Could You Live on Minimum Wage?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The thread was "Could you Live on Minimum Wage?". Not "Would your life suck?" or "Would it be comfortable?". That if you were given a minimum wage now and told your life depended on living off of it, could you find a way to do it? Do you honestly feel there is no way in hell you could possibly do it?

No. Your original statement was that it would be "easy" and that people are "whining" that life is hard on minimum wage.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm talking about living as a part of society.

Are you telling me that people who don't have air conditioning are not able to work? That there is this overwhelming pandemic of people calling in to work and telling their bosses they can't make it in because their air conditioner went out? That you can't maintain basic hygiene without central air pumping through your home all day?

I can honestly tell you that in the 7+ years I have had my guys go into people's homes everyday, (figure on 15-20 houses per day) I have ran into 1 home that did not have AC.

We no longer service that customer, because of the condition of his house, and by the way he had no job...

I am sure there are others around here that dont have AC, Ive jut never ran into them. And in South Carolina Electric utilities have been sued and lost in court for negligent homicide for disconnecting people's power and them dieing of heat stroke.

I would give up every other electric appliance in my home (including my refrig) before my AC.

heat on the other hand is entirely optional. (Fireplaces, kerosene heaters etc.)

[sterlingice]

I wanted to separate this from my other post (forthcoming) as I think we're losing this distinction with so many of the arguments being made. What is the definition of "can you live"?

*Is it- can you physically live, because then you could physically live on a bench in the street and eating out of garbage cans but I'm pretty sure that would severely impact your life expectancy.

*Heck, you can live in jail and have 3 crappy square meals a day provided for you but do you really provide any value to society that way?

*Speaking of value to society, how about we just put all poor people in communal living near their menial, low paying jobs? That way they're the lowest drain on society as we are gaining economy of scale, and yet they still provide the measure of cheap labor we need.

*That seems a tad barbaric so how about everyone is allowed their own domicile or at least a couple sharing one. However, the standard of living is pretty poor due to excesses higher up the ladder. You can subsist but not for a long period of time and much of your energies are focused on trying to escape, which is exceedingly difficult. There is no way you could live like this permanently.

*I think the previous is where we are now. But, what if unskilled laborer is all someone can do (Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too")? We can talk all we want about people who want to better themselves and get an eduction but what if it's not the best fit for someone? What if the best thing for society, as a whole, is that a person is solely manual labor or some other "unskilled" task such as a call center where one just answers what is on the screen in front of them but it's what they're good at.

So, some people just can't "move up" in the world as they aren't as good at the skills that are more handsomely paid. They didn't make a choice and that's just how it is and they can't do anything about it. We set a baseline as a society for how our poorest live- so what's an acceptable level? Does said worker not deserve, say, cable tv because their best skills lie in manual labor instead of engineering? If so, then what "maximum" level of lifestyle do they deserve? If not, what necessities should we "allow" them as a society?

Again, how do we, as a society, want our poor to live? As stated above, I think we do set the level of living for people either indirectly through what we ask for as a society for our more expensive skilled workers or by what our social contract (i.e. government) mandates. I think it's pretty evident that, if left unchecked, companies will opt for the cheapest possible cost with no regard for societal concerns- farming jobs overseas which in the long run damages their customer base or even breaking laws and hiring workers who are here illegally. So, at the end of the day, we are the ones determining the poor's existence not some invisible hand which is actually working against said poor not for them.

I get the impression that a lot of people would be mostly ok with the communal living camp if it meant they themselves got a higher standard of living. Frankly, it makes me a bit sad for our society and our future. I'm pretty sure when historians look back at this time, they're going to wonder what people living now were thinking.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I wanted to separate this from my other post (forthcoming) as I think we're losing this distinction with so many of the arguments being made. What is the definition of "can you live"?

*Is it- can you physically live, because then you could physically live on a bench in the street and eating out of garbage cans but I'm pretty sure that would severely impact your life expectancy.

*Heck, you can live in jail and have 3 crappy square meals a day provided for you but do you really provide any value to society that way?

