Listen to Glenn because he's a CPA.

I spotted the following on my facebook feed this morning as I quickly scanned through the "facebook junk" (one of my friends lamented about Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement; it was a shallow lament, and the responses that followed were equally shallow) before starting my day. This was the original post that was posted by my peer regarding minimum wage:

Many pointed out it was flawed. It most likely is since it's a meme. But it wasn't the OP that stood out, it was the this response by a man named Glen:

Did you read what Kira wrote? I hope you did. Did you let it sink in? She talked about "basic economics" - sorta like common sense but not really, at least in her mind. I'm not sure what "American economic system" she was taught or read about because apparently, in her mind, the "American economic system" needs an unemployed class in order to function and at the same time the evils that are alive also don't want social programs that help these poor workers. Wait, I've seen this concept before. I find this rather ironic given what Glen said about memes. Kira implies that the American economic system relies on a poor working class as opposed to a more egalitarian economic system like, I don't know, Sweden maybe (I just threw in Sweden because that's the favorite country of many who use the vernacular and tone that Kira does). Let's move onto Glenn's post, a more involved post.

Glen states he has "facts" and by looking at his post he seems he has facts (just look at all those numbers!) but he doesn't. He has a hypothetical situation. Though Glen does most of the math correct he doesn't factor in how a higher minimum wage affects business owners, big and small. He just concentrates on how much milk a poor working class person can buy. This is ironic given the fact he stated he majored in business economics (do you really need a degree in business economics and be a CPA to do figure out the math? No). The biggest irony here is that he is irritated with original poster for posting a meme that supports her worldview (not supporting a higher minimum wage technically isn't a worldview ... but it is to Glen), saying it's a fallacy, all the while pulling the fallacy of authority. Now you should listen to me because I'm a CPA who majored in business economics. Okay, I'm listening. My question, Glenn, have you ever owned a business, and if so are you currently paying your employees the $15 minimum wage?

Of course, Glen's post started off with smugness and ended with arrogance. I got the facts and I have the credentials. Somewhere in between the "facts", which any person with a decent amount of arithmetic skills can perform, there probably is a strong argument for the positive affects of raising the minimum wage. How he goes about doing the math reminds of this scene in *Dave -

 

But the naive aren't aware that it isn't that simple. It truly isn't. It works on an individual level, yes, but federally this type of simplistic approach is juvenile.

If only we listened to CPA's, the "American economic system" would be something oh so much better than it currently is.

The original poster actually blushed when she read his post, admitting that he was an educated man but at least defended herself by stating about the effects of inflation. I'm sure Glen will have a follow up. The effect Glen wanted was achieved: he wanted to feel superior to the meme and her. He built intimidation and shame by flashing his credentials - it wasn't so much about the "facts," since if it were he'd leave out his formal education and address his argument as a counter. If he were a truly educated man he'd address the totality of the argument. But he doesn't. He just does arithmetic.

*Financial literally is extremely important. I advise everyone to learn how to balance their own budget, make necessary adjustments to live within their budget, and restrain from expenses that aren't vital or necessary to their lives.

CA raises minimum wage to $15.

They're getting what they want. By "they" I'm referring to the "living wage" people. If you do the math for a full-time line-cook at a dinner in CA, working 40 hrs a week, he'll be making $2, 400 a month. If he works for 12 months straight he's before taxes income is $28, 800.

Non-profits who mostly hire people who are college graduates don't get paid much - I've read some are earning anywhere between $30-35K a year. That's the range for a starting position. You're lucky if you're earning $45K within five years.

Now I'm no economic whiz, but that reality sort of leaves me a little bitter. A college graduate wanting to dedicate his life to public service is earning $10K above the official USA poverty line. A line-cook is $2K just underneath him. The salt in the wound part, say for social workers who belong to CSWE, is that CSWE isn't known to advocate for a higher wage for social workers -- a group almost uniformly supporting the "living wage" concept. There is a common rhetoric from social workers to say that they do so much for people yet their pay is diddly squat for a working professional. Now that's a tough pill to swallow. Adding more insult to the injury, many who advocate for a "living wage" are mostly talking about the McDonald's cashier, the Wal-mart greeter and the line-cook. They aren't including the social worker or the non-profit employee.

 The disastrous march towards "equality" and "fairness" is leaving a dusty road filled with irony.  I bet a decade from now the minimum wage will be pushed towards $20. Why even attend university then? I suppose the great joke about this is is that any potential future Leftist would be spared the debt, the four years of "enlightenment" and the posturing of other bushy-tailed 17-18 yr olds. They might get a job as a line-cook and add something to society, because, truth be told, I am fan of dinners. More line-cooks, longer hours,  more food for me! I suppose I can rationalize it as a fair exchange.