Minimum Wage

[slopechz]

Lou Dobbs and minimum wage. I find Mr. Dobbs to be a breath of fresh air.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/dobbs.june21/index.html

[REMgirl]

Good article; I was just reading this one at Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/21/164117/819

Check out the maps for states with minimum wage vs the ones with higher rates.

[slopechz]

Good article; I was just reading this one at Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/21/164117/819

Check out the maps for states with minimum wage vs the ones with higher rates.
Good article, great website.

[markalot]

Non-minumum wage jobs have increased with the rate of inflation.

Maybe these people should get out of fast food and into a real job?

Minimum wage is meant for people who refust to understand that they are in control of their future. Everything is against them and you'll here them use the word LUCK a lot. 2 kids (someone elses fault), no husband (bad luck), trying to make ends meet by working at McD (my fault cause I eat there). Everything conspires to keep these people down. If we'd only raise minimum wage then the everything would be fine. Look baby, I got me some more money. Let's party.

Congress shouldn't give themselves pay raises for the same reason they shouldn't raise minimum wage. It's not market driven. Neither need to make more.

Dobbs is a moron.

[the happy prole]

Just so long as you understand (and we've been over this like a zillion times) that we are already currently providing those same people with money in ways that are even less-market driven. In fact they aren't market driven at all.*


*The people you're talking about, that is. The people who actually make minimum wage are far more likely to be complaining that their girlfriend broke up with them or that Johnny's parents busted up his kegger.

[jneale]

Let me tell ya - there are jobs out there for more than min - I haven't worked for a place that paid less than $9 for entry level in years....(& I agree that less than $19K is still a hard level to have support a family)

I consider myself socially liberal - but on this issue I'm on the side of the right - you wanna make more than minimum - the opportunity is there. Even when I was working part-time as a kid - I always made more than minimum. The jobs exist - people just have to be willing to work for them & find them.

I still have my retail scars - the employees who worked hard ALL made more than minimum. We were all underpaid - it wasn't easy to get out - but it can be done.

I like Lou - but on this issue he is wrong.

[back2vinyl]

Just so long as you understand (and we've been over this like a zillion times) that we are already currently providing those same people with money in ways that are even less-market driven. In fact they aren't market driven at all.*


*The people you're talking about, that is. The people who actually make minimum wage are far more likely to be complaining that their girlfriend broke up with them or that Johnny's parents busted up his kegger.

Are you talking about section 8 housing, earned income tax credits, food stamps and heath care? I've lost track of all the ways the government bribes people at all levels do things through credits, rebates and subsidies.

I'm not sure what to do about the minimum wage. Seems if we are to have one at all, it should be high enough for a single person to feed and shelter themselves. But does raising it reduce the number of jobs available to the poor? Maybe. Is it inflationary? Maybe.

Around here, I think a single person could survive reasonably on about $1000/month. That $6.25/hour based on 40 hours a week and no taxes, so probably closer to $7.50 when you factor in FICA and income taxes assuming we got rid of all the EITC type stuff.

What say we raise the minimum wage to $7.50 and eliminate EITC in the same bill? I'd love to start unwinding the tangle of government programs encouraging people to make questionable choices.

[the happy prole]

Yeah man, exactly. Finally someone agrees what I'm saying! :p

Raise the minimum wage and people will get off welfare because they now have an incentive to do so. If you want to, you can add the stick to the carrot by reducing welfare benefits at the same time. And then eventually you might be able to start eliminating those programs all together.

What have you got to lose? Can this really be more inflationary than just handing people cash? What does it mattter how many jobs are available to the poor if they pay so badly that the poor have no incentive to take them?

[DaHood]

Cut welfare and people will get some of these jobs that they have to get Mexican immigrants to do because supposedly no American wants to do them.

Although I do agree that wages need to be enticing enough to make people want to do the jobs. Generally the market can take care of itself and doesn't need the government's help.

[weeone]

What have you got to lose? Can this really be more inflationary than just handing people cash? What does it mattter how many jobs are available to the poor if they pay so badly that the poor have no incentive to take them?
Yah. Welfare pays better that many min wage jobs. Not saying that's right. I don't think min wage should raise, I think welfare should be more minimal.

[the happy prole]

Well, if you believe in a free market utopia where those without enough skills or work ethic to survive quietly fade away at no cost to the rest of society, I suppose you could.

But to keep the free market competitive, you'd also have to get rid of every other government subsidy and tax break. In fact you'd pretty much eliminate taxes completely. And everyone would have to quit complaining about Unions, and unemployment rates, and loss of jobs overseas.

I just don't view either of those options as remotely politically feasible right now. And even if they were, I think you would need a gradual, managed transition instead of pulling the rug out from everyone at once.

[weeone]

Well, if you believe in a free market utopia where those without enough skills or work ethic to survive quietly fade away at no cost to the rest of society, I suppose you could.
I wasn't suggesting that slippery slope.

[candy4140]

Let me tell ya - there are jobs out there for more than min - I haven't worked for a place that paid less than $9 for entry level in years....(& I agree that less than $19K is still a hard level to have support a family)

I consider myself socially liberal - but on this issue I'm on the side of the right - you wanna make more than minimum - the opportunity is there. Even when I was working part-time as a kid - I always made more than minimum. The jobs exist - people just have to be willing to work for them & find them.

I still have my retail scars - the employees who worked hard ALL made more than minimum. We were all underpaid - it wasn't easy to get out - but it can be done.

I like Lou - but on this issue he is wrong.

How have you never read Nickel and Dimed or watched that FX 30 Days show on this? Cuz I would think it might change your mind a bit.

[Unrequited]

I'd love to see some Congressman propose tying increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises. No one in Congress deserves their salary.

[frizgolf]

I'd love to see some Congressman propose tying increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises. No one in Congress deserves their salary.
No, really they don't.
They really deserve the 5x that much they can make in their private law practices.

[the happy prole]

I wasn't suggesting that slippery slope.

I know you weren't. Was talking about elminating minimum wage.

[slopechz]

Non-minumum wage jobs have increased with the rate of inflation.

Maybe these people should get out of fast food and into a real job?

Dobbs is a moron.
People in minimum wage jobs do not have the skills to get a real job. What do you suggest they do, disappear? I guess the market will correct that problem, right?

[akip]

i'm less concerned about the minimum wage and more concerned with the technology gap, and that's gonna get wider and deeper in ways that only you techies who read up on this stuff on a nightly basis really know.

[onest2.0]

People in minimum wage jobs do not have the skills to get a real job. What do you suggest they do, disappear? I guess the market will correct that problem, right?

Then we give them a gun and ship them overseas.

[Nellie Bly]

Raise the minimum wage and people will get off welfare because they now have an incentive to do so. If you want to, you can add the stick to the carrot by reducing welfare benefits at the same time. And then eventually you might be able to start eliminating those programs all together.

*applause*
Totally agree. I'm inclined to go with the increase in minimum wage and decrease in welfare benefits. Why? Because even if the minimum wage is increased, welfare is still easier for some people. True, there are many, many hardworking folk who want to get themselves off the dole and would if they got a job that paid minimum wage (or more). But there still would be a select few who would rather collect a check than dirty their hands, it's those people who need an extra kick in the pants (as it were) to go out and get a better job.

What they (the government) can/should do, if they went the increase min. wage/decrease welfare benefits route, is provide job training and/or education opportunities to those leaving the welfare programs so that they've got the skills to get into the workforce at a level higher than cashier at kroger or housekeeper at the sheraton. I don't think the welfare programs would go away all together (because there are people who cannot work and need assistance), but you could get those able to work out there. But, convincing those in power and those working in the trenches that this is a good idea would be hard.

[akip]

Then we give them a gun and ship them overseas.

uh, i think we're already doing that.

[slopechz]

Then we give them a gun and ship them overseas.
Yes we do. Very sad.

[frizgolf]

Then we give them a gun and ship them overseas.
You may have hit on it.
Mandatory civil service for 18 year olds, while maintaining a volunteer military. Clean streets, deliver meals to nursing homes, or volunteer for the military. After two years service @ x amount of hours per week, every man and woman would have a somewhat marketable skill, if not, something to fill out on the "experience" section of the job application.

[slopechz]

You may have hit on it.
Mandatory civil service for 18 year olds, while maintaining a volunteer military. Clean streets, deliver meals to nursing homes, or volunteer for the military. After two years service @ x amount of hours per week, every man and woman would have a somewhat marketable skill, if not, something to fill out on the "experience" section of the job application.
I'm sure the upper echelons of society will go for this!

[frizgolf]

I'm sure the upper echelons of society will go for this!
Prolly the only reason it hasn't happened yet.

"What, my precious offspring pushing brooms? we'll have nothing of the sort!"

[Nellie Bly]

Prolly the only reason it hasn't happened yet.

"What, my precious offspring pushing brooms? we'll have nothing of the sort!"

Nah, they'll just pull some strings and their kid will be "volunteering" with the local office of their political party or the non-profit foundation their family or company created.

[markalot]

People in minimum wage jobs do not have the skills to get a real job. What do you suggest they do, disappear? I guess the market will correct that problem, right?


Yes. They can get the skills or die. Why is that so hard to grasp? Can you honestly tell me that there's a hard working minimum wage person out there who is actually working their ass off trying to get ahead but can't get out of a minimum wage job? Lunch time is coming up, you go take a closer look.

Minimum Wage, the new welfare.

Also a good TMBG song.

[the happy prole]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that people just don't disappear or die quietly?

[candy4140]

Yes. They can get the skills or die. Why is that so hard to grasp? Can you honestly tell me that there's a hard working minimum wage person out there who is actually working their ass off trying to get ahead but can't get out of a minimum wage job? Lunch time is coming up, you go take a closer look.

Minimum Wage, the new welfare.

Also a good TMBG song.


Another thing that is disturbing to me are all the "skilled" jobs out there that pay minimum wage or a bit more. It's a shame. Teacher's aides, nurse's aides, EMT's, the list goes on. These often pay $6-$8 per hour...who can live on that?! Next time you are being resuccitated at the scene of an accident, know the guy or gal saving your life probably is on food stamps. This is probably not in larger cities, but there are skilled jobs everywhere, that because they are partly funded by tax money, they remain at minimum wage.

All crappy jobs have to be done by somebody...if we don't raise the wages to something they can live on, you can't just say "get a skill". What if everyone DID get a skill and a college degree? You still have thousands of jobs NOT filled by illegals...it's the economy, stupid.

[Nellie Bly]

Why is that so hard to grasp? Can you honestly tell me that there's a hard working minimum wage person out there who is actually working their ass off trying to get ahead but can't get out of a minimum wage job?

Talk to any of the single parents out there who're stuck in a minimum wage job (maybe two) that want to go back to school so they can get a better job but can't because they make $50 over the poverty line so they aren't eligible for assistance and they *gasp* want to feed/clothe/house their kids. Frankly, there aren't enough job training/education opportunities available to people in these situations.

Better yet, talk to the social workers/case managers who work with people on or trying to get off welfare. More often than not, they're just as eligible for assistance as the people they're helping--and they've got degrees.

[candy4140]

Talk to any of the single parents out there who're stuck in a minimum wage job (maybe two) that want to go back to school so they can get a better job but can't because they make $50 over the poverty line so they aren't eligible for assistance and they *gasp* want to feed/clothe/house their kids. Frankly, there aren't enough job training/education opportunities available to people in these situations.

Better yet, talk to the social workers/case managers who work with people on or trying to get off welfare. More often than not, they're just as eligible for assistance as the people they're helping--and they've got degrees.

There's little point in trying to explain reality to someone who sees things so black and white. Poor? Your fault. Crappy job. You're lazy. Really, this guy will one day get smacked with a REAL expereince that might actually cause him to re-evalute reality.

Welfare is less than 2% of our tax money, so even if 50% people are taking advantage..who cares? It's 2% of your yearly salary, and it DOES help some people...I know them, I work with them.

But yes, if you could make minimum wage, which is $10,712 per year, be eligible for food stamps, child care, etc....why would NOT do this? If you think someone can live on ten grand a year without help you are insane. This society HAS to have people in these jobs...you can't educate EVERYONE in the country..if you did, you'd still have the "least" educated stuck in these jobs and still being poor, they'd just have degree. A capitalist society must have a lower class, but I think it's inhumane to think these people don't deserve a LIVING wage.

Go read Nickeled and Dimed.

[markalot]

Another thing that is disturbing to me are all the "skilled" jobs out there that pay minimum wage or a bit more. It's a shame. Teacher's aides, nurse's aides, EMT's, the list goes on. These often pay $6-$8 per hour...who can live on that?! Next time you are being resuccitated at the scene of an accident, know the guy or gal saving your life probably is on food stamps. This is probably not in larger cities, but there are skilled jobs everywhere, that because they are partly funded by tax money, they remain at minimum wage.

All crappy jobs have to be done by somebody...if we don't raise the wages to something they can live on, you can't just say "get a skill". What if everyone DID get a skill and a college degree? You still have thousands of jobs NOT filled by illegals...it's the economy, stupid.

Food stamps?

So is there more to the minimum wage than the hourly rate?

BTW, you need to take an economics class. If everyone was poor then who would buy stuff from the 'rich' people. Market driven means driven by the market. THP is right, there are so many subsidies out there for people it's really hard to gauge what they really make or how much they cost the rest of us. Every government program to help some loser costs us almost 50% more then it pays out.

[Nellie Bly]

.you can't educate EVERYONE in the country..if you did, you'd still have the "least" educated stuck in these jobs and still being poor, they'd just have degree. A capitalist society must have a lower class, but I think it's inhumane to think these people don't deserve a LIVING wage.

It is inhumane but since when have out "leaders" done things in a humane manner?

I wasn't suggesting that we educate everyone, job training is just as important as an education. For instance, if someone expresses an interest in doing more than just general labor, say warehouse work, it's not too hard to train them how to drive a forklift and get them certified--then they've got a marketable skill and a key to a better paying job. If the interest is there, why not offer them the training?

[markalot]

Talk to any of the single parents out there who're stuck in a minimum wage job (maybe two) that want to go back to school so they can get a better job but can't because they make $50 over the poverty line so they aren't eligible for assistance and they *gasp* want to feed/clothe/house their kids. Frankly, there aren't enough job training/education opportunities available to people in these situations.

Better yet, talk to the social workers/case managers who work with people on or trying to get off welfare. More often than not, they're just as eligible for assistance as the people they're helping--and they've got degrees.