*Speaking of value to society, how about we just put all poor people in communal living near their menial, low paying jobs? That way they're the lowest drain on society as we are gaining economy of scale, and yet they still provide the measure of cheap labor we need.

*That seems a tad barbaric so how about everyone is allowed their own domicile or at least a couple sharing one. However, the standard of living is pretty poor due to excesses higher up the ladder. You can subsist but not for a long period of time and much of your energies are focused on trying to escape, which is exceedingly difficult. There is no way you could live like this permanently.

*I think the previous is where we are now. But, what if unskilled laborer is all someone can do (Judge Smails: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too")? We can talk all we want about people who want to better themselves and get an eduction but what if it's not the best fit for someone? What if the best thing for society, as a whole, is that a person is solely manual labor or some other "unskilled" task such as a call center where one just answers what is on the screen in front of them but it's what they're good at.

So, some people just can't "move up" in the world as they aren't as good at the skills that are more handsomely paid. They didn't make a choice and that's just how it is and they can't do anything about it. We set a baseline as a society for how our poorest live- so what's an acceptable level? Does said worker not deserve, say, cable tv because their best skills lie in manual labor instead of engineering? If so, then what "maximum" level of lifestyle do they deserve? If not, what necessities should we "allow" them as a society?

Again, how do we, as a society, want our poor to live? As stated above, I think we do set the level of living for people either indirectly through what we ask for as a society for our more expensive skilled workers or by what our social contract (i.e. government) mandates. I think it's pretty evident that, if left unchecked, companies will opt for the cheapest possible cost with no regard for societal concerns- farming jobs overseas which in the long run damages their customer base or even breaking laws and hiring workers who are here illegally. So, at the end of the day, we are the ones determining the poor's existence not some invisible hand which is actually working against said poor not for them.

I get the impression that a lot of people would be mostly ok with the communal living camp if it meant they themselves got a higher standard of living. Frankly, it makes me a bit sad for our society and our future. I'm pretty sure when historians look back at this time, they're going to wonder what people living now were thinking.

SI

So I'll ask again then, what exactly do you think the federal minimum wage should be that would keep you from feeling "sad for our society and future"?

The issue is not how we want our poor to live. That's not what minimum wage is about. That might be what welfare programs are about. But when you're talking about employment, it's a balancing act between acceptable amounts of unemployment, how much of a sepration between the economic classes is desirable, and trying not to negatively impact businesses and economic growth to the extent of a weakened economy for everyone.

Being in favor of a lower or higher minimum wage isn't a statement that one is either against for people with lowering paying jobs. It just represents different opinions about the realities of our economy. We could make the minimum wage $600 billion/hour, but that wouldn't work out well.

[molson]

As a threadjack, I can't believe anyone would want to live in a place where you die of heat stroke if your AC goes out, or I guess, if you leave your house. Not that everyone has a choice, but apparently some people do choose it.

Ya, other parts of the country are cold, but how many times more people die from heat than from cold?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

No. Your original statement was that it would be "easy" and that people are "whining" that life is hard on minimum wage.

Well I think I could do it and have. And the whining is a seperate issue.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

So I'll ask again then, what exactly do you think the federal minimum wage should be that would keep you from feeling "sad for our society and future"?

The issue is not how we want our poor to live. That's not what minimum wage is about. That might be what welfare programs are about. But when you're talking about employment, it's a balancing act between acceptable amounts of unemployment, how much of a sepration between the economic classes is desirable, and trying not to negatively impact businesses and economic growth to the extent of a weakened economy for everyone.

Being in favor of a lower or higher minimum wage isn't a statement that one is either against for people with lowering paying jobs. It just represents different opinions about the realities of our economy. We could make the minimum wage $600 billion/hour, but that wouldn't work out well.

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

The aside about us as a society, while having to do with this, doesn't necessarily have to do with a minimum wage but how people view it and how much they care about the rest of people as a whole.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

Well, first off minimum wage also applies to a high schooler looking to earn some extra cash. The problem is there are jobs that should be able to support a family and jobs where someone just wants to get some extra cash and they all get intertwined.

