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....
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.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.
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???
come in? If you look at the math the difference is $3 an houra net difference of $6hr
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???
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 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.
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.
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.
11pm-8am is 9 hours
9am - 6pm is 9 hours
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.
Stop using the George Bush Republican Fuzzy math.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
A tiny bit, under 1 percent. Higher wages and higher wealth are complementary.
A tiny bit, under 1 percent. Higher wages and higher wealth are complementary.
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.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.