How did they end up single with kids? Why do I want to help them? Well the answer to the second question is I want to help them to save money. Give them healthcare, give them daycare, give them some education money and tell them to go to school


OH BUT WAIT

What about the people who decide they don't want to go to school ... right, then we let those people die? No, same problem with a new set of bleeding hearts telling us why we should help these people.

[Breeze]

I'm sure the upper echelons of society will go for this!

How quickly would the loopholes start opening up if this actually happened?

[Nellie Bly]

What about the people who decide they don't want to go to school ... right, then we let those people die? No, same problem with a new set of bleeding hearts telling us why we should help these people.

You put them in a job doing general labor and offer them job training if they want it. Same problem, you're just splitting hairs.

[candy4140]

Food stamps?

So is there more to the minimum wage than the hourly rate?

BTW, you need to take an economics class. If everyone was poor then who would buy stuff from the 'rich' people. Market driven means driven by the market. THP is right, there are so many subsidies out there for people it's really hard to gauge what they really make or how much they cost the rest of us. Every government program to help some loser costs us almost 50% more then it pays out.

My experience comes from hundreds of hours of volunteer work with welfare recipients. The only people I ever met that cheated the system did it in order to hold a job, collect money to help them go to college to get OUT of welfare. Was it illegal? Yes. But working at a fast food restaurant with 3 kids and trying improve your standing in life on that salary is not possible if you pay your own way. Every bit of that welfare money (collected under bogus SSN) went straight to a GED and a associate's degree. And now one girl I still know makes about $50K a year. So she was resourceful...resourceful enough to know the way welfare is currently setup does NOT work to pull yourself out of a hole.

Welfare was created during war times when women were NEVER expected to go get a job. It was meant to be a paycheck given to single mom when their husband's died so they could survive. Getting a job or remarrying...you don't get a welfare check. Stupid system in 2006, but it never got changed, so it's still doing EXACTLY what it was inteneded. A free ride. Bitch to your politicians, not the people who use it.

[markalot]

You put them in a job doing general labor and offer them job training if they want it. Same problem, you're just splitting hairs.

How do you know we aren't there already? That's the point I'm trying to make. What if everyone who wanted help got it and what we have left are people unwilling to help themselves. We made welfare harder to get so now we have more people stuck in minimum wage jobs. It's not a coincidence.

[candy4140]

You put them in a job doing general labor and offer them job training if they want it. Same problem, you're just splitting hairs.

Didn't Bill Clinton do something like this in Arkansas when he was governor...? He overhauled the system, gave people welfare for a 3 year maximum period of time and they had to prove they were in some type of job training (run by the state) or school (paid by the state). Wonder why that never spread to the rest of the country, I think it worked wonders there.

Incidentally, Utah has the highest number of welfare recipients anywhere....all the Mormon polygamists. Oddly, not the stereotype you would think of a welfare recipient.

[the happy prole]

markalot, it's pretty obvious to me that your real objection to the issue is more moral than economic.

It's one thing to say that the government is inefficient at helping these poor people. It's another thing to say that you just don't believe in helping the poor at all.

[PeterABnny]

markalot, it's pretty obvious to me that your real objection to the issue is more moral than economic.

It's one thing to say that the government is inefficient at helping these poor people. It's another thing to say that you just don't believe in helping the poor at all.


No, I think it's more like he's a devout subscriber to Social Darwinism. Fuck the poor; they're poor because they choose to be, so why reward their bad decisions? Better to round them up, seize whatever property they have and give it to the more-deserving rich, and send them off to concentration camps to be gassed or worked to death. Right?

[shivvy]

Yes. They can get the skills or die. Why is that so hard to grasp? Can you honestly tell me that there's a hard working minimum wage person out there who is actually working their ass off trying to get ahead but can't get out of a minimum wage job? Lunch time is coming up, you go take a closer look.

Minimum Wage, the new welfare.

Also a good TMBG song.

Spoken like a true white guy. Jesus, I cannot believe the things I'm reading in this thread.

[akip]

markalot, it's pretty obvious to me that your real objection to the issue is more moral than economic.

It's one thing to say that the government is inefficient at helping these poor people. It's another thing to say that you just don't believe in helping the poor at all.

i dunno about anybody else, but as wishy washy a nominal episcopalian as i am, this comes to mind:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." - 1Corinthians 13


anyway, that's about as basic a moral principle as i can come up with, beyond not killing, raping or stealing.

[dannyboy]

There will always be small percentage of society that refuses to work for a living. This usually can be attributed to social/psychological issues. The minimum wage rate will have little impact on these people. You could offer them $30/hr to do absolutely nothing provided that they show up on a regular basis and after a few days to a few months, this faction will quit showing up. More money isn't always necessarily the answer to social problems.

[the happy prole]

If you raise minimum wage and people are still too "lazy" to take it, then what have you lost? Those people weren't working for $5.50 an hour, and now they aren't working for $8.00 an hour.

And if those are the people that we don't like, then they will be suffering compared to the people that actually WILL work for $8.00 an hour. Isn't that the way it should be?

[the_birds]

Every government program to help some loser costs us almost 50% more then it pays out.

This is outright crap. Its been shown numerous times that the Government is very efficient in running these programs. Take SS, its operating costs are 4-5% of their budget.

Just now in Texas, they tried to farm out the running of the Medicare and Lone Star Card (foodstamp) programs to Accenture. And they failed miserably. The "wonderfully efficient, market-driven" plan went down in flames in just 5 months! They nullified the contract and brought operations back under the state employees and promptly gave them a raise.

[drougan]

I dont quite understand how this discussion has parlayed into government programs and their efficiency and how this is tantamount to welfare. Minimum wage is hardly a government program and doesnt cost a cent of my tax payment.

The thing that bothers me about the failure to raise minimum wage is also what no one against the minimum wage hike has addressed; the fact that inflation has outstripped the value of minimum wage since 1955. Cost of living raises are common elsewhere, why shouldnt they be for the minimum wage folks as well.

The problem seems to be that the folks concerned with the profit margins of the company have an easier and easier job as things inflate and their minimum wage payroll stays the same, they're paying less and less money for the same employees as time goes on and the buying power of the dollar decreases. No wonder they don't want min. wages to go up.

It doesnt make sense for there to be a minimum wage value that isn't tied to inflation.

[dannyboy]

I'll contend that if you are a wise business owner, you will want to have reliable and motivated workers that will reflect well upon you to your customers. In order the get and keep this workforce, you must pay the going market rate because if you don't, someone else will. In my job, I supervise some employees that are in unskilled positions and all of them make almost twice what minimum wage is.

[candy4140]

I'll contend that if you are a wise business owner, you will want to have reliable and motivated workers that will reflect well upon you to your customers. In order the get and keep this workforce, you must pay the going market rate because if you don't, someone else will. In my job, I supervise some employees that are in unskilled positions and all of them make almost twice what minimum wage is.

True...and even making $8 an hour isn't enough to live on $16,640 per year? Isn't the poverty line like $18K or something? How is it we can justify wages well below what will put someone at a "minimum standard of living" as deemed by the same government.

I do agree, it's all about corporation lobbying the government to not do this. As long as they can keep hiring illegals and teenagers at these wages, they are set.

[the_birds]

You prolly mean medicaid, which is a state program. Ohio medicaid just went private not too long ago.

Yea, whichever one it is. Anyway, this has been news here somewhat constantly since the Katrina victims have been here and I couldn't remember it exactly.

[slopechz]

Spoken like a true white guy. Jesus, I cannot believe the things I'm reading in this thread.
Believe it. :eek:

[Breeze]

Spoken like a true white guy. Jesus, I cannot believe the things I'm reading in this thread.

You have to consider the source. When one likes nothing more than to be contrary and offend, then there's little to follow that's surprising.

[weeone]

Can anyone make a list of jobs which pay minimum wage ?

[slopechz]

Can anyone make a list of jobs which pay minimum wage ?
How would someone go about that?

[weeone]

How would someone go about that?
Just wondering what a min wage job is.

[slopechz]

So white guys are contrarian and offensive? I've got nothing to add to this discussion other than saying someone should go off and die because they can't get a decent wage offends me as much as flippant, unnecessary displays of the race card as intended to disparrage.

--back to the shadows for me --
Good grief, this thread gets more bizarre by the minute.

[george]

Can anyone make a list of jobs which pay minimum wage ?

I was wondering the same thing. I believe that the majority of minimum wage jobs are part-time jobs.

[markalot]

Oh look at the pile ons.

Look, people, some of who claim to be intelligent.

"poor" is what? Too many kids not enough money? Bad luck? No skills? Lazy?

Is there a simple solution? Is raising the minimum wage a simple solution? Do you really think raising minimum wage to a living wage will help and if so why? If everything costs more how does raising a wage help?

Who has to pay more if you raise minimum wage?

What are the REAL costs of poverty?

Healthcare, healthcare and something else ....

So let's say we raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Will your fast food costs go up? Will prices at walmart go up?

How many people need the boost and what are these people doing (paying) to survive?

How does raising the minimum wage help with:

.healthcare
.poor people with kids
.people who don't want to work
.people who have a legitimate reason not to work
.getting trained
.childcare
.college

Raising the minimum wage does nothing except boost inflation in the short term. It's the artificial floor put on wages that everyone else scambles to match.

Do you remember how long it took the UAW to mention minimum wage the last time it was hiked? What evidence do you have that the minimum wage does anything EXCEPT boosting the pay of the lowest skilled workers and forcing higher skilled wages up. When wages go up costs go up, when costs go up we pay more.

A burger flipper making $5.15 an hour.
A higher skilled worker is making $8 an hour

Minimum wage goes up to $8.

Do you think the wage of the higher skilled worker is going to go up?

[Breeze]

So white guys are contrarian and offensive? I've got nothing to add to this discussion other than saying someone should go off and die because they can't get a decent wage offends me as much as flippant, unnecessary displays of the race card as intended to disparrage.

--back to the shadows for me --

No... not "white guys." Not even guys. Just this one person.

[Breeze]

Oh look at the pile ons.



No doubt this made your whole week for you.

[akip]

Just wondering what a min wage job is.

probably mcdonald's.

[weeone]

When I was a freshman in highschool, I worked at an old landmark bakery 18 hours a week, the max at the time for a 15 year old, and the owners said they had a special classification to pay below min wage - the rate I was paid was 3.85 per hour... I think min wage at the time was 4.25 or 4.50. Then I went to work at White Mountain Creamery a few years later where I was paid min wage which was raised to 5.25. I made about the same or maybe 6 bucks at a cafe in a bookstore where tips were not accepted. Then I went to college and worked in the library as a tutor and computer lab asst and made 6 for a couple of years. Those were min wage jobs back then, when I was also supported by my parents and financial aid. Just wondering how it changed. And incidentally, I was part time through all of those jobs.

[weeone]

probably mcdonald's.
Wrong. They pay comparitively well.

[weeone]

Do you think the wage of the higher skilled worker is going to go up?
In my experience, it did. When library workers were making 5.15 or whatever and the min wage increased, we all made 6. No, not a huge boost, but the pay did increase.

I agree with you that raising min wage is not the answer, let me add.

[slopechz]

No doubt this made your whole week for you.
Don't want to add too much to the lynch mob, except to say that everything with Markalot seems to be either black or white. There is very little middle ground. I don't think I have ever seen Markalot say "gee you might have a point". Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe.

[akip]

2004 bureau of labor statistics. i'd imagine the landscape is probably similar in 2006. click on the tables---they're interesting.

stats (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm)

[drougan]

Wrong. They pay comparitively well.


Depends on the McD's, actually. The one I had my first job at paid just a hair above minimum wage.

A person working 40 hrs a week at a "minimum wage" should be able to afford certain things. The gov't needs to determine those things, set a value, use a fucking formula or a spread sheet, if they have to. Then provide for an adjustability of that value based on the buying power of a dollar, as opposed to them (and us) quibbling over the exact dollars and cents, which is obsolete within a year.

[weeone]

2004 bureau of labor statistics. i'd imagine the landscape is probably similar in 2006. click on the tables---they're interesting.

stats (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm)
awesome .... this was what I was interested in

About what I expected...

Of course, min wage merely sets the bar for what employers can get away with sure. You can pay poorly, but not below x amount. I'm sure there are stats on "costs of living" and those earning below it, and who they are. That'd be cool to see.

However, raising min wage is ludicrous as a solution.

[berzerker]

Why don't we lower the "maximum" wage?

Oh right. That percentage of the population just got a tax cut, and the other 99%* didn't.



*standard exaggeration. Don't jump my shit to say "it's really more like 3% vs. 97%" whatever. You can say that giving a tax cut to the rich means they'll spend more. Wrong. The richer you get, the more you want to keep. Not trying to be all communist, or whatever, but damn, the biggest problem is the serious disparity in wealth.
Increasing minimum wage means goods and services will have to increase to balance out - no net gain. Markalot was right there. But if the folks who currently posess more money than can reasonably be spent in several lifetimes could part with a percentage of that, it could go to helpful "social" programs, and increass the standard of living of a very large percent of the population.
Wow, I sound awful liberal there... i guess in that regard, I am. Although I feel that the welfare system is grossly abused and exploited.

[weeone]

Why don't we lower the "maximum" wage?

Oh right. That percentage of the population just got a tax cut, and the other 99%* didn't.



*standard exaggeration. Don't jump my shit to say "it's really more like 3% vs. 97%" whatever. You can say that giving a tax cut to the rich means they'll spend more. Wrong. The richer you get, the more you want to keep. Not trying to be all communist, or whatever, but damn, the biggest problem is the serious disparity in wealth.
Increasing minimum wage means goods and services will have to increase to balance out - no net gain. Markalot was right there. But if the folks who currently posess more money than can reasonably be spent in several lifetimes could part with a percentage of that, it could go to helpful "social" programs, and increass the standard of living of a very large percent of the population.
Wow, I sound awful liberal there... i guess in that regard, I am. Although I feel that the welfare system is grossly abused and exploited.
Mark's father and I had this horrible argument on Father's day about this. HE actually made the point that it's unfair for the wealthy to be taxed more, because poor people taxed on 10,000 (for example) only pay $50 and rich people taxed on 1,000,000 have to pay $5000. That's inSANE. Someone who is taxed on a million bucks will not miss that 5000 - however, $50 won't buy a family of four shit at the grocery store. It makes me sad that people think like this. Of course, MaL is probably on Mark's dad's team :p :(

[the_birds]

Someone who is taxed on a million bucks will not miss that 5000 - however, $50 won't buy a family of four shit at the grocery store. It makes me sad that people think like this. Of course, MaL is probably on Mark's dad's team :p :(

Taxing everyone the same rate with NO deductions would be perfect. Problem is, really rich people are against this too. Why? Because when you make all of that money, you can put into tax shelters which considerably lower the percentage of your income that is paid. Its lower than the projected "Flat tax" rate, which is why the Flat tax is DOA. The beautiful thing is hiring people to manage your money, and do your accounting, discover tax shelters and incentives and arbitrate you out of tax disputes with the IRS is TOTALLY TAX DEDUCTIBLE! If you don't think the current system favors the rich, you're totally frikken high.