Secondly, the poor have plenty of power and influence, how do you think the Democrats keep getting elected

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Two different issues but intertwined. How is the minimum wage *not* about how we want our poor to live? How exactly are the poor to lobby for more wages which lead to a better lifestyle as they have no power or influence.

The aside about us as a society, while having to do with this, doesn't necessarily have to do with a minimum wage but how people view it and how much they care about the rest of people as a whole.

SI

Just because you don't want minimum wage raised doesn't mean you don't care about people.

Giving handouts doesn't seem to fix any problems. It de-motivates people who are getting the handouts. Why push yourself to work harder and gain more skills if you'll just be bailed out as it is? Shouldn't luxuries like having cable TV be things that people strive for? I'm just against a system that seems to treat the unskilled and unmotivated better than those who worked hard and got skills.

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

Only 38% or so of filers don't pay income taxes, but even that doesn't really tell the story. Since the FICA "fix" under Reagan over 2.2 trillion dollars of FICA taxes have been diverted to the general fund in essence making that money an income tax. In 2007 nearly 200 billion in FICA taxes went into the general fund.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the poor having no influence is BS. The poor get a lot of social programs and don't pay a dime in income taxes for it. A small percent of the country is paying for most of everything.

You honestly believe that? A small percent pay for almost everything?

Let's say 5% is a small percent, right? Well, my wife and I certainly aren't in the wealthiest 5% of earners in the US. So how about all of us who aren't in the top 5% stop paying taxes for the next 3 years and see how things go for the rich. I hope you like your private police force because it's the only thing that will be keeping the torch and pitchfork wielding mob at bay.

And we haven't even scratched the surface. How about corporations who screw their workers and pay very little taxes compared to their respective incomes due to loopholes? No, no, it's the fault of the poor.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Let's say 5% is a small percent, right? Well, my wife and I certainly aren't in the wealthiest 5% of earners in the US. So how about all of us who aren't in the top 5% stop paying taxes for the next 3 years and see how things go for the rich. I hope you like your private police force because it's the only thing that will be keeping the torch and pitchfork wielding mob at bay.

There's a lot of stats out there about that.

Here's one source, from '06 (presuambly things will be even more skewed under Obama):

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

-The top 5% of earners in the US pay 60% of the federal income taxes
-The top 10% of earners pay 70% of taxes
-The top 25% pay 86%
-The top 50% pay 97%

So you're basically a leech if you're in the bottom 50%, you're getting more in services than you're putting in. Which is fine, everybody is OK with that to some degree, but the jelousy and bitterness and complaints about the rich are a little odd when you look at that breakdown. And I can certainly understand the resentment can flow the other direction, towards the bottom half, when they're perceived as trying to game the system, or when they complain about the taxes on the rich not being high enough.

The rich are important, even though people love to hate them. You have no social programs without them. If you tax them too much you keep them from making more money to be able to tax.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

So you're basically a leech if you're in the bottom 50%, you're getting more in services than you're putting in.

That's a truly wonderful sentiment and all, but it seems to assume that ALL of those government services and benefits are going exclusively to the poor, which is ridiculous. How many poor people need $250,000 of FDIC coverage? How are those leeches living high-on the hog thanks to endless sessions deciding what industries to regulate/de-regulate? The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous AND insulting to the half of the country you just labeled leeches.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That's a truly wonderful sentiment and all, but it seems to assume that ALL of those government services and benefits are going exclusively to the poor, which is ridiculous. How many poor people need $250,000 of FDIC coverage? How are those leeches living high-on the hog thanks to endless sessions deciding what industries to regulate/de-regulate? The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous AND insulting to the half of the country you just labeled leeches.

Geez, who knew leeches had such bad reputations.

I've been a leech myself for most of my adult life, I might still be.

Of course, with the current state of federal budget we're all leeches these days, sucking imaginary money, hoping it somehow turns real someday.

Yes, rich people use services too....but they pay a hugely disproportionate amount for them (as they should, that's kind of the point). I just don't get how they're the villains, or people we need to bring down a peg.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes, rich people use services too....but they pay a hugely disproportionate amount for them (as they should, that's kind of the point). I just don't get how they're the villains, or people we need to bring down a peg.

