict renters.

Not for poor people - the benefits of credentials can add not only quality but years to their lives and the lives of their children, families, etc. Poverty damages one's health.

So going a little hungry is a reasonable price to pay. Okay.

Of course I have. The 5% discount my dentist allows for immediate payment in full, for example. The price difference between bulk purchase and incremental purchase of all kinds of things - from socks to peanut butter. The discounts available on sale items and in season stockups - to those with the ready cash at the right time. The lower prices available from retailers in nicer neighborhoods, on almost any consumer good. These are all mentioned above, as well as being perfectly obvious to everyone here including you.

Those discounts and bulk prices are the same for rich or poor. Good decisions can still allow the poor to take advantage of the same opportunities. Decisions that allow people to eventually move out of poverty.
Wait. There's better prices in nicer neighborhoods? Maybe you should get out more.

 

[billvon]

I don't remember arguing against that. Oh right, I didn't.

You said that needing to go into debt was a result of bad decisions. That is often not true. There are a large number of people who made GOOD decisions to go into debt.

Depends on their current finances and the years necessary to repay that debt in that career.

Your refusal to answer says volumes.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, someone could, very rarely, have their home taken to settle a medical debt. Debt can't evict renters.

C'mon, it wasn't that difficult a sentence - here, try again:
Your false assertion: "No one has to borrow to survive."
The obvious response of a couple of examples: "Poor people faced with medical costs, eviction (raises death rate), and so forth, do."

Those discounts and bulk prices are the same for rich or poor.

But the rich can always take advantage of them, and the poor sometimes cannot - thereby incurring higher living costs.

Good decisions can still allow the poor to take advantage of the same opportunities.

Not always. With the rich, it's always. Hence their lower minimum cost of living.

Wait. There's better prices in nicer neighborhoods? Maybe you should get out more.

Often. And if you didn't know that, consider yourself informed.

Meanwhile, you missed the point: wherever and whenever the better prices are, the rich can buy there and then - they have time and transportation and cash, always. So they have the lowest minimum cost of living there can be. The poor must pay more.

 

[Vociferous]

You said that needing to go into debt was a result of bad decisions.

Yep, and the context of that statement was poor people who are notorious for bad decisions and usually can't keep up with their debt (compounding their problems).

That is often not true. There are a large number of people who made GOOD decisions to go into debt.

Never said otherwise.

Your refusal to answer says volumes.

So if the debt of a Stanford education would keep someone from buying a house, and perhaps starting a family, you'd still advise it?
If they already had bad finances, more debt isn't going to help that. And they could also be advised to attend a cheaper university.
Lots of factors to consider.

Overall, 83% of non-home owners said they believe that student loan debt has delayed them from buying a home — and that figure is higher among older millennials (those born between 1980 and 1989) and people who have more than $70,000 in student loan debt.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...nnial-homeownership-by-seven-years-2017-09-18​

But your desire for simple answers is telling.

C'mon, it wasn't that difficult a sentence - here, try again:
Your false assertion: "No one has to borrow to survive."
The obvious response of a couple of examples: "Poor people faced with medical costs, eviction (raises death rate), and so forth, do."

Medical debt is not borrowing. Although there seems to be quite an industry to getting people to borrow against their homes to pay it off, so the bank does the dirty work.

But the rich can always take advantage of them, and the poor sometimes cannot - thereby incurring higher living costs.

Not a factor in cost of living calculations.

Not always. With the rich, it's always. Hence their lower minimum cost of living.

Not a factor in cost of living calculations.

Often. And if you didn't know that, consider yourself informed.

Really? More expensive neighborhoods, with higher overhead, somehow manage to sell the same goods cheaper?
In what reality, sir?

Meanwhile, you missed the point: wherever and whenever the better prices are, the rich can buy there and then - they have time and transportation and cash, always. So they have the lowest minimum cost of living there can be. The poor must pay more.

Again, not a factor in cost of living calculations.
And the glaring omission here is that the rich DON'T maintain the minimum standard of living. Their standard is much higher, and easily dwarfs that of the poor, even with the interest they may pay on their money and opportunities they miss.
I think I've chewed on this red herring long enough.