[george]

2004 bureau of labor statistics. i'd imagine the landscape is probably similar in 2006. click on the tables---they're interesting.

stats (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm)

Excellent. Thanks.

I notice that almost 1 in 5 of minimum wage (or below) workers are in the food preparation and service classification. I would assume that they are counting waiters in this group. Most waiters don't really make minimum wage or less, it's just that they are classified as such since they are not paid tips by their employers but by their customers.

[back2vinyl]

How about a flat tax with only a single standard deduction per wage earner equal to...

40 (hours) X 52 (weeks) X the minimum wage.

Wonder what the minimum wage would be then?

[dannyboy]

I think income taxes should be done away with altogether and a national sales tax implemented.

[the happy prole]

Sales taxes are pretty regressive, and regressive taxes make no sense to me.

If we exempted necessities like food and clothing and made it more of a luxury tax, I'd be okay with it.

[Shlep]

According to what I've found regarding Congressional salaries as of January of this year:

Speaker of the House: $212,100

Majority and minority leaders of both chambers and Senate president pro temporare: $183,500

Senators and Representatives: $165,200

Most or all of these guys have residences either in Washington, DC or in one of the surrounding areas (southern Maryland, Mclean, Arlington, Alexandria, maybe Fairfax). Having lived there (and still having friends who live there) I can certainly assure you one and all that while I'd not feel sorry for a guy living in the DC metro area pulling down $165K and change annually, you can be just as well assured that such a person isn't exactly in danger of making Puff Daddy jealous. Especially since that guy has to pay his staff with that salary, plus frequently jet back and forth to and from his home district where, unless I'm mistaken, they must maintain a residence as well.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the main reason why most of them can afford to be in and/or remain in public office is because they're independantly wealthy anyway, which makes me think the issue of Congressional salaries is fairly moot. Kinda sounds to me like bitching about Trump finding a couple sawbucks in a jacket he hadn't worn in awhile.

As for raising the minimum wage: well, we've been through this before, and in case my opinion is not already well-known or can't be guessed at by virtue of my being a flinty, cold-hearted conservative, I don't support the idea. Labor-- whether it involves digging a ditch or performing a double-bypass-- is a good, and salary/wages are the market value (read: price) of that good.

Artificially raising the price of a good creates a surplus of that good (surpluse labor = lots of unemployed people). This is because employers, as consumers of labor, are apt to find alternatives to a good when it becomes artifically expensive. Instead of saying "Oh, fiddle-dee-dee!! I guess I have no choice but to pay my low-wage guys more money!" they will begin exploring alternatives, such as making more people part-time, employing fewer people, automating, and of course hiring illegal immigrants.

I'd rather Congress would attempt some sort of reasonable, sound, business-oriented solution in the form of maybe incentives (i.e. allowing them a tax write-off raises, perhaps) or funding programs to give unskilled workers acutal skills or maybe even amending social assistance programs and make them graduated according to need instead of paying people to sit on their asses and then pulling the rug out from under them fwhen they try getting off the dole. I think there are plenty of possible solutions that would be betterthan using legal fiat to force them to pay their workers more. And of course, I don't favor jacking the rich for more in the form of taxes since I never have been able to countenance the idea that people should be effectively penalized for making more money, especially when they already put more slop into the public trough than most folks even when they cheat on their taxes.

[akip]

Excellent. Thanks.

I notice that almost 1 in 5 of minimum wage (or below) workers are in the food preparation and service classification. I would assume that they are counting waiters in this group. Most waiters don't really make minimum wage or less, it's just that they are classified as such since they are not paid tips by their employers but by their customers.

yeah, they're bumping up those numbers, but the dishwashers are def making spit. so are chambermaids.

[Shlep]

No, I think it's more like he's a devout subscriber to Social Darwinism. Fuck the poor; they're poor because they choose to be, so why reward their bad decisions? Better to round them up, seize whatever property they have and give it to the more-deserving rich, and send them off to concentration camps to be gassed or worked to death. Right?

Pete, I think you're misrepresenting mark's position on the issue just a tad here.

Spoken like a true white guy. Jesus, I cannot believe the things I'm reading in this thread.

I take it you've never heard of Walter Williams?

[george]

Spoken like a true white guy.

According to the stats that akip posted, white guys are actually a disproprtionally high percentage of the minimum wage workforce.

[markalot]

No, I think it's more like he's a devout subscriber to Social Darwinism. Fuck the poor; they're poor because they choose to be, so why reward their bad decisions? Better to round them up, seize whatever property they have and give it to the more-deserving rich, and send them off to concentration camps to be gassed or worked to death. Right?

It's really much more simpel than that. I believe giving the poor mor emoney will do nothing. Most of them will waste it because *gasp* they ain't too smart. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty.

But how many are willing to learn?

And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help?

Does money make people smarter?

[dannyboy]

If we exempted necessities like food and clothing and made it more of a luxury tax, I'd be okay with it.
I'm all for exempting necessities. I also think a sales tax would encourage many to save rather than rack up so much consumer debt.

[the happy prole]

Is it my business telling her how to live her life?

Apparently, yes.

[slopechz]

It's really much more simpel than that. I believe giving the poor mor emoney will do nothing. Most of them will waste it because *gasp* they ain't too smart. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty.

But how many are willing to learn?

And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help?

Does money make people smarter?
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. Dude, this response is disgusting, even for you. Shame on you.

[purple_octopus]

Hey, I say if mom can't take care of her four kids, we take them away and give them to a nice, decent, affluent gay couple. Two birds with one stone!

[dannyboy]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. Dude, this response is disgusting, even for you. Shame on you.
It's not a disgusting reply, just a point of view. I agree that there is a segment of the population that acts without thinking things through to their entirety (i.e. having sex, taking drugs, consuming alcohol) and society as a whole is left to deal with the consequences. Is this fair? I can't say yes or no; again it comes down to point of view. We, collectively, can deal with the consequences or not. There are pros and cons to each alternative.

[Dirk]

It's really much more simpel than that. I believe giving the poor mor emoney will do nothing. Most of them will waste it because *gasp* they ain't too smart. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty.

But how many are willing to learn?

And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help?

Does money make people smarter?
It's not intelligence that is linked to poverty, but education. Poor people aren't dumber, they are less educated. This makes it harder for them not only to get out of poverty, but to get better jobs because they don't have a good educational base. If you take the top schools that are in the suburbs and put them in the inner city, I can promise you would see a huge difference in a couple generations.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

I'd love to see some Congressman propose tying increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises...

This is exactly what needs to happen!

[the_birds]

And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help?

I understand what you are saying. I have always proposed a comprehensive solution. Start teaching reproductive education in elementary school. In junior high, when you get a lunch on one of those plastic trays, skip one of those repulsive side dishes and PUT A CONDOM THERE, INSTEAD. And in High school, condoms would be free anytime, also the birth control pill, and the morning after pill. You could even sell variety packs in the school store, with one of each. But it would be even better if it was all free, to everyone up until your reproductive age has been exceeded.

I mean, if you truly wanted to save money on welfare, you would come up with a REAL plan. But Conservatives don't want to do that. Their morals get in the way of free birth control for school age children, but they certainly aren't inconvenienced by their morals when it comes to saying no to welfare. So, in essence they find a way to have it both ways and screw people in the middle. If conservatives wanted to genuinely wanted to help people, they would compromise, but they don't want that. They've found a way to justify class separation.

People are not going to stop having sex. Sex is extremely risky behaviour when attempted by ignorant, immature people who aren't properly equipped to deal with the consequences. Sex can give you the most expensive and most difficult of problems to deal with, children.

[purple_octopus]

How about sterilization? I'd rather tax dollars get spent on that than condoms. (For pregnancy prevention, of course. It wouldn't be enough for HIV or other STDs.) I've met plenty of people who were too stupid/drunk/high/whatever to use a condom.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

...Minimum Wage, the new welfare...

?????

Minimum Wage hasn't increased in nearly a decade while the cost of goods & services has continued to climb!

Anybody who works a 40hr week deserves to be able to live somewhere safe & eat nutrious food. That's simply not realistic with $5.15/hr in today's world.

[slopechz]

It's not intelligence that is linked to poverty, but education. Poor people aren't dumber, they are less educated. This makes it harder for them not only to get out of poverty, but to get better jobs because they don't have a good educational base. If you take the top schools that are in the suburbs and put them in the inner city, I can promise you would see a huge difference in a couple generations.
Exactly. ;)

[Shlep]

If you take the top schools that are in the suburbs and put them in the inner city, I can promise you would see a huge difference in a couple generations.

I agree, you'd see a massive difference, probably within one generation.

Specifically: they'd proceed along the same arc as they facilities they're replacing and turn into penitentiary prep schools that require high-security fences, metal detectors, and guards patrolling the halls that are poorly staffed because hardly anyone (not even someone idealistic enought to teach public school) wants to spend their time sitting in a room full of teens who've never been exposed to discipline or self-restraint by anyone except a cop handcuffing them, who think am education is for chumps and sell-outs who want to "act white," whose parents (if they can be found) don't give two, or even one-half of one shit, about where their kids are and if they're learning, whose behavioiral tendencies render any attempt to educate the kids who might want to learn something an exercise in futility, and who might decide to assault the teacher at various times during the year. At least not on a teachers' salary.

Inner-city schools don't suck because someone appropriated public funds to bid the job of bulding them out to a construction company that specializes in building shitty ghetto schools. Indeed, many schools that have regressed to a lamentable state were once excellent centers of learning with high standards that turned out kids who prepared to handle real life that later went to shit when concerned people showed up and started "helping."

[markalot]

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. Dude, this response is disgusting, even for you. Shame on you.

OMG someone speaks the truth and you go running.

So you're saying there are poor people with high IQ's? Is it so bad to admit that intelligence effects how we live? God damn man, you run from the truth if it's not wrapped in a pink ribbon.

I can agree wth Dirk in that I think some, maybe half, of it is education and you can educate these people out of poverty, but some people are just too damn stupid to do it.

And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help?



You want to break it down and explain to me what parts are disgusting? How about what parts aren't true?

[markalot]

?????

Minimum Wage hasn't increased in nearly a decade while the cost of goods & services has continued to climb!

Anybody who works a 40hr week deserves to be able to live somewhere safe & eat nutrious food. That's simply not realistic with $5.15/hr in today's world.


Welfare reform forced a lot of people to get minimum wage jobs where they are now sitting. They have to work, that's good, and someone else pays them, that's good, but they still need government support to survive, so they're still on 'welfare'.

[Shlep]

So you're saying there are poor people with high IQ's?

Of course there are. My little sister, for one. Quite intelligent, and raised by the same parents in the same environment with all the advantages her two older brothers had who proceeded into a downward spiral of neediness and drug addiction until finally, having rebuffed multiple attempts funded both privately by mam and dad and publicly by the state of Virginia to extricate herself from the morass she was sinking into wound up in prison and is now on parole, broke but hopefully sober and finally getting her shit together.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Why don't we lower the "maximum" wage?

Oh right. That percentage of the population just got a tax cut, and the other 99%* didn't.



*standard exaggeration. Don't jump my shit to say "it's really more like 3% vs. 97%" whatever. You can say that giving a tax cut to the rich means they'll spend more. Wrong. The richer you get, the more you want to keep. Not trying to be all communist, or whatever, but damn, the biggest problem is the serious disparity in wealth.
Increasing minimum wage means goods and services will have to increase to balance out - no net gain. Markalot was right there. But if the folks who currently posess more money than can reasonably be spent in several lifetimes could part with a percentage of that, it could go to helpful "social" programs, and increass the standard of living of a very large percent of the population.
Wow, I sound awful liberal there... i guess in that regard, I am. Although I feel that the welfare system is grossly abused and exploited.

now here's someone that makes sense!

will raising the min wage solve all of society's ills? - of course not

i seriously doubt that most employers are only offering the min wage - because they want to attract a more skilled workforce, they offer more..... but there are still some employers who ARE only paying min wage to their entry-levelers.....raising it will help these people out who are unfortunate enough to live in areas w/ limited employment opportunities..... also, i believe that the companys who are hiring illegal immigrants are prob more likely to only offer min wage (if not lower). By cracking down on these employers, the wages for all americans is bound to increase & decrease the incentive for foreigners to sneak across our borders.

of course the Min Wage needs to be auto-adjusted annually to inflation (& while we're at it - do the same for congressional pay)

as others have already stated in other ways - give someone making min wage a $1/hr increase - s/he will go out & spend all of it & help stimulate the economy..... but give that $1/hr increase to Donald Trump or Bill Gates - they will spend little (if any) of it - they already have everything they need

the above principle also applies to tax breaks - giving tax breaks to the poor has more of an impact than tax breaks to the wealthy

[purple_octopus]

the above principle also applies to tax breaks - giving tax breaks to the poor has more of an impact than tax breaks to the wealthy

**psst** Hey, AvatarOfVishnu -- the poor don't pay income taxes. ;) (And I'm talking about actual real-live poor people, not just people who don't have enough money for the lifestyle they would prefer.)

[AvatarOfVishnu]

Sales taxes are pretty regressive, and regressive taxes make no sense to me.

If we exempted necessities like food and clothing and made it more of a luxury tax, I'd be okay with it.

sounds like a plan i could go along with! as does the flat tax w/ single exemption of 2000 x [min wage]

[the happy prole]

So you're saying there are poor people with high IQ's? Is it so bad to admit that intelligence effects how we live? God damn man, you run from the truth if it's not wrapped in a pink ribbon.

Care to demonstrate this truth with some good scientific or statistical evidence?