I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that statement, but then again I haven't heard anybody suggesting that you should either. The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that. As to the specifics of how that applies to the current minimum wage, admittedly I don't really have any idea.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that.

I don't think anybody would agree with that. Everbody's standard of living is decreasing in this country, not just the poor. Have you seen home foreclosure rates lately?

I would look at it the opposite way - why should the poor not expect their standard of living to go down like everyone else's is? Should we try prop the poor up at the expense of the middle class who will soon join them? Or to the expense of the rich who are their meal ticket? Don't we need the rich to fix the economy? The poor aren't gonna do it.

Nobody would be against the poor being better off, if that was all there was to it. Too often though, that's where the analysis ends, and anyone who takes it further than that hates the poor, or are in favor of the rich or whatever.

But we should find out the answers to a lot of the what-ifs of this stuff over the next 8 years. Because if anyone's going to try to prop up the poor and bring down the rich, it'll be the current administration (as long as one doesn't include corporations in the category of "rich", as it appears they'll be well taken care of). On the other hand, I've been glad to see that he's turned out to be a lot more moderate than I feared he would be during his campaign. He's not the guy who ran for office, but he's a better president for it.

[Dutch]

The government does plenty of work dedicated towards satisfying only the very rich as well, or that only applies to those in the highest earning bracket, and lord knows it hands out billions of dollars in corporation assistance that is the equivalent of paying assistance to the very wealthy.

Are these strictly luxury payouts or is the intent to stimulate growth?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are these strictly luxury payouts or is the intent to stimulate growth?

Hell if I know. With the government, by the time the money's given out, it seems everybody's usually forgotten what the intent was, and surely raising the minimum wage could also be argued to fall under the umbrella of 'intent to stimulate growth'.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

I would look at it the opposite way - why should the poor not expect their standard of living to go down like everyone else's is?

This remains a sticking point for me, because I'm not convinced that the poor are constantly voicing their resistance to such an idea, and that does appear to be the main point of contention in this thread. Are poor people 'whining' about being poor? I don't hear them personally, but admittedly I'm not listening all that hard. If you ask a poor person how he likes being poor, he'll likely answer "not much", but it's not like I've ever had to wade through a picket-line of A/C-demanding poor folk to get to work. Surely dudes like Rev. Al Sharpton are a dime a dozen, who will jump at the chance to tell you sob stories about his many destitute constituents, but I think you are doing a disservice to the collective poor if you assume that folks like that are speaking for anyone but their own benefit. People who have positioned themselves as 'advocates for the poor', aren't necessarily speaking in the best interest of those folks.

[Autumn]

Given that:

"Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations. The more detailed the data we can use to observe this change, the more skewed the change appears to be... the majority of large gains are indeed at the top of the distribution."

I'm fine with the top of the income curve paying most of the taxes. As of 2004 the top 20% wealthiest Americans owned 84.6% of the wealth in the country. I certainly hope they would be paying the large majority of the taxes also. The system is certainly not hurting the rich. The fact that income has become more and more concentrated in the top of our society is part of the cause for the welfare the poor need, it's not something that's completely disconnected from it. So, yes, they're subsidizing programs for the poor. Maybe if they were willing to make a less obscene amount off the backs of their workers they wouldn't need to.

The rich can cry boo hoo about welfare, but it exists largely because companies have stopped caring for their own workers by paying them decent wages and benefits. When they stop paying their CEOs obscene paychecks they can start complaining too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Maybe if they were willing to make a less obscene amount off the backs of their workers they wouldn't need to.

So are you talking about rich people, or corporation? Or both? I think there's a big difference.

I don't know a whole lot of corporations that are making "obscene" amounts of money these days.

And rich people pay a shitload of taxes and give to charities. No matter how much though, there will always be this jelous resentment of them, and people will want them to give more, and more, and more - I guess until they're not rich anymore. Which would suck for all of us.

How much do you want to take from them? What tax rate would be fair? How much money do you think they need to hand over so that you're not mad at them, and so that you don't blame them for the plight of the poor? Or is it just a generic "more", no matter what the number is?