 

[billvon]

Yep, and the context of that statement was poor people who are notorious for bad decisions and usually can't keep up with their debt (compounding their problems). . . . .Never said otherwise.

Ah, so you think that there are cases where going into debt is a good decision overall. In that case, I agree.

Note that there are plenty of people who went into debt for quite good reasons, only to have something outside their control change (illness, family problems, economic downturn) leaving them in debt with no way to pay it off. It is an unfortunate side effect of using lending in that way.

So if the debt of a Stanford education would keep someone from buying a house, and perhaps starting a family, you'd still advise it?

I would advise them to get the degree, rent an apartment for a short time, then buy a house when their greater income allowed them to do so. At that point, buying a home and raising a family will be much easier financially, as a result of that debt and education.

I suspect you would do the same in the real world.

 

[iceaura]

Really? More expensive neighborhoods, with higher overhead, somehow manage to sell the same goods cheaper?
In what reality, sir?

You have been informed of a fact. It's part of your reality, of which you were apparently unaware.
And it's not even critical - if prices were lower in poor neighborhoods, the rich could shop there (that's one reason they aren't - the stores catering to the wealthy aren't run by fools).

Medical debt is not borrowing.

Now you're being stupid.

Not a factor in cost of living calculations.

Incompetence in calculating the cost of living is not a requirement of the calculation.

And the glaring omission here is that the rich DON'T maintain the minimum standard of living.

So?
Let's repeat the basic fact: the rich can, if they choose, live on less income than the poor require. Their minimum cost of living is lower.

 

[Vociferous]

Ah, so you think that there are cases where going into debt is a good decision overall. In that case, I agree.

Note that there are plenty of people who went into debt for quite good reasons, only to have something outside their control change (illness, family problems, economic downturn) leaving them in debt with no way to pay it off. It is an unfortunate side effect of using lending in that way.

Absolutely. Responsible people take on debt knowing the risks. They don't blame the rich or anyone else if it bites them.
If they didn't know the risk beforehand, they made a bad decision.

I would advise them to get the degree, rent an apartment for a short time, then buy a house when their greater income allowed them to do so. At that point, buying a home and raising a family will be much easier financially, as a result of that debt and education.

I suspect you would do the same in the real world.

Again, depends on their current finances. If they already have major debt, they need to learn to manage that before taking on another huge chuck of debt.
Employers in some higher-paying careers do pay attention to credit history when hiring.

You have been informed of a fact. It's part of your reality, of which you were apparently unaware.
And it's not even critical - if prices were lower in poor neighborhoods, the rich could shop there (that's one reason they aren't - the stores catering to the wealthy aren't run by fools).

No, I've been informed of your unsupported claim.
In what world would the rich shop in poor neighborhoods? To save money that is not an issue for them?
The gymnastics you require to prop up your view is astounding.

Now you're being stupid.

Oo, oo!

Incompetence in calculating the cost of living is not a requirement of the calculation.

You just don't seem to understand the term.

So?
Let's repeat the basic fact: the rich can, if they choose, live on less income than the poor require. Their minimum cost of living is lower.

Irrelevant and unrealistic red herring.
Oo, oo, oo!

 

[iceaura]

In what world would the rich shop in poor neighborhoods? To save money that is not an issue for them?

Why yes.
And points for the good joke, about money not being an issue for the wealthy.

You just don't seem to understand the term.

The cost of living? I'm not the one trying to claim having to pay higher prices and incur debt and fork over rent money and pay interest and take financial risks and so forth does not increase one's cost of living.

 

[billvon]

In what world would the rich shop in poor neighborhoods? To save money that is not an issue for them?

Uh - have you ever been out in the real world? The real world isn't like a Richie Rich cartoon, where rich people drive in golden limos to the millionaire grocery store. They go to Von's, and Target, and Sears. In fact, the way a lot of them BECAME rich is by making a lot more money than they were spending. Once you get in that habit - you continue it.

 

[Vociferous]

In what world would the rich shop in poor neighborhoods? To save money that is not an issue for them?