Note: Charles Murray!=good

[AvatarOfVishnu]

**psst** Hey, AvatarOfVishnu -- the poor don't pay income taxes. ;) (And I'm talking about actual real-live poor people, not just people who don't have enough money for the lifestyle they would prefer.)

payroll taxes are taxes! all workers pay payroll taxes

[purple_octopus]

payroll taxes are taxes! all workers pay payroll taxes
Actually, if you claim enough they don't. And what they do take out, you'll get back at the end of the year (plus some, if you're really poor or have lotsa bastard kids). If you're really poor that is. Of course, my definition of "poor" is probably a little different from yours. I think as long someone has a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food in their belly, they are A-OK.

Now that I think about it, I think you can even keep payroll taxes from coming out of your check if you haven't had to pay them for the last X number of years. (I'm just talking income tax here, not Social Security/Medicare.)

[akip]

According to the stats that akip posted, white guys are actually a disproprtionally high percentage of the minimum wage workforce.

shhhhhhh. :p

[slopechz]

OMG someone speaks the truth and you go running.

So you're saying there are poor people with high IQ's? Is it so bad to admit that intelligence effects how we live? God damn man, you run from the truth if it's not wrapped in a pink ribbon.

I can agree wth Dirk in that I think some, maybe half, of it is education and you can educate these people out of poverty, but some people are just too damn stupid to do it.



You want to break it down and explain to me what parts are disgusting? How about what parts aren't true?
Sure. Blanket statements about any group are inappropriate and offend me. Let's go one at a time:

1. It's really much more simpel than that. I believe giving the poor mor emoney will do nothing. Most of them will waste it because *gasp* they ain't too smart. - How do you know this? Poor people are dumb because....

2. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty. But how many are willing to learn? - Some people are destined to be poor but many people do not have the opportunities that I had and I assume you had. It seems you are suggesting poor people are poor for a reason and are either to dumb or lazy to pull themselves up. This is really unfair in my view.

3. And then you have moms with 4 kids and no husband. How did that happen, and why should I pay? If we gave her more money would she have more kids? If she had more kids would she be better off? Is it my business telling her how to live her life? Hey baby, let's party. Now do you understand what I meant? You bleeding hearts want to feel better about the problem and the only thing you know how to do is throw money, or bitch that you think the rich should throw money. How do you think that's going to help? - This statement speaks for itself. I suspect you do not grasp the inflammatory language that you have used. This is the portion I found offensive and disgusting.

4. Does money make people smarter? - Of course not, opportunities, good education and quality job training does.

I regret posting this damn article. I really didn't think the shit would hit the fan.

[markalot]

Now there's a focus group that can prove this is all nothing but cold calculation.


2. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty. But how many are willing to learn?

Are you bothered by my use of the word intelligence? Does education make one smarter? I'll rephrase if it helps clear up my meaning. Bottom line, money does nothing. We need to force these people to learn. I'm against forcing.

[the happy prole]

And taking away people's welfare checks won't force them to learn new behaviors?

[jps]

Now there's a focus group that can prove this is all nothing but cold calculation.


2. Look, of course there are exceptions, but generally intelligence and poverty are linked. If you want to get someone out of poverty you have to teach them how to get out of poverty. But how many are willing to learn?

Are you bothered by my use of the word intelligence? Does education make one smarter? I'll rephrase if it helps clear up my meaning. Bottom line, money does nothing. We need to force these people to learn. I'm against forcing.
you are a toad... for your sake I hope you never have any problems that might cause you to have to live paycheck (under $300 a week/under $16000 a year) to paycheck. If that fate ever does befall you, well... i hope you don't have a family to worry about.

I know... feed the homeless to the hungry. kill 2 birds at once. $7/hour = $280/week before taxes = $14,560/year before taxes. got any suggestions for how someone is supposed to live on that and get more job training at the same time? I know, how about some student loans... oh, wait the gov't just cut those and is raising the interest rates that banks can charge through the roof (that last bit is a rant because I will soon be going from roughly middle class to not middle class, because of the increase in interest rates).

[george]

Care to demonstrate this truth with some good scientific or statistical evidence?


Note: Charles Murray!=good

Just google "nature vs. nurture"

The consensus seems to be intelligence is "interactive" - it is affected by both genetics and environment. Genetics seems to play the stronger role, but it's a hard topic to study thoroughly.

[markalot]

you are a toad... for your sake I hope you never have any problems that might cause you to have to live paycheck (under $300 a week/under $16000 a year) to paycheck. If that fate ever does befall you, well... i hope you don't have a family to worry about.

I know... feed the homeless to the hungry. kill 2 birds at once. $7/hour = $280/week before taxes = $14,560/year before taxes. got any suggestions for how someone is supposed to live on that and get more job training at the same time? I know, how about some student loans... oh, wait the gov't just cut those and is raising the interest rates that banks can charge through the roof (that last bit is a rant because I will soon be going from roughly middle class to not middle class, because of the increase in interest rates).

You're leaving something out, aren't you? I lived paycheck to paycheck for years, got myself into 25K of credit card debt because I wanted it all right now. I even had to move back with the parents for a few months to get my finances in order. So what's your point? I also don't have a college degree, yet I have a good paying job in IT. How the hell did that happen? Hard work?

It must be luck, it has to be, so go ahead and tell me I'm lucky. Blow away all my hard work and turn it into privledge. I'm a lazy white guy working the system.

But again and again, while the sob stories are touching, you all refuse to bite on the real issue. Do you really think throwing people extra money will help? And if so, how? How did someone with 2 kids get into a bad situation? Did they overspend? Did they not think about the future? Was it someone elses problem until it happened to them? And now I should feel sorry for them?

I admit, I have a problem with compassion. I bet if I met some of these people I would want to help them, but I still don't think handing them cash is going to help.

We need school to work programs where we watch your kids while you get an education. We pay for the school, we pay for healthcare, you just keep at it, make the grades, and get a job when you get out. We even have coop programs where you can get real experience while gaining that education.

That's got to be less costly in the long run than just handing people money. BUT, and here's the part I can't seem to communicate, I'm willing to bet less than 50% of the people eligable will use the school to work plan.

[the happy prole]

Just google "nature vs. nurture"

The consensus seems to be intelligence is "interactive" - it is affected by both genetics and environment. Genetics seems to play the stronger role, but it's a hard topic to study thoroughly.

Genetics plays a more SIGNIFICANT role, perhaps-- but no one other than Charles Murray has gone so far as to say that the difference in intelligence is stark enough that poor people's IQ's are so low that they cannot be useful in society.

But if you want it that way, Charles Murray also notes that Asians have higher IQs than whites or blacks. So markalot, if you could just kindly get the fuck off my planet? Thanks. ;)

[the happy prole]

You're leaving something out, aren't you? I lived paycheck to paycheck for years, got myself into 25K of credit card debt because I wanted it all right now. I even had to move back with the parents for a few months to get my finances in order. So what's your point? I also don't have a college degree, yet I have a good paying job in IT.

Some people don't have parents they can move back in with. In fact some people have parents who have to move in with THEM. And sisters and brothers. That right there is a pretty huge difference.

[george]

Genetics plays a more SIGNIFICANT role, perhaps--

Agreed.

..

[jps]

You're leaving something out, aren't you? I lived paycheck to paycheck for years, got myself into 25K of credit card debt because I wanted it all right now. I even had to move back with the parents for a few months to get my finances in order. So what's your point? I also don't have a college degree, yet I have a good paying job in IT. How the hell did that happen? Hard work?

It must be luck, it has to be, so go ahead and tell me I'm lucky. Blow away all my hard work and turn it into privledge. I'm a lazy white guy working the system.

But again and again, while the sob stories are touching, you all refuse to bite on the real issue. Do you really think throwing people extra money will help? And if so, how? How did someone with 2 kids get into a bad situation? Did they overspend? Did they not think about the future? Was it someone elses problem until it happened to them? And now I should feel sorry for them?

I admit, I have a problem with compassion. I bet if I met some of these people I would want to help them, but I still don't think handing them cash is going to help.

We need school to work programs where we watch your kids while you get an education. We pay for the school, we pay for healthcare, you just keep at it, make the grades, and get a job when you get out. We even have coop programs where you can get real experience while gaining that education.

That's got to be less costly in the long run than just handing people money. BUT, and here's the part I can't seem to communicate, I'm willing to bet less than 50% of the people eligable will use the school to work plan.
Not going to blow away any of your hard work. Congratulations.
Congratulations on being an exception to the rule that generally moves poor people to poorer stations in life and wealthy people to wealthier stations in life.
I agree with what you are talking about in terms of hard work, and work training programs. Its not supposed to be easy. The problem is these programs aren't available to everyone/enough people. Another problem is that we are suggesting giving work training to someone who has no education at all in some cases can't read... no basic skills at all. So it has to start early. almost as if there needs to be a Head Start type of program ... not so certain people will get ahead, but so that they will end up with at least some basic education once they get out into the world.
The final problem is that we need to define poor better. Shouldn't we say that if you are going to make the smallest amount of money that can be legally paid to you that you are at least going to live above the poverty line? The poverty line is shamefully low as it is... a family of four... four... that makes over $20K a year is considered not in poverty according to the department of Health and Human Services.

[akip]

Markalot, i don't see the point in resenting the poor, just 'cause you had to work like most of us. my husband had to do it all himself with no help too. he works harder than anybody i know, yet he's not grousing about it. tenacity is just in his DNA. why not be happy you've got skills, a good job, and you're in control of your own life? everybody has their problems. yours might not interfere with your ability to make a living, like some people's do, but maybe they cause a lot of tension so that maybe you require a target outside of yourself. i'm not picking on you; just that's usually the way things are when people expend a lot of excess energy on negative shit.

there's always going to be some responsibility in society for the greater good, unless you live in haiti behind high walls and your own security force. dismantling all safety nets will end up costing you just as much as maintaining a few of them. we don't have nearly as big a safety net as other affluent western societies, but we all pay in different ways. stability always has a price tag.

i think we'd all be better off concentrating on our own problems instead of constantly pointing fingers and blaming the deficiencies of other people, no matter who they happen to be. unless you wanna start exterminating people, but then even hitler couldn't keep it up.

as for the minimum wage, i'll say it again. i'm more worried about the technology gap. if people don't know how to use computers, etc, they're gonna be fucked, no matter what the minimum wage is.

[jneale]

I even had to move back with the parents for a few months to get my finances in order. So what's your point? I also don't have a college degree, yet I have a good paying job in IT. How the hell did that happen? Hard work?

Do you really think throwing people extra money will help? And if so, how? How did someone with 2 kids get into a bad situation? Did they overspend? Did they not think about the future? Was it someone elses problem until it happened to them? And now I should feel sorry for them?


I agree with you – but you made a point that is missing in all this “poor” conversation – you had parent who apparently have take enough interest in you that you’ve got a sense of right/wrong & a work ethic (and a place to fall back on when times got ugly.)

Increasing minimum wage isn’t going to fix it – I agree. We pay entry level here more than minimum wage & they won’t come to work. I’ve got people with multiple child support garnishments & still they don’t come to work.

Akip has a good point with the technology gap – but I think it is even deeper than that – there exists an entire underclass of people who are raised without any core of support. Yea – people can pull themselves up by the boot straps & put their nose to the grindstone - but I think that all this baby momma crap is preventing an entire generation for getting the basic skills of how to function in society. Raising minimum wage isn’t going to help those kinda societal issues.

I do feel sorry for them.

[the_birds]

Congratulations on being an exception to the rule that generally moves poor people to poorer stations in life and wealthy people to wealthier stations in life.

I totally agree with this JPS. This is the real point here. Its great that you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and decided you were going to be a solvent, tax paying, contributing part of society, Marky. And you did it all yourself, that's fantastic.

You just can't expect everyone to be able to do this. You've done what a lot of people can't manage. You didn't feel sorry for yourself, you addressed your problems. But also remember, you didn't start at the very bottom. Just saying you were able to get a Credit card and rack up 25K worth of debt, means that you didn't start at the bottom. And you had somewhere to go (your Momma's house) when you had to regroup.

Problem with projecting those methods on others, is you ignore simple Human Nature. You think everyone can do this. Human Nature and low self-esteem, not to mention money problems, makes more people think failure than success. The other classic mistake is you are asking people who have had way worse than you, to do the same thing you did, which would actually be MORE than what you did.

[slopechz]

Are you bothered by my use of the word intelligence?
I covered this already in my answer to you in No. 3 above. I am bothered by you demeaning, hateful characterizations of the poor. Ok?

[markalot]

I covered this already in my answer to you in No. 3 above. I am bothered by you demeaning, hateful characterizations of the poor. Ok?

As I am bothered by the almost constant praising of the poor as people who are just down on their luck. While my language is 'CE/P inflaming' I do think there's a lot more lazy in poor than most are willing to admit.

If we offered free education and job hunting services for all, with demands on grades and finding a job, how many would take it? You know some will, we both know that those who do will probably thrive, but how many will?

And if your honest and answer, say 25%. Why did the other 75% turn it down? I would say because they're ignorant (not stupid, not dumb). Ignorant and lacking the drive to want to improve. So, all inflammatory language aside, why should I care about these people?

[Nellie Bly]

We need school to work programs where we watch your kids while you get an education. We pay for the school, we pay for healthcare, you just keep at it, make the grades, and get a job when you get out. We even have coop programs where you can get real experience while gaining that education.

I totally agree with you on this.

That's got to be less costly in the long run than just handing people money. BUT, and here's the part I can't seem to communicate, I'm willing to bet less than 50% of the people eligable will use the school to work plan.

In the long-term it probably would be much cheaper to re-educate or train someone instead of giving them a handout every month. I used to work for a non-profit that offered computer classes (beginner-type stuff and some intermediate), a course on how to build your resume/interviewing skills, and a class on how to start your own small business. Everyday there were at least two people asking about the resume/interview course and/or the computer classes. And the small business course would be booked solid almost before the previous session had ended. That might be the area we were in, I don't know. It helped that the people who ran those programs were well connected and open to referrals from churches and other organizations.

[george]

Give it up, Mark. The poor are all noble and hardworking creatures victimized by "the system". It's not their fault. It's just that the rich white man keeps them down.

[akip]

As I am bothered by the almost constant praising of the poor as people who are just down on their luck. While my language is 'CE/P inflaming' I do think there's a lot more lazy in poor than most are willing to admit.

If we offered free education and job hunting services for all, with demands on grades and finding a job, how many would take it? You know some will, we both know that those who do will probably thrive, but how many will?