There will always be people with more money than others. That's life. That's how civilization advances - the successes of people who are motivated by improving themselves. We wouldn't even have air conditioning, or garbage disposals, or cars, or solar panels unless people achieved great things, rich people had the ability to invest in products and develop them and bring them to the masses, etc. The people who don't have the skill or the aptitude or the work ethic to achieve and contribute to civilization shouldn't suffer, they should be protected by the state to some degree, but for civilization as a whole, they're not the place to invest, because there's no return for our standard of living as a whole.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that statement, but then again I haven't heard anybody suggesting that you should either. The sentiment I'm getting from this thread that continues to rile me up, is that poor people should be prepared to roll with the economic punches and suck up the brunt of any collective belt tightening that needs to be done, because they pay relatively few taxes, and since rich people pay most of the taxes, those that don't should take the brunt so that the standard of living of those in the upper classes can remain relatively unchanged and unaffected by the state of the economy. I don't agree with that. As to the specifics of how that applies to the current minimum wage, admittedly I don't really have any idea.

Poor people should be able to roll with the punches because that's what poor people have always had to do. Even with gov't assistance, until the poor are no longer poor, they're going to be at a disadvantage.

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.

It seems to me that before we start talking about whether everybody has air conditioning or cable television, we should make sure we've got the basics covered first. Let's eliminate child hunger before we start the "Free Cable TV!" movement.

[molson]

On-topic article in the Boston Globe

Minimum-wage folly - The Boston Globe
to work."

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.

Poverty by definition has to always exist.

I'm sure poor people in the 1760s would think the poor have it pretty sweet today.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think the argument is that poverty shouldn't exist, moreso that it shouldn't exist for someone that works 40 hours a week.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think the argument is that poverty shouldn't exist, moreso that it shouldn't exist for someone that works 40 hours a week.

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

Well, if it's a family of 1 or 2, the United States, if you go by the poverty level guidelines. And if you're making that little you shouldn't have kids. Maybe we should offer tax credits (or just a wad of cash) for voluntary sterilization.

Of course, the higher the minimum wage, the harder it is to get 40 hours a week.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Please point to a country today, or a period of time in human history, where that has been the reality for a large number of people.

I don't think we should limit our goals to things that happen elsewhere or have happened in the past.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Does this really boil down to some utopian idea that this country will ever be a place where poverty doesn't exist, where bad things never happen to good people, and everybody has a happy ending? Because I'm starting to get that vibe from a couple of people in the thread.

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, I'm not saying that's realistic (and I'm not saying everybody should be payed a living wage), but I do think that is pretty close to the ideals behind the concept. Although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse government causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow can't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.

It seems to me that before we start talking about whether everybody has air conditioning or cable television, we should make sure we've got the basics covered first. Let's eliminate child hunger before we start the "Free Cable TV!" movement.

...and that is just plain ridiculous. It's not even clear who you're trying to take to task, and it hardly applies to the question at hand. You can hit me with that gotcha just as soon as I start a thread insisting the poor should stop whining about feeding their children.

[DaddyTorgo]

this is just a test...

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, and although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow don't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.

What's the grand plan then for improving the standard of living of the poor?

Nobody's against the poor having more, if someone can think of a way to do with without damaging the economy, bringing others down into poverty, or increasing unemployment.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think we should limit our goals to things that happen elsewhere or have happened in the past.

When you consider the breadth and depth of the human experience, I think it can provide us with a fairly good idea of what humanity is capable of (both for good and for bad). Disregarding the fact that what you want has never taken place in human history doesn't make you more noble or idealistic... it just makes you naive.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

On-topic article in the Boston Globe

Minimum-wage folly - The Boston Globe
to work."

What a stupid article, full of lots of assertions but little in the way of evidence, conveniently ignoring the fact that unemployment went DOWN after Clinton raised the minimum wage in the mid-90s. And of course the author knows that the minimum wage actually goes down every year it is not adjusted for inflation.

Example: When adjusted for inflation, the $7.25 people make today is barely above the level Clinton brought it to in 1996 ($5.33-$5.15), or the level Bush brought it to in 1991 ($4.64-$4.25).