Why yes.

Again, in what world? Can you show me an example of such behavior? One that is not a vanishingly small number of eccentrics?

The cost of living? I'm not the one trying to claim having to pay higher prices and incur debt and fork over rent money and pay interest and take financial risks and so forth does not increase one's cost of living.

No, you're just denying all accepted definitions of "cost of living".

In what world would the rich shop in poor neighborhoods? To save money that is not an issue for them?

Uh - have you ever been out in the real world? The real world isn't like a Richie Rich cartoon, where rich people drive in golden limos to the millionaire grocery store. They go to Von's, and Target, and Sears. In fact, the way a lot of them BECAME rich is by making a lot more money than they were spending. Once you get in that habit - you continue it.

Straw man. Just because the same stores exist in richer and poorer neighborhoods does not mean the rich shop in poor neighborhoods. Everyone generally shops where they live.
Do any of those stores charge LESS for the same goods in a rich neighborhood than a poor one? That is iceaura's original claim. Only once he gave up that ridiculous assertion did he claim the rich shop in poor neighborhoods.

 

[iceaura]

No, you're just denying all accepted definitions of "cost of living".

I am making accurate and true statements about the minimum cost of living for rich and poor people.

Straw man. Just because the same stores exist in richer and poorer neighborhoods does not mean the rich shop in poor neighborhoods. Everyone generally shops where they live.

The poor must. The rich choose. The goods are priced accordingly.
And the cheapest stores are not even in the poorest neighborhoods, often.

Do any of those stores charge LESS for the same goods in a rich neighborhood than a poor one?

If they charge a different price at all - which most big chains avoid, for ad and efficiency reasons - it will usually be lower where the consumer has more choice and competition. Econ 101.

Meanwhile, we can take as granted the rest of the list: the bulk and sale timing discounts, the cost of debt, the tax liability control, the negotiation power savings, the total cost vs immediate payout quality edge, and all the rest.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think the term cost of living may be receiving different interpretations.

There term is firstly a technical one used in statistical analysis which is certainly different to the way I was using it...

If we extend the term to mean the actual cost of living as experienced by different people that will be different to the technical term.

If we use something like "the specific cost of living" or similar to talk about the reality of the difference between being rich or poor I would be surprised if there would be any disagreement to the proposition that for poor people "the specific cost of living" will be relatively higher for the poor simply because of their inability to buy on special, bulk buy or take advantage of special offers.

I am in the bush at the moment and thought of an example nearby.

The local country shop prices are expensive and if you are poor with no car, as many are, you are forced to buy your goods at the local shop and it is much more expensive that the larger town to the East.

If you have a car you buy better goods at a cheaper price by going to the small town to the East.

The cost of the car is saved easily.

I have spent fifty bucks at the local shop and seem to get very little but go East and you buy so much more.

Milk locally is $3-50 to the East $2-00...meat...forget it...and canned crap locally is over the top.

Same with booze.

I should make a price list comparison but at a guess I would say the difference probably is greater than I suspect but if you take milk that is near double...

I know from times I have not had good cash flow you just seem to be at a great disadvantage.

The statistics suggest its the same for everybody but I really think the real world certainly favors rich over poor.
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

I am making accurate and true statements about the minimum cost of living for rich and poor people.

No, you seem to be assuming that the rich would live with a "minimum standard of living" comparable to the poor. It's unrealistic and irrelevant.

The poor must. The rich choose. The goods are priced accordingly.
And the cheapest stores are not even in the poorest neighborhoods, often.

You keep saying that. Just noise. Oo, oo, oo!

If they charge a different price at all - which most big chains avoid, for ad and efficiency reasons - it will usually be lower where the consumer has more choice and competition. Econ 101.

Really? The rich go for the same cheap brands that the poor do? There's the same competition for both bargain and premium brands?
More choice usually means higher quality, and priced, brands.

Meanwhile, we can take as granted the rest of the list: the bulk and sale timing discounts, the cost of debt, the tax liability control, the negotiation power savings, the total cost vs immediate payout quality edge, and all the rest.

Not factors in the coat of living calculation.