And if your honest and answer, say 25%. Why did the other 75% turn it down? I would say because they're ignorant (not stupid, not dumb). Ignorant and lacking the drive to want to improve. So, all inflammatory language aside, why should I care about these people?

yes, why should you care enough to make blanket generalizations and rant about them? why not accept that they exist, for numerous reasons too complex to simplify into the one definition that takes you off the hook?

my husband has an entire clan of lazy cousins who happen to be supported by their middle class parents. so what?

[slopechz]

yes, why should you care enough to make blanket generalizations and rant about them? why not accept that they exist, for numerous reasons too complex to simplify into the one definition that takes you off the hook?

my husband has an entire clan of lazy cousins who happen to be supported by their middle class parents. so what?
I have a sister with her family in the same boat (not her fault really, her husband is very ill), so I know all about this stuff.

[slopechz]

Give it up, Mark. The poor are all noble and hardworking creatures victimized by "the system". It's not their fault. It's just that the rich white man keeps them down.
You see, this is a man who truly gets it. :rolleyes:

[akip]

Give it up, Mark. The poor are all noble and hardworking creatures victimized by "the system". It's not their fault. It's just that the rich white man keeps them down.

that's just the opposite BS. i don't see anybody here having expressed that viewpoint.

look, even if political parties prosper by churning up resentment, the US has real problems ahead if our native work force is uneducated and unprepared.

[slopechz]

In the long-term it probably would be much cheaper to re-educate or train someone instead of giving them a handout every month. I used to work for a non-profit that offered computer classes (beginner-type stuff and some intermediate), a course on how to build your resume/interviewing skills, and a class on how to start your own small business. Everyday there were at least two people asking about the resume/interview course and/or the computer classes. And the small business course would be booked solid almost before the previous session had ended. That might be the area we were in, I don't know. It helped that the people who ran those programs were well connected and open to referrals from churches and other organizations.
Very well said, but it really doesn't happen on a large scale. I have heard of some states that have programs like this. Do you know what they do with welfare folks in NY? They pick up the garbage in Prospect Park here in Brooklyn. Then after a few years of that, they force the hard core cases into a home health aid class. When they earn that certificate, NYC sends them into the home of the elderly to take care of them for about $8.75 an hour. In NY, that pretty much is minimum wage as inflation is running way ahead of the rest of the country. I know this as my elderly neighbor has a lovely, hard working woman who comes in and cares for him. Oh, and she eats crackers for lunch as all her money goes to rent.

[back2vinyl]

I think animosity towards the poor is fueled by the view that they are a drain on society and that they habitually foul the areas they inhabit.

I've rented to a lot of low income people. Some are lazy fucks who just want to get through life with as little effort as possible. Some made mistakes early in life (i.e. - have a record) and that keeps them from getting a good job now. Some just aren't smart enough to ever get a job that pays more than $8/hour. For some, it's only a transient condition and they will work their way out. They are all poor for a reason, but the reasons vary. I don't think lumping them all together is helpful in analysing the problem.

<edited to add>

For anyone interested in reading about causes of poverty, I've found these OSU fact sheets helpful:

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5710.html

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5709.html

[akip]

there were a bunch of poor women taking my mother to the toilet in the nursing home. they certainly aren't a drain on society.

[the happy prole]

And if your honest and answer, say 25%. Why did the other 75% turn it down? I would say because they're ignorant (not stupid, not dumb). Ignorant and lacking the drive to want to improve. So, all inflammatory language aside, why should I care about these people?

If we offered educational programs to the poor and 80% of them refused it, you consider that a failure. I consider it a success. 20% of people took the offer and thrived. The other 80%, well they didn't cost us anything so who cares?

Here's the deal with minimum wage: 1) You must offer enough to an employer that they'll hire you. 2) You must continue to WORK to get it. In essence, the private market is screening through the poor and finding the most likely candidates for success. If you're a lazy, unredeemable ass it costs us NOTHING. You were sitting on your ass collecting welfare, now you're still sitting on your ass collecting welfare.

[markalot]

yes, why should you care enough to make blanket generalizations and rant about them? why not accept that they exist, for numerous reasons too complex to simplify into the one definition that takes you off the hook?

my husband has an entire clan of lazy cousins who happen to be supported by their middle class parents. so what?

I'm being asked to pay, aren't I? Aren't all of us? Via a minimum wage hike or taxes one way or another I have to pay to support them. At the same time I can't force them to behave like I want them too, to it's a bit of a quandry. The dems always want answers that appeal to their base (stupidity) so they just throw money at the problem. The repubs want us to hate the poor as a bunch of lazy good for nothing idiots who don't deserve a dime.

I've rented to a lot of low income people. Some are lazy fucks who just want to get through life with as little effort as possible. Some made mistakes early in life (i.e. - have a record) and that keeps them from getting a good job now. Some just aren't smart enough to ever get a job that pays more than $8/hour. For some, it's only a transient condition and they will work their way out. They are all poor for a reason, but the reasons vary. I don't think lumping them all together is helpful in analysing the problem.


Ok, so let's analyze. We've identified transient poor, maybe 25%, who are only poor until they get their stuff together. We've identified those with a record, and we've identified those that are lazy, and we've identified those lacking smarts (maybe ignorant, maybe just dumb).

Can we agree that we all would like to help the transient and 'ignorant' out of poverty? My 25% that would help themselves are mostly in the transient crowd. With help some in the ignorant crowd might take the offer. I would block most of the former criminals unless the crime was really minor. Something like stealing food would not register as a crime.

Ok, so are we really much higher than 25%?

I only want to help people who want to help themselves. I don't see value in forcing someone to participate.

[weeone]

I'm giving everyone here a raise and the day off. It's Friday folks !

[markalot]

If we offered educational programs to the poor and 80% of them refused it, you consider that a failure. I consider it a success. 20% of people took the offer and thrived. The other 80%, well they didn't cost us anything so who cares?

Here's the deal with minimum wage: 1) You must offer enough to an employer that they'll hire you. 2) You must continue to WORK to get it. In essence, the private market is screening through the poor and finding the most likely candidates for success. If you're a lazy, unredeemable ass it costs us NOTHING. You were sitting on your ass collecting welfare, now you're still sitting on your ass collecting welfare.


I agree minimum wage is better than welfare, but I don't see the advantage of raising it. And you know that the other 80% costs us a lot more than the 20% who took the offer ... a lot more. It's cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq.

[weeone]

It's cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq.
*hair standing on ends*

First of all, no it isn't cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq. Those are both VERY expensive alternatives.

Secondly, *good lawdy* you're callous :D :p

[candy4140]

my husband has an entire clan of lazy cousins who happen to be supported by their middle class parents. so what?

Oh man, that's funny. I had this Jewish friend who after getting laid off twice, she has been living at home for about 4 years. Can't get a job, she has issues with getting fired alot. One day she started ranting about this homeless guy that she kept running into harrassing her for money "I'm like get a job!". My friends got so sick of her bitching, she was like "girlfriend if YOU didn't have rich parents letting you live at home, YOU would be homeless...so shut the hell up!"

[weeone]

Oh man, that's funny. I had this Jewish friend who after getting laid off twice, she has been living at home for about 4 years. Can't get a job, she has issues with getting fired alot. One day she started ranting about this homeless guy that she kept running into harrassing her for money "I'm like get a job!". My friends got so sick of her bitching, she was like "girlfriend if YOU didn't have rich parents letting you live at home, YOU would be homeless...so shut the hell up!"
Yeah, Jews can be so annoying.

[the happy prole]

I agree minimum wage is better than welfare, but I don't see the advantage of raising it. And you know that the other 80% costs us a lot more than the 20% who took the offer ... a lot more. It's cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq.

No. The 80% really costs you nothing. If they choose not to work; they aren't getting paid via wage. They might be getting paid via welfare, but that's a different issue. If minimum wage>welfare the more people you get off welfare and working, the better off you are.

It's pretty simple. If I can make say, $7.00/hr doing nothing or $7.00 working then I'm going to do nothing. If I can make $8.00 working vs. $7.00 on welfare, I might opt to work. And all you would need from me is $1.00 worth of work an hour for society to come out ahead. It's certainly much cheaper than putting them in jail or sending them to Iraq.

Now you could achieve the same incentive structure by doing what weeone suggests and lowering welfare instead. But either way, a meaningful minimum wage is important.

Let's assume there's a certain segment of society that we can say is utterly ireedemable. The question then is how much (if any) we might want to spend on that segment-- either for moral reasons, or just to prevent them from costing us even MORE. eg. if people can't make a living legally then they will turn to illegal means and the societal cost of jail plus the damage to the victims might be more than just giving them a handout. Maybe. But that's one segment.

The other segment is that which is not totally ireedemable and we can maybe still juice some use out of them. In which case we need something like minimum wage to encourage them to seperate them from the others. Each person that we get off welfare and into a working situation puts us ahead.
And that's looking at it in a non bleeding heart perspective.

[akip]

I'm being asked to pay, aren't I? Aren't all of us? Via a minimum wage hike or taxes one way or another I have to pay to support them. At the same time I can't force them to behave like I want them too, to it's a bit of a quandry. The dems always want answers that appeal to their base (stupidity) so they just throw money at the problem. The repubs want us to hate the poor as a bunch of lazy good for nothing idiots who don't deserve a dime.



Ok, so let's analyze. We've identified transient poor, maybe 25%, who are only poor until they get their stuff together. We've identified those with a record, and we've identified those that are lazy, and we've identified those lacking smarts (maybe ignorant, maybe just dumb).

Can we agree that we all would like to help the transient and 'ignorant' out of poverty? My 25% that would help themselves are mostly in the transient crowd. With help some in the ignorant crowd might take the offer. I would block most of the former criminals unless the crime was really minor. Something like stealing food would not register as a crime.

Ok, so are we really much higher than 25%?

I only want to help people who want to help themselves. I don't see value in forcing someone to participate.


i think you're sort of wasting a lot of time trying to separate good from evil, like, what were they called, the machaenians, or however you spell it. it's just not so simple. most of us aren't entirely bad or good, no matter what class we're in.

anyway, we've already pretty much decided as a society that we'd rather put people in jail, even though it's more expensive, 'cause then we really don't have to bother with them anymore. we've already instituted welfare reform to turn it into a temporary measure to get people back on their feet. but you take everything else away, you could have third world conditions---epidemics, social unrest, and a lot of other nasty things. forget the morality---there's a moral argument for either side of the political fence. just worry about society at large.

[slopechz]

*hair standing on ends*

First of all, no it isn't cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq. Those are both VERY expensive alternatives.

Secondly, *good lawdy* you're callous :D :p
Really? I never noticed that.

[slopechz]

Yeah, Jews can be so annoying.
So true, so true. :rolleyes:

[slopechz]

I'm giving everyone here a raise and the day off. It's Friday folks !
Yeah, I agree, this thread is sucking the life out of me. :eek:

[Shlep]

Yeah, I agree, this thread is sucking the life out of me. :eek:

It's for a good cause. Since you're young and lively, this thread is sucking the life out of you to be redistributed to other people who, through no fault of their own, are dying. It's the fair and equitable thing to do. :D

[berzerker]

I agree minimum wage is better than welfare, but I don't see the advantage of raising it. And you know that the other 80% costs us a lot more than the 20% who took the offer ... a lot more. It's cheaper to throw them in jail or send them to Iraq.

Cost of the Iraq war (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) which by the way had ABSOLUTELY NO PROVABLE link to September 11th.

Cost of prison (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2003summary/html/FPScharts.htm) (sorry, this isn't up to date. But, anyone who was lucky enough to get out of a $25K credit card debt because they were too stupid to do so should be able to figure out a rough approximation of the current budget by following the documented trend.)

Proposed cost of welfare and unemployment in 2007: $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare (that's with a $354 BILLION deficit increase, of course, that number will go up, if for some reason it seems like a good idea to start another war...)from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007)

In a nutshell, not even thinking about federal, state and local prisons, we spend more per year on the military than welfare.
And that's fine - I have no problem with that.
Except I hope there's a better solution for these problems than the military, incarceration or welfare.

[markalot]

Slope,

my tone is like this only in these forums. It's like talk radio. Don't get stressed out about it. I don't make decisions about the poor so it's easy for me to talk smack without facts. I find it makes for interesting dicsussions where otherwise this forum would die.

[slopechz]

Slope,

my tone is like this only in these forums. It's like talk radio. Don't get stressed out about it. I don't make decisions about the poor so it's easy for me to talk smack without facts. I find it makes for interesting dicsussions where otherwise this forum would die.
Is that really true Mark? I like to think that we can have an exchange of ideas without it turning into a free for all. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate, but I hate the vitriol talk radio spews. Anyway, have a good weekend everyone. :)

[akip]

i sort of like a good fight. :p

[weeone]

Wow, three quotes from slopecheeze. *proudly puffs out chest*

[slopechz]

OK, somebody say something to piss me off, this is way to friendly for me. :D

[weeone]

OK, somebody say something to piss me off, this is way to friendly for me. :D
It's spelled "too", asswipe. :D

[back2vinyl]

OK, somebody say something to piss me off, this is way to friendly for me. :D

Uh, fuck you....

or something....

[AvatarOfVishnu]

You're leaving something out, aren't you? I lived paycheck to paycheck for years, got myself into 25K of credit card debt because I wanted it all right now. I even had to move back with the parents for a few months to get my finances in order. So what's your point? I also don't have a college degree, yet I have a good paying job in IT. How the hell did that happen? Hard work?

It must be luck, it has to be, so go ahead and tell me I'm lucky. Blow away all my hard work and turn it into privledge. I'm a lazy white guy working the system.

But again and again, while the sob stories are touching, you all refuse to bite on the real issue. Do you really think throwing people extra money will help? And if so, how? How did someone with 2 kids get into a bad situation? Did they overspend? Did they not think about the future? Was it someone elses problem until it happened to them? And now I should feel sorry for them?

I admit, I have a problem with compassion. I bet if I met some of these people I would want to help them, but I still don't think handing them cash is going to help.

We need school to work programs where we watch your kids while you get an education. We pay for the school, we pay for healthcare, you just keep at it, make the grades, and get a job when you get out. We even have coop programs where you can get real experience while gaining that education.

That's got to be less costly in the long run than just handing people money. BUT, and here's the part I can't seem to communicate, I'm willing to bet less than 50% of the people eligable will use the school to work plan.