[miked]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

When you consider the breadth and depth of the human experience, I think it can provide us with a fairly good idea of what humanity is capable of (both for good and for bad). Disregarding the fact that what you want has never taken place in human history doesn't make you more noble or idealistic... it just makes you naive.

This is silly. Civilizations and societies move forward by trying to do better than the past. Otherwise, we'd still the Earth was flat, is the center of the universe, and be walking everywhere. Things like cars, spaceships, theories, etc, are dreamed up by people trying to make the next leap. It's not naive, it's called progress. Reach for something that's never happened.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

What's the grand plan then for improving the standard of living of the poor?

Nobody's against the poor having more, if someone can think of a way to do with without damaging the economy, bringing others down into poverty, or increasing unemployment.

Like your repeated calls for an acceptable minimum wage figure, that's a red herring if ever there was one. I've never said I had the plan, in fact, you may notice I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not even sure I advocate a minimum wage rise. Obviously even if I wanted to, I don't think that I have the qualifications to come up with a plan for improving the standard of living of the poor, off the cuff, at this very moment....coincidentally, I'm also pretty sure that you, or anybody here, doesn't have the qualifications to verify my in-depth socio-economic plan, even if I were able to somehow magically pull it out of the dark corners of my ass. Lastly, since you've already been pretty adamant, several times, that you think the minimum wage and the poor are just fine the way they are, it would be pretty foolish to think that I'm going to produce a couple paragraphs of financial clap-trap off the top of my head, and you're going to say "Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable." You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yeah, I think that is what the concept of a minimum living wage boils down to, I'm not saying that's realistic (and I'm not saying everybody should be payed a living wage), but I do think that is pretty close to the ideals behind the concept. Although I think you've positioned yourself nicely to imply that makes me an idiot, I'd like you to explain with a straight face how those kind of ridiculous ideals can be applied towards obtuse government causes like the war on drugs, the war on terror, child illiteracy, teen pregnancy, and a massive list of social problems that goes on and on, but somehow can't extend towards the standard of living of our poorest residents.

Saying "we have all these ridiculous programs, so what's the harm of one more?" isn't much of an argument. I'd be happy with getting rid of most of the programs you just listed, and completely reworking the others, with the exclusion of the "War on Terror", which I don't consider to be a social program.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

Because you should be able to rebut someone's critique if your idea is really good enough?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

So are you talking about rich people, or corporation? Or both? I think there's a big difference.

I don't know a whole lot of corporations that are making "obscene" amounts of money these days.

And rich people pay a shitload of taxes and give to charities. No matter how much though, there will always be this jelous resentment of them, and people will want them to give more, and more, and more - I guess until they're not rich anymore. Which would suck for all of us.

How much do you want to take from them? What tax rate would be fair? How much money do you think they need to hand over so that you're not mad at them, and so that you don't blame them for the plight of the poor? Or is it just a generic "more", no matter what the number is?

There will always be people with more money than others. That's life. That's how civilization advances - the successes of people who are motivated by improving themselves. We wouldn't even have air conditioning, or garbage disposals, or cars, or solar panels unless people achieved great things, rich people had the ability to invest in products and develop them and bring them to the masses, etc. The people who don't have the skill or the aptitude or the work ethic to achieve and contribute to civilization shouldn't suffer, they should be protected by the state to some degree, but for civilization as a whole, they're not the place to invest, because there's no return for our standard of living as a whole.

First of all I'm talking about rich people, in that post specifically about the top 1% and then the top 20% of the country who now posses over 80% of the wealth. Those rich people are heads of corporations, among other things. Their companies made them money.

As I asserted the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid has increased more and more over the last 30 years. So, I'm not going to feel bad about calling out the ultra rich. Society has given them more and more and more over the last 30 years, and it has been taken from the work of everyone, not just themselves. Yes, there will always be people that make more. But that doesn't excuse the blatant shift of money from the society as a whole to those who are ultrawealthy over the past 30 years. That is an anomaly, not what is normal.