If people make mistakes, yes there should be consequences. But I still want these people to have opportunities to pull themselves up. It is getting more & more difficult (& in some cases impossible) for anybody who's fucked up to get a chance at a decent life.

I say that anybody who is putting in a full 40hrs per week is trying to pull themselves up. Let's not make it harder on them by allowing their purchase power to decrease (as the cost of living increases & their income remains stagnant).

You pulled yourself up - good job - you should be proud of your accomplishments especially in light of your obstacles. I would think you would resent people like George W Bush, who, after fucking up over & over again (whether it be his party days at Yale or his failed business ventures) managed to make it all the way to the White House. He & others born into the life of privilege didn't have to slave & struggle the way you did in order to get ahead in life.

I'm guessing you support abolishing the estate tax altogether - but I certainly don't see why us normal folk should be forced to put forth so much more effort than the kids of billionaires.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

...We need school to work programs where we watch your kids while you get an education. We pay for the school, we pay for healthcare, you just keep at it, make the grades, and get a job when you get out. We even have coop programs where you can get real experience while gaining that education...

This is a great idea - but as a poster said earlier - there will always be a lower class because even if everybody got a BA, there will still be those w/ Masters & PhDs - so a simple BA would only get you min wage in this scenario.

I urge you to write to your Republican representatives & advocate this plan of yours - i'll write my Democratic reps & ask them to support it. Will it be a cure-all? - no (there is no 1 cure-all), but this along w/ a raise in the min wage, along w/ several other initiatives, will result in a better USA.

[Breeze]

But again and again, while the sob stories are touching, you all refuse to bite on the real issue. Do you really think throwing people extra money will help? And if so, how?

Well, when the topic is tax cuts, the rationale is that you let people keep more money so that they in turn put it into the economy, which then ebenfits from the infusion. Same rationale applied back in 2001 when the tax-cut rebate checks went out. Why wouldn't the same rationale apply here? Allowing people more money means they'll spend more and thus boost the economy, right?

[purple_octopus]

I'm guessing you support abolishing the estate tax altogether - but I certainly don't see why us normal folk should be forced to put forth so much more effort than the kids of billionaires.
Because them's the breaks. If you're working hard and you're still not happy with your station in life, you have to work harder. There's no reason to punish someone else's kid because you're jealous you don't have the same lifestyle. Do you really think those billionaire kids are happy anyway? I don't. Having money usually makes you an asshole. They probably don't have a real friend in the world, and if they're not smart about it, they'll lose it all by the time they're 40. Is it that hard to just ignore what other people are doing, how they are living, and concentrate on your own life? Why do you care how hard they are working? Why is it your business?

Yes, we need to change the tax code. I think a flat tax with *no* deductions would be best. As long as we know that everything has been taxed once, there's no reason to tax it twice. If you take away their ability to cheat the system through loopholes, there's no reason they can't pay their fair share like everyone else.

[purple_octopus]

I urge you to write to your Republican representatives & advocate this plan of yours - i'll write my Democratic reps & ask them to support it. Will it be a cure-all? - no (there is no 1 cure-all), but this along w/ a raise in the min wage, along w/ several other initiatives, will result in a better USA.
**psst** Markalot is not a Republican.

[DaHood]

Because them's the breaks. If you're working hard and you're still not happy with your station in life, you have to work harder. There's no reason to punish someone else's kid because you're jealous you don't have the same lifestyle. Do you really think those billionaire kids are happy anyway? I don't. Having money usually makes you an asshole. They probably don't have a real friend in the world, and if they're not smart about it, they'll lose it all by the time they're 40. Is it that hard to just ignore what other people are doing, how they are living, and concentrate on your own life? Why do you care how hard they are working? Why is it your business?

Yes, we need to change the tax code. I think a flat tax with *no* deductions would be best. As long as we know that everything has been taxed once, there's no reason to tax it twice. If you take away their ability to cheat the system through loopholes, there's no reason they can't pay their fair share like everyone else.I think a few billion would definately enhance my happiness. :D

I'm totally behind flat tax. I have been for a very long time. Although I would support a cutoff point at the poverty level. Everyone else, same rate. Period.

[DaHood]

**psst** Markalot is not a Republican.
He only plays one on TV. :p


KIDDING!!

[purple_octopus]

I think a few billion would definately enhance my happiness. :D

I'm totally behind flat tax. I have been for a very long time. Although I would support a cutoff point at the poverty level. Everyone else, same rate. Period.
I wouldn't. A percentage is a percentage. Everyone needs to feel like they've paid their share of the bill. Really, if you make $100 a year, and the flat tax is 5%, is $5 really going to make or break you? Plus, no one could bitch about the poor not carrying their weight anymore.

[DaHood]

I wouldn't. A percentage is a percentage. Everyone needs to feel like they've paid their share of the bill. Really, if you make $100 a year, and the flat tax is 5%, is $5 really going to make or break you?
I was just thinking that the burden of paying a flat tax when you make $15,000/yr is a lot more of a burden than when you make $50,000/yr.
Plus, no one could bitch about the poor not carrying their weight anymore.
But when you put it that way, I agree

[the happy prole]

Allowing people more money means they'll spend more and thus boost the economy, right?

No. What you don't understand is that poor people are completely opposite from rich people.

If you give a poor person a break, they will simply just get even more lazy and waste it. If you give a rich person a tax break or money, they will work much harder, leveraging it for all it's worth.

If you take stuff away from poor people, you force them to start working. But if you take stuff away from rich people, they get all pouty and *stop* working.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

As I am bothered by the almost constant praising of the poor as people who are just down on their luck. While my language is 'CE/P inflaming' I do think there's a lot more lazy in poor than most are willing to admit.

If we offered free education and job hunting services for all, with demands on grades and finding a job, how many would take it? You know some will, we both know that those who do will probably thrive, but how many will?

And if your honest and answer, say 25%. Why did the other 75% turn it down? I would say because they're ignorant (not stupid, not dumb). Ignorant and lacking the drive to want to improve. So, all inflammatory language aside, why should I care about these people?

Why are some people lazy (lack drive)? Why do some people not show up for work? Why do some people get hooked on drugs (alcohol or harder)?

My guess is that you were not a Sociology major (but then neither was i). But I believe in a concept known as Cause & Effect!

Some people have severe mental illness & it often goes untreated. I'm guessing that this is the case w/ most of the homeless. Some people grew up w/o good parents or w/ no parents.

Now, the question is, do we discard all of these people & remove them from our society? If so, we will need to implement strategies to prevent people like this from even being born. Mass sterilizations, parental licensing, etc.

Or, do we work with these people, to help them pull themselves up like you pulled yourself up.

No, handing out cash isn't a solution - I agree. But strengthening the safety-net so it's tight-knit (so people don't fall thru the cracks, holes, etc) is what needs to happen. The minimum wage is but a small portion of this safety-net. A safety-net that the Republicans have been trying to dismantle (& largely succeeding) since Reagan.

Safety-net:
Education
Job Training/Unemployment Funds
Safe Low-Income Housing
Affordable Nutritious Food
Health Care
Community Policing & Fire Protection
& Welfare (only for those w/ severe mental &/or physical imparements)

Conservatives want people to be self-sufficient, so hopefully, if the min wage increases, more people can provide for themselves instead of using govt resources.

[Breeze]

No. What you don't understand is that poor people are completely opposite from rich people.

If you give a poor person a break, they will simply just get even more lazy and waste it. If you give a rich person a tax break or money, they will work much harder, leveraging it for all it's worth.

If you take stuff away from poor people, you force them to start working. But if you take stuff away from rich people, they get all pouty and *stop* working.

And this is all true across the board, 100% of the time? :confused:

[berzerker]

No. What you don't understand is that poor people are completely opposite from rich people.

If you give a poor person a break, they will simply just get even more lazy and waste it. If you give a rich person a tax break or money, they will work much harder, leveraging it for all it's worth.

If you take stuff away from poor people, you force them to start working. But if you take stuff away from rich people, they get all pouty and *stop* working.

Actually, the rich folks who get a tax break will phone their accountants, who will in turn work harder to make sure that their clients keep making money, so that the rich will hang onto as much of it as possible, and not spend it.

Example - Scrooge McDuck is the richest damn cartoon character ever. And all he wants is more money. You'd think he could at least afford to buy his nephews some fuckin' pants. But Noooooooooooo...

[DaHood]

Actually, the rich folks who get a tax break will phone their accountants, who will in turn work harder to make sure that their clients keep making money, so that the rich will hang onto as much of it as possible, and not spend it.

Example - Scrooge McDuck is the richest damn cartoon character ever. And all he wants is more money. You'd think he could at least afford to buy his nephews some fuckin' pants. But Noooooooooooo...He's a tight rich motherfucker...

[the happy prole]

And this is all true across the board, 100% of the time? :confused:

Absolutely. You see, the more money you have, the more important it is that you have even more. The less you have, the less you care so-- you just waste it.

This simple concept is known as "increased marginal utility." It's too bad liberals are incapable of understanding how the free market works.




:p

[berzerker]

Absolutely. You see, the more money you have, the more important it is that you have even more. The less you have, the less you care so-- you just waste it.

This simple concept is known as "increased marginal utility." It's too bad liberals are incapable of understanding how the free market works.




:p

See, if it truly was a free market, then we could ALL have some!

[AvatarOfVishnu]

...There's no reason to punish someone else's kid because you're jealous you don't have the same lifestyle. Do you really think those billionaire kids are happy anyway? I don't. Having money usually makes you an asshole. They probably don't have a real friend in the world, and if they're not smart about it, they'll lose it all by the time they're 40...

So, by forcing the kids of billionaires to put forth a little bit of effort, maybe that will help them! If they aren't so happy, maybe they can find happiness in the struggle like the rest of us - seems like a win-win to me.

Whatever happened to an even-playing field?

We need to reward those who contribute to society - if Donald Trump has a pot-smoking teen that sits around the basement all day playing video games - how is s/he contributing to society? If taxing Donald's estate means this kid will be able to buy $100 less in video games per year, but that money will be avail to help inner-city orphans - i'll take that trade-off anyday!

[weeone]

Only poor people get into heated debates about income.

[the happy prole]

I know, right? It's just so common.

[purple_octopus]

So, by forcing the kids of billionaires to put forth a little bit of effort, maybe that will help them! If they aren't so happy, maybe they can find happiness in the struggle like the rest of us - seems like a win-win to me.
Why do you want to help them? What is wrong with minding your own business?

Whatever happened to an even-playing field?
No one said life is fair. There is no even playing field. I don't think there should be either. We are all meant to face our own struggles and challenges.

We need to reward those who contribute to society
It's not the government's place to reward people. They will find their own rewards. There is nothing wrong with charity, or with helping the poor. I just do not see it as a function of government. No one is entitled to anything. From a moral standpoint, helping the poor is the "right thing to do". But who wants the government forcing us to do what is "morally right"? Not me.

[the happy prole]

But who wants the government forcing us to do what is "morally right"? Not me.

Me neither! Let's start the killing!

[berzerker]

Me neither! Let's start the killing!

Only if the government says it's cool.

[weeone]

Only if the government says it's cool.
Oh, it has. One of the stipulations is that you have to be in Iraq. Or Texas :confused:

[markalot]

Why are some people lazy (lack drive)? Why do some people not show up for work? Why do some people get hooked on drugs (alcohol or harder)?

My guess is that you were not a Sociology major (but then neither was i). But I believe in a concept known as Cause & Effect!

Some people have severe mental illness & it often goes untreated. I'm guessing that this is the case w/ most of the homeless. Some people grew up w/o good parents or w/ no parents.

Now, the question is, do we discard all of these people & remove them from our society? If so, we will need to implement strategies to prevent people like this from even being born. Mass sterilizations, parental licensing, etc.

Or, do we work with these people, to help them pull themselves up like you pulled yourself up.

No, handing out cash isn't a solution - I agree. But strengthening the safety-net so it's tight-knit (so people don't fall thru the cracks, holes, etc) is what needs to happen. The minimum wage is but a small portion of this safety-net. A safety-net that the Republicans have been trying to dismantle (& largely succeeding) since Reagan.

Safety-net:
Education
Job Training/Unemployment Funds
Safe Low-Income Housing
Affordable Nutritious Food
Health Care
Community Policing & Fire Protection
& Welfare (only for those w/ severe mental &/or physical imparements)

Conservatives want people to be self-sufficient, so hopefully, if the min wage increases, more people can provide for themselves instead of using govt resources.


That sounds perfect. Really. Don't raise the minimum wage but instead cut the costs. But while I do think that sounds good we have a history of monumental failures when we try and provide those things. 'the projects' comes to mind. I think for it to work we are going to have to limit people freedom. We'll give you this but you must follow these rules.

But again, there will be some who refuse and like it or not they still cost us money.

[the happy prole]

markalot, you come up with a way that the really lazy, unredeemable people you're talking about *don't* cost us money and I'm all ears.

[jps]

But again, there will be some who refuse and like it or not they still cost us money.
thats when you feed the homeless to the hungry!

funny thing about people... they arent all the same. but if we can do right by a larger portion of them, we will make the whole system better. Plus you have to get to the point where you ask which costs more... paying more up front right now for people in the situation and for preventative measures to reduce these problems down the road, or leaving the system as it is... drug prevention and treatment vs. long prison sentences, doing nothing about healthcare costs, etc. cost us more over the long run than actually doing something about them now. Unfortunately, people are too hung up on the costs of doing business right now to see how much it might cost us all in 5, 10, 20 years.

[jps]

It's not the government's place to reward people. They will find their own rewards. There is nothing wrong with charity, or with helping the poor. I just do not see it as a function of government. No one is entitled to anything. From a moral standpoint, helping the poor is the "right thing to do". But who wants the government forcing us to do what is "morally right"? Not me.
We have a social contract between the governed and government. That contract is established to promote the common good isn't it? In the U.S. is the government supposed to be promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is doing what is morally right promoting the pursuit of happiness?

[DaHood]

thats when you feed the homeless to the hungry!

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/soylent_green/images/soylent_green_large_01.jpg

[jps]

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/soylent_green/images/soylent_green_large_01.jpg
Did somebody say Soylent Green!!!???

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[akip]

personally, i don't wanna live in a country where only the hard-working and decent are rewarded. i like all the lazy, fun-loving people too.

[weeone]

personally, i don't wanna live in a country where only the hard-working and decent are rewarded. i like all the lazy, fun-loving people too.
http://www.pbase.com/brockman/image/36702976/medium.jpg

The dude abides.

[Breeze]

funny thing about people... they arent all the same.


Oh, but they are. thp said so--said this was 100% true across the board.

What you don't understand is that poor people are completely opposite from rich people.

If you give a poor person a break, they will simply just get even more lazy and waste it. If you give a rich person a tax break or money, they will work much harder, leveraging it for all it's worth.

If you take stuff away from poor people, you force them to start working. But if you take stuff away from rich people, they get all pouty and *stop* working.

[markalot]

markalot, you come up with a way that the really lazy, unredeemable people you're talking about *don't* cost us money and I'm all ears.


Send them to Mexico?

[purple_octopus]

We have a social contract between the governed and government. That contract is established to promote the common good isn't it?
Not really. I think it exists to keep us out of each other's way. I don't believe in "the common good".
In the U.S. is the government supposed to be promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is doing what is morally right promoting the pursuit of happiness?
Please. Pursue it to your heart's content. Just leave me the fuck out of it.

[jps]

Not really. I think it exists to keep us out of each other's way. I don't believe in "the common good".

Please. Pursue it to your heart's content. Just leave me the fuck out of it.
the constitution may disagree with you... :
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[purple_octopus]

the constitution may disagree with you... :
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Where does it say "common good" in there? Maybe we just have different definitions of "general welfare". I think that what most of you guys define as "common good" interferes with securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". But maybe that's just me.

[DaHood]

How's about a nice smack on the posterity....

[Shlep]

personally, i don't wanna live in a country where only the hard-working and decent are rewarded. i like all the lazy, fun-loving people too.

I submit to you that the entertainment industry-- which is full of lazy, fun-loving, silly, and downright bizarre people-- is rewarded to a lopsidedly high degree for their efforts.

the constitution may disagree with you... :
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see "we the people," nothing about "we the people, along with the government, mucking about in our business and telling us all what's what." The government is supposed to stay the hell out of our way and let us do what we want and ensure we have the greatest freedom to individual liberty, within reason, and without infringing on the liberties of others.

Please don't even try to take the preamble of the Constitution and use it as a premise for arguing that it's the governments' job to make everything swell and fair and ensure everyone has everything they want. The men who wrote that bit of prose were doing so in absolute defiance of over-reaching government in order to found a new nation predicated on the radical and almost unheard-of notion of individual liberties and freedom of the governed, where government was the result and not the source of that freedom, which was to be maintained with the understanding that the power of the government was on loan from the people, not the other way around.

[the happy prole]

Nope. The Constitution was written expressly to establish a stronger role for the federal government, because the Articles of Confederation weren't working.

The point of the thing was to grant INCREASED power to the federal government vs. the states and somewhat to individuals. That's why the main text reads "The President gets to do blahblahblah." "Congress gets to do blahblahblah." The things in the Bill of Rights that limit the government's power are AMENDMENTS.

As to how this plays out in our modern society, I don't know. Clearly they founding fathers wanted a central government, but not an out-of-control central government.

The Constitution was written to LIMIT the amount of power states and individuals previously possessed. btw, this includes taxation.

[DaHood]

I see "we the people," nothing about "we the people, along with the government, mucking about in our business and telling us all what's what." The government is supposed to stay the hell out of our way and let us do what we want and ensure we have the greatest freedom to individual liberty, within reason, and without infringing on the liberties of others.This sounds very reasonable to me. The government's job is to provide the environment as simply as possible. It is up to us as individuals to utilize that environment to better our existance.

[purple_octopus]

Nope. The Constitution was written expressly to establish a stronger role for the federal government, because the Articles of Confederation weren't working.
I would disagree with you here completely. I would say that the Constitution was written to establish a stronger government because the power-thirsty individuals supporting it weren't satisfied with the Articles of Confederation.

[the happy prole]

Well then, the Constitution sucks, the founding fathers were assholes, and let's junk the thing or rewrite it. But as a legal document, jps is right. The Constitution's preamble reflects the thought that the Government is supposed protect our general welfare and all the rest. It basically says "We need a central government to manage stuff." There's a clear social contract there.

The specifics of the contract are vague however, probably intentionally.

I dislike these arguments where people try to justify a point of view by looking through old history. The writers of the Constitution had no clue what society would look like 200 years later, and I have no idea what they'd make of our present government. And even if we knew what they'd think, who cares if it was wrong?

Either the government is mucking around too much in people's lives, or it isn't. What the Constitution might possibly say about it has no impact on whether it's right or wrong.

[purple_octopus]

But what he is suggesting that line of the constitution is saying is contradicted by that very same quote. There is a nice little grey area where the government can do those things that the private sector is not likely to do, and other nice little things like protect our borders (I mean come on, if they can't do that, why bother with a government?), without preventing us from securing for ourselves and our posterity the "blessings of Liberty". But that Liberty part is by far the most important.

[the happy prole]

The preamble simply contains a list of purposes that the Constitution should serve. There's nothing in there that indicates that "Liberty" should trump "general Welfare" or "Justice." Or even that they're contradictory.

Also, you're interpreting "liberty" as "freedom from government intrusion," which is not the same context as in the preamble. Liberty just means lack of restrictions in general. Like being able to travel from state to state because a strong central government sets uniform laws.

The guys pushing for the Constitution were Federalists. They wanted the government to take in active role in supporting industry, and a national bank, and all sorts of stuff. These are the exact same yahoos who later came up with the Alien and Sedition Act that makes it pretty clear "domestic tranquility" means "quit rocking the boat by talking bad about the US government." They were wrong, so screw 'em and screw their interpretation of the Constitution. Looking back, they kind of come across like elitist assholes so there's some truth in what you said about them being power-hungry.

The Bill of Rights came AFTER the Constitution because of the efforts of the ANTI-Federalists. The Constitution as a complete work is therefore a compromise between those that wanted big guv'ment and those that wanted a very skeletal nation government and so both views are represented.

What makes the Constitution cool is that there is enough structure there to run a country and to generate a set of near-fundamental rights, while leaving that grey area you are talking about constantly up for debate. I don't think there would be anything unconstitutional about dumping welfare and going with a libertarian-esque government. But there's nothing unconstitutional about expanding welfare, either.

This means we can argue about what the role of government SHOULD be, instead of having to rewrite the Constitution constantly or argue about what some idiots 200 years ago thought.

[Peachcorn Shank]

Well, when the topic is tax cuts, the rationale is that you let people keep more money so that they in turn put it into the economy, which then ebenfits from the infusion. Same rationale applied back in 2001 when the tax-cut rebate checks went out. Why wouldn't the same rationale apply here? Allowing people more money means they'll spend more and thus boost the economy, right?

The mistake everyone makes is that they think that raising the minimum wage helps the poor, when it actually hurts them.

"Allowing more money?" Money is not allowed. Money is earned. Money is paid to employees from employers based on the value they provide to the business. If someone provides $8 worth of value, and the minimum wage is $8.50, then they are far more likely to lose their jobs than get more cash. If you owned a business, and you had an employee worth 8 bucks, and the feds raised the minimum wage to $8.50, why on earth would you take a 50 cent loss every hour to have this employee? The short answer is you wouldn't; the unmentioned tragedy is that you would have kept him or her at $8, except Big Brother forced your hand. If you were the worker, wouldn't you rather have the right to accept $8 than have the government say you are not allowed to work at that rate?

Establishing arbitrary cut off points keeps people out of the workforce, and those affected are the poor, the young, the unskilled. People who are getting out of prison. New immigrants; high school dropouts. It makes it that much tougher for the high school student who would like a part time job but has no skills or experience. It raises inflation, so that the new rate becomes the old rate in real terms and buying power, and makes it that much tougher for those of us who are savers eroding the value of our cash put aside.

Ask yourself this. If you support a minimum wage increase, why not make it a cool $20 an hour? Or $30? Why not go for $40; they'd be no more problems in the US at all! Why stop at 8 bucks; 16 K per year?

People earn their livings; they don't just get paid out of munificence. The lack of economic education in this country is frankly appalling. There should not be a minimum wage.

[weeone]

The mistake everyone makes is that they think that raising the minimum wage helps the poor, when it actually hurts them.

"Allowing more money?" Money is not allowed. Money is earned. Money is paid to employees from employers based on the value they provide to the business. If someone provides $8 worth of value, and the minimum wage is $8.50, then they are far more likely to lose their jobs than get more cash. If you owned a business, and you had an employee worth 8 bucks, and the feds raised the minimum wage to $8.50, why on earth would you take a 50 cent loss every hour to have this employee? The short answer is you wouldn't; the unmentioned tragedy is that you would have kept him or her at $8, except Big Brother forced your hand. If you were the worker, wouldn't you rather have the right to accept $8 than have the government say you are not allowed to work at that rate?

Establishing arbitrary cut off points keeps people out of the workforce, and those affected are the poor, the young, the unskilled. People who are getting out of prison. New immigrants; high school dropouts. It makes it that much tougher for the high school student who would like a part time job but has no skills or experience. It raises inflation, so that the new rate becomes the old rate in real terms and buying power, and makes it that much tougher for those of us who are savers eroding the value of our cash put aside.

Ask yourself this. If you support a minimum wage increase, why not make it a cool $20 an hour? Or $30? Why not go for $40; they'd be no more problems in the US at all! Why stop at 8 bucks; 16 K per year?

People earn their livings; they don't just get paid out of munificence. The lack of economic education in this country is frankly appalling. There should not be a minimum wage.

How did I miss this guy. What he said.

Except for the ex-convict thing. We could go around about that.

[the happy prole]

If someone provides $8 worth of value, and the minimum wage is $8.50, then they are far more likely to lose their jobs than get more cash. If you owned a business, and you had an employee worth 8 bucks, and the feds raised the minimum wage to $8.50, why on earth would you take a 50 cent loss every hour to have this employee?

Because the alternative is to not have an employee and therefore lose out on $8.00 worth of labor. $8.00>>.$.50. And your competitors take the same hit you do, so some of that $.50 an hour can be covered by charging more.

If you can farm the labor overseas or illegally hire people below minimum age, you'll probably do that. If you can't you'll pass the cost on to consumers where you can. Where you can't, then you'll have to reduce your workforce. So you'll fire the lousy $8.00 workers. And then the people that stay on will have to work harder to cover the reduced staff. Thus earning the extra $.50.

[akip]

try hiring anybody who speaks english and wants to work hard and stick around for $5.15 an hour.

i pay 13-year-old babysitters more than that. but there's always that zone of exploitation and the ruthless seem to be able to feret it out.

[back2vinyl]

try hiring anybody who speaks english and wants to work hard and stick around for $5.15 an hour.

i pay 13-year-old babysitters more than that. but there's always that zone of exploitation and the ruthless seem to be able to feret it out.

One reason you can't hire an American for $5.15/hour is because with the current system, someone coming off public assistance faces effective tax rates of over 100% since they lose more than a dollar for every dollar they make. Illegal immigrants don't have that issue to deal with since they don't get welfare.

[Peachcorn Shank]

Because the alternative is to not have an employee and therefore lose out on $8.00 worth of labor. $8.00>>.$.50.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all. People don't start businesses to pay their employees more than they are worth, thus losing money themselves. People start businesses to make money. In doing so, they hire people to share in the labor who have the same exact goal - to make money. If someone only provides 8.00 worth of labor and you have to pay them 8.50 (excluding social security, taxes, etc.) by law, you are not going to hire them. Imagine that you were starting a business and this was your first and only employee. Now you stand to lose 50 cents every hour your business operates. You're obviously not going to start the business.

And your competitors take the same hit you do, so some of that $.50 an hour can be covered by charging more.

In other words, they'll be inflation. The cost of your labor goes up 6%, and your recommendation that be made up when the cost of the product goes up 6%. This will be true of other goods and services. Your employee isn't going to be helped by the raise, because that extra 6% is simply going to go towards the extra 6% more that he/she has to pay for stuff. And if your minimum wage worker has been diligent enough to put away $1,000 in the bank for a rainy day, now it has the buying power that $940 once did.

The way that lower income workers get paid more is through doing more productive work that comes with a combination of education, experience and diligence. The government cannot make this happen by raising the minimum wage. All this does is raise the level of performance needed to enter the workforce, thus making entry to work experience that leads to increased skills that lead to increased wealth more difficult for the poorest among us.

If you can farm the labor overseas or illegally hire people below minimum age, you'll probably do that. If you can't you'll pass the cost on to consumers where you can. Where you can't, then you'll have to reduce your workforce. So you'll fire the lousy $8.00 workers. And then the people that stay on will have to work harder to cover the reduced staff. Thus earning the extra $.50.

I'm curious what you expect the lousy $8.00 workers to do for income now that the government has told them they're not allowed to accept that rate in return for their services? You're actually demonstrating my point - setting an arbitrary minimum wage hurts the poorest among us most of all.

[jps]

The way that lower income workers get paid more is through doing more productive work that comes with a combination of education, experience and diligence. The government cannot make this happen by raising the minimum wage. All this does is raise the level of performance needed to enter the workforce, thus making entry to work experience that leads to increased skills that lead to increased wealth more difficult for the poorest among us.
At some point reality sets in though, and we all realize just saying that someone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't always happen. In fact it happens more rarely than the opposite which is lower income workers get poorer and poorer, and wealthier workers get richer and richer. So what do we do about that reality? I ask because doing nothing costs the public more in the long run for the welfare, healthcare, foodstamps, prisons, housing, etc. I by the way don't particularly like an arbitrary wage being set as a minimum... my preference would be a living wage, which the current minimum wage is not.

[the happy prole]

1) Businesses maximize profit. "worth" is entirely subjective. No one starts a business to either underpay, overpay, or exactly pay their employees. They do it to make money. No business is going to say "These employees aren't worth $8.50, so screw it I'm packing it in." What they will say is "How much profit can I make with this new cost and is that worth it?" They maybe can squeeze a supplier or up their prices. But whatever, if there's profit they will stay open, regardless of whether the employees are worth it or not.

I do understand your point that if we are overpaying minimum wage employees than that raises costs and results in some businesses opting out and/or a general loss of efficiency.

2) In general, inflation helps the poor because the rich have more savings. Inflations money less valuable. So the more money you have, the more you are hurt in comparison to those who don't have it. If it suddenly cost $1 billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread tomorrow, all of a sudden you'd be in the same position as a homeless guy.