So how much do I want to take from them? Well, that's a loaded question. But how about we start with however much they've managed to take over those past 30 years while the minimum wage has stayed stagnant yet CEOs and the rich have somehow become richer and richer. This isn't resentment, this is anger at a system that has become rigged in the favor of the rich.

[molson]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

You've already made it clear that you don't think there's any solution necessary in the first place, so why would anyone go out of their way to lay one out, at your request, so you can pick it apart?

If someone's complaining about something, it's nice to hear what their alternative plan is. All you're saying is "the poor having more would be good", which everyone in world agrees with, so I'm not sure what your point even is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

.

As I asserted the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid has increased more and more over the last 30 years. So, I'm not going to feel bad about calling out the ultra rich. Society has given them more and more and more over the last 30 years, and it has been taken from the work of everyone, not just themselves. Yes, there will always be people that make more. But that doesn't excuse the blatant shift of money from the society as a whole to those who are ultrawealthy over the past 30 years. That is an anomaly, not what is normal.

So how much do I want to take from them? Well, that's a loaded question. But how about we start with however much they've managed to take over those past 30 years while the minimum wage has stayed stagnant yet CEOs and the rich have somehow become richer and richer. This isn't resentment, this is anger at a system that has become rigged in the favor of the rich.

Are you sure things are so much different in the last 30 years? Poor people weren't down on the luck decades ago? We didn't have super-rich back then? How much exactly have successful people "taken" over the past 30 years?

And it's definitely resentment, IMO (in general, this sentiment, I have no idea about you). Of course the system is "rigged" in favor of the rich. It's rigged in the way that if people are successful (or if their parents and grandparents were successful), they get rich. That's how it's supposed to work. They're the ones that advance us to the point where people can actually make the argument, with a straight face, that air conditioning is a necessity.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Saying "we have all these ridiculous programs, so what's the harm of one more?" isn't much of an argument. I'd be happy with getting rid of most of the programs you just listed, and completely reworking the others, with the exclusion of the "War on Terror", which I don't consider to be a social program.

Well, as long as were playing obscure the issue with semantics, I don't consider minimum wage a social program either, how much of your tax dollars are going towards paying the minimum wage? You can knock down the examples I prop up all day long, and think you're winning the argument, but for a political talk show host to suggest that it's ludicrous for ideals to drive the government, it's going to be a pretty hard sell, no matter how stupid you may consider my argument to be.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

If someone's complaining about something, it's nice to hear what their alternative plan is. All you're saying is "the poor having more would be good", which everyone in world agrees with, so I'm not sure what your point even is.

My point has been people shouldn't be so quick to judge the poor, that's about it. I'm sorry if I haven't been more clear about that. The action plan is pretty simple.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

this is anger at a system that places higher values on rarer skill & ability sets than common ones

Why not just call it what it is: blatant envy. Calling it anything else is pure bullshit afaic.

There might not be many people in this country who have a lower collective opinion of the intellectual, judgmental, or overall decision making capacity of than generic corporate decision makers than I do. There aren't many days that go by that I don't literally shake my head in amazement at some of the incredibly stupid things I see done by people who should, at least ostensibly, know better.

At the same time however, they had whatever combination of abilities needed to put themselves in the situation to make those decisions and those sets are rarer than the ability to push buttons on a cash register. Relative scarcity does much to determine the value of many things, due compensation for work/services is one of them. And damned if I see any problem with that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I don't consider minimum wage a social program either

Would you deny that it is a social engineering program (or at least an attempt at one)?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you sure things are so much different in the last 30 years? Poor people weren't down on the luck decades ago? We didn't have super-rich back then? How much exactly have successful people "taken" over the past 30 years?

And it's definitely resentment, IMO (in general, this sentiment, I have no idea about you). Of course the system is rigged in favor of the rich. They're the ones that advance us to the point where people can actually make the argument, with a straight face, that air conditioning is a necessity.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure things are different. It's a matter of record and statistics. A quick web search will show you that wealth has become increasingly concentrated, that the gap between CEO salaries and workers has expanded vastly, that the minimum wage has not expanded in real dollars for decades while the income of the upper crust has gone up by hundreds of percent.

So, don't tell me it's resentment if you don't even have the facts. This is not "the way things always were." This is new. The system was not always so rigged to the rich, not when our parents were around certainly. And no, I don't idolize the rich for "advancing us." The people of this country also advance us with their productivity. Without them there would be no rich. And at least half of the rich have not contributed anything more than shifting money around to our society. Yes, some of them are necessary to driving our economy, but let's not saint them just yet. Many of them are partly responsible for playing so fast and loose with their money that other people are losing their jobs.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by miked

This is silly. Civilizations and societies move forward by trying to do better than the past. Otherwise, we'd still the Earth was flat, is the center of the universe, and be walking everywhere. Things like cars, spaceships, theories, etc, are dreamed up by people trying to make the next leap. It's not naive, it's called progress. Reach for something that's never happened.

You're trying to compare scientific discoveries and technological advances with wholesale changes in human behavior, and my post is being called silly?

Yes, at one time most people thought the Earth was flat. But before that, the ancient Greeks were well aware it was round. People don't always progress, despite what you might believe.

Civilizations and societies can also move backwards, even by trying to do better than the past. The history of the 20th Century is a textbook example, or do you think that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, and the gamut of communists were trying to do worse than their predecesors?

Reaching for something that's never happened can lead to real progress. It can also lead to unintended consequences that can be dire to large sections of society... including the ones you're trying to help. Just look at the effect the Great Society had on black families.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Would you deny that it is a social engineering program (or at least an attempt at one)?

I suppose I have to concede that one. My point was more to the fact that there's not much government money going in and out of that program. I suppose a better analogy to minimum wage might be the speed limit. It's not much of a 'program' per se (although it's probably become a money maker), but the ideals behind the program probably far outreach the results.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

that the gap between CEO salaries and workers has expanded vastly, that the minimum wage has not expanded in real dollars for decades while the income of the upper crust has gone up by hundreds of percent.

As has the gap between the abilities of the upper and lower ends of society.

that other people are losing their jobs.

Jobs that they have nothing resembling any sort of claim to having beyond the willingness of the employer to grant them. There is no divine right for someone else to pay you if they deem your services not worth the cost or for any other reason.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why not just call it what it is: blatant envy. Calling it anything else is pure bullshit afaic.

There might not be many people in this country who have a lower collective opinion of the intellectual, judgmental, or overall decision making capacity of than generic corporate decision makers than I do. There aren't many days that go by that I don't literally shake my head in amazement at some of the incredibly stupid things I see done by people who should, at least ostensibly, know better.

At the same time however, they had whatever combination of abilities needed to put themselves in the situation to make those decisions and those sets are rarer than the ability to push buttons on a cash register. Relative scarcity does much to determine the value of many things, due compensation for work/services is one of them. And damned if I see any problem with that.

I reviewed documents on a high profile executive compensation lawsuit. Trust me, there is very little concern for performance when dealing with executive compensation. The boards of most corporations are all tied together through business and social connections and the consultant firms are paid by those receiving compensation. There is very little evidence that performance has had anything to do with the incredible rise in executive compensation over the past thirty years.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What a stupid article, full of lots of assertions but little in the way of evidence, conveniently ignoring the fact that unemployment went DOWN after Clinton raised the minimum wage in the mid-90s. And of course the author knows that the minimum wage actually goes down every year it is not adjusted for inflation.

Example: When adjusted for inflation, the $7.25 people make today is barely above the level Clinton brought it to in 1996 ($5.33-$5.15), or the level Bush brought it to in 1991 ($4.64-$4.25).

The federal minimum wage for all covered non-exempt employees was raised from $3.35 to $4.25 in 1991. Although some people qualified for $3.80 in 1990. It then changed in 1996 to $4.75. Then in 1997 to $5.15, although it still allowed a wage of $4.25 for employees under 20 in their first 90 days of employment. It went to $5.85 in 2007. Then to $6.55 in 2008 and will go to $7.25 on July 24th.

Also, non of the presidents that you mentioned brought the minimum wage anywhere. The U.S. Congress makes laws such as Federal minimum wage.