3) The minimum wage goes up 10%, it is unlikely that inflation will go up 10% overall. The people getting the 10% raise or only a small part of the population. While it's true that a min. wage price increase will probably ripple through the salary structure, I'm not going to see a proportional benefit. Say Mickey D's has to raise their wage from $8.00 to $8.80. That's 10%, but still only an extra .80 an hour. That's a 10% raise. Is that any reason for my employer to give me the equivalent raise of $4.00 an hour?

4) I agree that setting a higher minimum wage does indeed hurt the poorest (or let's say least able/willing to work). Because working is now much more powerful than sitting at home collecting welfare. But as a society, paying someone $8.50 for $8.00 worth of work might very well be better than paying someone $7.50 to sit around and do nothing.

But it's not that big a deal overall. It's not going to cause mass unemployment, runaway inflation or massive income equalization. States have different minimum wages already and it's not like there's been a mass exodus from Washington/Oregon/CA to Virginia. It's just not that big a deal.

What it does is help a very small group of people who are poor but hard-working enough that they can justify paying them the higher min. wage. Which is why I think markalot is a fool for resisting a minimum wage increase. It does exactly what he'd like to see: incentivize work, punish the lazy, and increase efficiency. It will save the government (and him) money in the long run and it's pretty well targetted without a huge government overhead bureaucracy cost.

[Peachcorn Shank]

1) Businesses maximize profit. "worth" is entirely subjective. No one starts a business to either underpay, overpay, or exactly pay their employees. They do it to make money. No business is going to say "These employees aren't worth $8.50, so screw it I'm packing it in." What they will say is "How much profit can I make with this new cost and is that worth it?" They maybe can squeeze a supplier or up their prices. But whatever, if there's profit they will stay open, regardless of whether the employees are worth it or not.

Businesses do try to maximize profit. So, you can't say in the same breath that someone who starts a business is not concerned with "overpaying" one's employees. Obviously the two goals are in conflict.

2) In general, inflation helps the poor because the rich have more savings. Inflations money less valuable. So the more money you have, the more you are hurt in comparison to those who don't have it. If it suddenly cost $1 billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread tomorrow, all of a sudden you'd be in the same position as a homeless guy.

My God - where do I begin with this gem? Inflation helps no one. There's not an economist on the earth that thinks high inflation is a good thing. Surely you know some elderly people on a fixed income; ask them how they would feel about inflation. Meanwhile, the 1 billion dollar comment is the economic equivalent of saying that we should inject the entire population with chlymidia to make AIDS patients feel better. Poverty is a horrible thing. Our goal should be to help those that are impoverished by helping them access wealth, not more impoverished people. Please tell me this was a joke. Please.

3) The minimum wage goes up 10%, it is unlikely that inflation will go up 10% overall. The people getting the 10% raise or only a small part of the population. While it's true that a min. wage price increase will probably ripple through the salary structure, I'm not going to see a proportional benefit. Say Mickey D's has to raise their wage from $8.00 to $8.80. That's 10%, but still only an extra .80 an hour. That's a 10% raise. Is that any reason for my employer to give me the equivalent raise of $4.00 an hour?

A minimum wage increase of 10% would not cause a 10% rise in inflation. I'm not saying that it would. I'm only saying that one of the many harmful effects of the minimum wage is inflation and is one of the many reasons to be against such an awful law. Any raise in the wage without inflation is going to cause folks to be fired as well.

4) I agree that setting a higher minimum wage does indeed hurt the poorest (or let's say least able/willing to work). Because working is now much more powerful than sitting at home collecting welfare. But as a society, paying someone $8.50 for $8.00 worth of work might very well be better than paying someone $7.50 to sit around and do nothing.

Society has nothing to do with the monetary transaction. All society is doing is telling employee and employer a minimum amount that they must agree to for services rendered.

You will increase unemployment and the welfare rolls as well as if you raise the minimum wage. You will shut out those who cannot currently earn the new standard, and deprive them of getting experience needed to get themselves up to a higher level of income.

But it's not that big a deal overall. It's not going to cause mass unemployment, runaway inflation or massive income equalization. States have different minimum wages already and it's not like there's been a mass exodus from Washington/Oregon/CA to Virginia. It's just not that big a deal.

What it does is help a very small group of people who are poor but hard-working enough that they can justify paying them the higher min. wage. Which is why I think markalot is a fool for resisting a minimum wage increase. It does exactly what he'd like to see: incentivize work, punish the lazy, and increase efficiency. It will save the government (and him) money in the long run and it's pretty well targetted without a huge government overhead bureaucracy cost.

It doesn't do any of this. And it's a very big deal.

Look at this way. Before they converted to the Euro, Italians could easily make a million lira a week. They were all millionaires every week! Of course, it didn't mean anything because meals would cost in the hundreds of thousands of lira. In terms of real buying power, the average Italian was far behind the average American, even though they had more units of currency. Money is worth only what it can purchase.

I do believe strongly in helping the poor in this country make ends meet. The minimum wage is a political smokescreen that people support because they don't understand economics. Making an artificial threshhold only shuts the poorest and our most vulnerable out. It's a bad, regressive law. It surprises me people don't see it for what it is. Hopefully that will change.

[Peachcorn Shank]

At some point reality sets in though, and we all realize just saying that someone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn't always happen. In fact it happens more rarely than the opposite which is lower income workers get poorer and poorer, and wealthier workers get richer and richer. So what do we do about that reality?

I'm not telling people to do anything. I'm simply expressing reality; poor workers do not increase their productivity by the government setting a higher minimum wage. They do so by actually doing so. I really don't know a person in the world that doesn't want to earn more money.

As far as lower income workers getting poorer and poorer, that's outright false. Wealth has risen signifcantly for everyone in this country in the last century. Yes, we have an income inequality gap that is increasing, but that does not mean the poor are getting poorer.

The truth is that any class of American is generally better off than his/her counterpart in a different part of the world; we're lucky to live here. We have rich who are far richer than the rich elsewhere; we have middle class that are far richer than middle class elsewhere, and we have poor that are far better off than poor people elsewhere. If you took the lowest 20% in income in the US and average out how many owned cars per capita, I'm sure that they would compare favorably to most entire countries in the world.

This does not mean that we should not be helping people in our communities, but I feel very strongly that you will make far more of an impact going out and actually volunteering and helping these people rather than supporting socialist economics. What socilaist economics did for Russia and China...they can do the same for us if we're not vigilant.

I ask because doing nothing costs the public more in the long run for the welfare, healthcare, foodstamps, prisons, housing, etc.

Raising the minimum wage does not fix those problems for the public. It actually increases them. It also forces people who can't find work in the legitimate economy to work under the table, and many of these folks still collect welfare on top of that.

I by the way don't particularly like an arbitrary wage being set as a minimum... my preference would be a living wage, which the current minimum wage is not.

So, you're against an arbitrary wage and at the same time you're for a higher minimum wage? Forgive me for being confused, but again...if the "living wage" is such a brilliant idea, why stop there? Go ten bucks higher so everyone can have everything they ever wanted without issue. Let's set the minimum wage to $50 or $60 and eliminate poverty. Everyone will have tons of money and we'll live happily ever after.

[akip]

My God - where do I begin with this gem? Inflation helps no one. There's not an economist on the earth that thinks high inflation is a good thing. Surely you know some elderly people on a fixed income; ask them how they would feel about inflation.

this is a little simplistic. there are always people who benefit, no matter what's going on---either 'cause they're just lucky or because they know how to play the field. as for runaway inflation, ask a wealthy south american how they've continued to prosper in a brutally inflationary environment.

but more realistically, remember that inflation/higher interest rates means good money market/CD earnings. the elderly have to invest very conservatively, so low inflation holds can put a lid on their earnings. so for them it depends on how much they have saved, whether they own their home already (or live with family). inflated health care and housing costs are what nail the elderly, and we had those in an almost deflationary environment.

[Peachcorn Shank]

this is a little simplistic. there are always people who benefit, no matter what's going on---either 'cause they're just lucky or because they know how to play the field. as for runaway inflation, ask a wealthy south american how they've continued to prosper in a brutally inflationary environment.

but more realistically, remember that inflation/higher interest rates means good money market/CD earnings. the elderly have to invest very conservatively, so low inflation holds can put a lid on their earnings. so for them it depends on how much they have saved, whether they own their home already (or live with family). inflated health care and housing costs are what nail the elderly, and we had those in an almost deflationary environment.

The wealthy are always going to be able to handle economic pressures better than the poor. That doesn't make inflation a good thing. What about poor South Americans? There are a lot more of them than there are rich South Americans. They also have huge unemployment, ridiculous interest rates, and a much worse income gap than we do here. Not an economy that we want to emulate if our goal is to give everyone the best opportunity at a comfortable life here in America, which I hope it is.

High interest rates are not the same as inflation. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are different. In fact, the fed keeps raising interest rates in an effort to curb inflation, not cause it. If you have 6% earnings along with 6% inflation, you've gained absolutely nothing from your investment in real terms.

[akip]

The wealthy are always going to be able to handle economic pressures better than the poor. That doesn't make inflation a good thing. What about poor South Americans? There are a lot more of them than there are rich South Americans. They also have huge unemployment, ridiculous interest rates, and a much worse income gap than we do here. Not an economy that we want to emulate if our goal is to give everyone the best opportunity at a comfortable life here in America, which I hope it is.

High interest rates are not the same as inflation. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are different. In fact, the fed keeps raising interest rates in an effort to curb inflation, not cause it. If you have 6% earnings along with 6% inflation, you've gained absolutely nothing from your investment in real terms.

i'm not saying it's good to live in south america or that we should emulate them. you are twisting my words. i'm saying that you are being selective. it isn't true that inflation benefits no one, or that there are not circumstances where inflation is somewhat balanced by other factors.

[jps]

As far as lower income workers getting poorer and poorer, that's outright false. Wealth has risen signifcantly for everyone in this country in the last century. Yes, we have an income inequality gap that is increasing, but that does not mean the poor are getting poorer....

So, you're against an arbitrary wage and at the same time you're for a higher minimum wage? Forgive me for being confused, but again...if the "living wage" is such a brilliant idea, why stop there? Go ten bucks higher so everyone can have everything they ever wanted without issue. Let's set the minimum wage to $50 or $60 and eliminate poverty. Everyone will have tons of money and we'll live happily ever after.

Sorry I mispoke there... poor people are not actually poorer, but they are poorer in relation to the rest of the economy. The living wage comment goes right along with this... salaries that don't at least adjust up over time depress buying power. So if my market value in 1991 was 5.15/hour and I am meeting the same level productivity, lets at least adjust that up for inflation so that my purchasing power is the same.


The truth is that any class of American is generally better off than his/her counterpart in a different part of the world; we're lucky to live here. We have rich who are far richer than the rich elsewhere; we have middle class that are far richer than middle class elsewhere, and we have poor that are far better off than poor people elsewhere. If you took the lowest 20% in income in the US and average out how many owned cars per capita, I'm sure that they would compare favorably to most entire countries in the world.

Not any class... and I assume you know about the exceptions to the rule so I won't quibble there. We do have a shrinking middle class in part because of the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor. last year the average CEO in America was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner - earning more before lunchtime on the very first day at work than a minimum wage worker earns all year. Forty years ago, a CEO earned only 51 times that of a minimum wage earner.

[the happy prole]

My God - where do I begin with this gem? Inflation helps no one. There's not an economist on the earth that thinks high inflation is a good thing.

Economists care a crapload less about inflation than the average person. In a free market, inflation is a natural response to GDP growth. So it's not only expected; it's a good thing. Similarly, high interest rates are not the same as inflation. But to a free market economist, they should be. The government trying to curb inflation via interest rates is just distorting the free-market.

The only thing economists care about is efficieny. And from a macro standpoint economic health is reflected in purchasing power. If today you make $5 an hour and $5 buys a loaf of bread and tomorrow you make $10 an hour and $10 buys a loaf of bread, nothing's changed.

As to whether the poor are better off via the rich when inflation hits, it cuts both ways. If you are well off, you have more in savings. And you just got screwed. You saved on the basis of working one hour and putting $5 in the bank expecting a loaf of bread in the future and now you're only getting half a loaf. OTOH, you might not really need that fifth loaf of bread and can get by on four. For the poor person, inflation might mean the difference between one loaf of bread and not eating.

That's what happened in South America. Inflation outstripped GDP and salaries. And because the poor were at the margin, they ended up in worse shape than the millionaires.

But remember, the inflation in this case is being driven by the poor. So long as income growth increases at the same rate as inflation, and you have no savings (two things that are likely to be true for minimum wage earners, and NOT true for the rich), you suffer no harm. They will keep up, the non-poor will not. That's a very good reason why minimum wage should be tied to inflation.

There is price to be paid in efficiency in that the poor are the same, and the non-poor are worse off. The net effect is bad, and that doesn't make economists very happy. But the poor WILL be better off in comparison to the rich. The overall pie is smaller, but more evenly distributed.

[akip]

There is price to be paid in efficiency in that the poor are the same, and the non-poor are worse off. The net effect is bad, and that doesn't make economists very happy. But the poor WILL be better off in comparison to the rich. The overall pie is smaller, but more evenly distributed.

about 12 years back, a venezuelan told me how the wealthy class in caracas just parked their money in the bank at huge interest rates and raked it in, but they were terrified to leave their compounds for fear of being dragged out of their cars in traffic and robbed. a little tangent---he said scotch was their biggest import; businessmen would be drinking johnny walker at meetings at 10 am.

robbing millionaires---maybe that's how the money was more evenly distributed. ;)

[akip]

i forgot to finish the story.

a lot of those south americans were taking suitcases of cash to miami and buying up condos. like i said, if you're way up on top of the mountain, have money and access, you can play it.

[back2vinyl]

If you borrowed at a long term fixed rate to buy a durable asset (like a house or other real estate), inflation is your friend. You get to pay off the loan with cheaper dollars. Most of the economists that get space in the WSJ will say inflation is bad, but the thing that causes problems is instability because it makes it hard to plan and fewer people are willing to take risks with their cash. A steady 4% inflation rate is better than -2% one year followed by 10% the next. The fed should be using interest rates to keep inflation constant and they've done a decent job since the early 80's. Inflation in the low single digits seems to be the easiest to maintain at a constant rate and thus produces stable conditions. The worst thing for an economy is deflation. When that happens, people just hoard cash and no investment occurs.