New Study Shows that Welfare Benefits are Exceeding Minimum Wage Jobs.......Why Work?

[Vteckidd]

Welfare: A Better Deal than Work | Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-better-deal-work)

Interesting Facts and figures, specifically:

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Welfare benefits are not taxed, while wages are, so we calculated how much money a welfare recipient receiving these six benefits would have to earn in pretax income if she took a job and left the welfare rolls. We computed the federal income tax, the state income tax, and the FICA payroll taxes one would have to pay on wage income; we also took into account both federal and state versions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as well as child tax credits where available (these helped increase the relative value of work but did not fully offset the taxes due).

We found that, just to break even, a person on welfare would often have to take a job that paid considerably more than the value of the forgone welfare benefits. In Hawaii, for example, a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn more than $60,590 a year to be better off. In fact, welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 34 states and the District of Columbia. In Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., welfare pays more than a $20-an-hour job, and in five additional states it yields more than a $15-per-hour job.

With the economy shifting toward more and more part time jobs, because of Obamacare and the Economic policies put in place by this administration, no wonder food stamps are up 17 million 5 years after the 2008 Collapse. Why work if you can make the same money OR MORE on the govt take?

Theres no incentive to get off govt money.

[.blank cd]

Another interesting fact from the study, that we should go ahead and get out of the way, before the lot of this subsection starts implying something the study doesn't say....

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy or do not wish to work"

[.blank cd]

With the economy shifting toward more and more part time jobs, because of Obamacare and the Economic policies put in place by this administration, no wonder food stamps are up 17 million 5 years after the 2008 Collapse. Why work if you can make the same money OR MORE on the govt take.

Correllation is not causation.

[Vteckidd]

Another interesting fact from the study, that we should go ahead and get out of the way, before the lot of this subsection starts implying something the study doesn't say....

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy or do not wish to work"

i wasnt making that assumption at all, just merely stating that there is a connection between giving free money vs earning money.

If a society refuses to take the low paying jobs because it becomes complacent with free govt money, and there is no incentive to take those jobs, then we are building a vastly inferior work force for the future IMO

Also, under Obamas watch, all hes done is extend UE benefits 99 weeks, and lessened the welfare requirements. Hes made it EASIER to stay on the take. Thats not encouraging people to take jobs and move up, it encourages them to stay at the current level. If people arent willing to take lower paying jobs and move up, because Govt money is MORE, then they will never be skilled or qualified to take the higher jobs. Its short sighted thinking.

All we can hope is the welfare people are going to school and getting an education, which is subsidized by the govt anyway.

[Vteckidd]

Correllation is not causation.

not blaming Obama solely for the environment, let me make that clear. Clinton and Bush did nothing to address this issue, however, they had much better economic environments over their terms.

But, Obamacares rules for providing HC has caused companies to draw down their workforce and cut hours. Thats no longer debatable, that is happening across the board from every company. So, if you have an economy that is moving toward 30 hours or less jobs, and lots of lower end minimum wage jobs being created and replacing the higher end jobs, then this study is scary.

[.blank cd]

i wasnt making that assumption at all, just merely stating that there is a connection between giving free money vs earning money.

If a society refuses to take the low paying jobs because it becomes complacent with free govt money, and there is no incentive to take those jobs, then we are building a vastly inferior work force for the future IMO.

But this study doesn't say that society is refusing to take low paying jobs, or that they're becoming complacent with (not)free government money

Is there a study you've read that's suggested this?

[Vteckidd]

But this study doesn't say that society is refusing to take low paying jobs, or that they're becoming complacent with (not)free government money

Is there a study you've read that's suggested this?

youre right, i shouldnt make that leap.

But IMO the numbers suggest that is happeneing, it is my interpretation.

Minimum wage jobs are growing-fact
higher end jobs are shrinking-fact
foodstamps- 17 million more in last 4 years
welfare growing-fact

What else could be causing this? remember we are 5 years into this "recovery". either people are happier taking lower paying jobs, or they are choosing NOT to work.

[.blank cd]

Also, under Obamas watch, all hes done is extend UE benefits 99 weeks, and lessened the welfare requirements. Hes made it EASIER to stay on the take. Thats not encouraging people to take jobs and move up, it encourages them to stay at the current level. If people arent willing to take lower paying jobs and move up, because Govt money is MORE, then they will never be skilled or qualified to take the higher jobs. Its short sighted thinking.In your opinion, do you think the policy of reducing requirements and extending benefits is used explicitly to create a society dependent on welfare , or is it used to reduce the burden of the recession?

[Sammich]

they need to make the requirements more stringent..i was talking to a old lady that lives below me about food stamps and what not, as all of us know, there are people that do recreational drugs that are on food stamps...correct me if i'm wrong, but the money to buy your recreational drug is the same money you could be using to feed you and your family...i see poor money management. because of this, those that REALLY need this assistance are being left to the side. almost gives them the thought process of, why should i try so hard, if mary jane down the road is succeeding and not doing evrything she needs to, but me joe blow am trying everything to get a job and i'm still failing.

i mean that's how i felt at one point. hell i was on partial unemployment and working a part time job at dollar general when i got laid off. it got to the point where i would have been making more or the same on unemployment if i left. i didnt quit, per say but circumstances at that time made it difficult for me to get back to work before they just had to write me off as an employee. (they switched managers, the manager didnt know my schedule i could work and i was helping my father in law at the time, back and forth w/ a pending back surgery get around).

it's hard to keep trying when the purposeful failers of life make it better than you can. i put more time into dropping resumes and putting in applications

[Vteckidd]

In your opinion, do you think the policy of reducing requirements and extending benefits is used explicitly to create a society dependent on welfare , or is it used to reduce the burden of the recession?

In the short term, reduce the burden of recession.

However, the recession ENDED 4 years ago, are we going to have 10 years of unlimited UE and welfare and food stamps? The recession has been done since June 2009, we are in "recovery", the parties (notice i said PARTIES, plural) have been in power 4 years SINCE the recession ENDED, UE is still 3-4% higher than where it should be under normal recovery periods. Although im not a HUGE fan of trump but he was recently asked what he would do if he was president, in response to people that depend on SS and MC/MC , too poor for health insurance, etc. His response:

"I would make people so rich, they wouldnt need to worry about SS or MC^2 "

Now thats easy to say i know, but thats the mentality that I believe makes America great. Instead of figuring out how to give stuff to people who are "poor", we should be teaching "poor" how to acquire goods and services they want. Giving someone UE doesnt teach them anything. Giving them almost 2 years of UE is almost borderline wrecking their career intentionally. How do you explain a 2 year gap on your resume?
Labor Force has SHRUNK.

OBama (whether you are for him or not) has not done anything to make the economy better since the end of the recession. Agreed? Republicans havent either, but I place blame at leadership.

So, knowing that Obama wants to double down on the same policies that havent worked 4 years after the end of a recession, I can only theorize that hes not interested in creating higher paying jobs and careers. Hes not interested in what Corps have to say about what works and what doesnt. Hes interested in putting more people on the govt hook because its a type of social retribution

[Vteckidd]

they need to make the requirements more stringent..i was talking to a old lady that lives below me about food stamps and what not, as all of us know, there are people that do recreational drugs that are on food stamps...correct me if i'm wrong, but the money to buy your recreational drug is the same money you could be using to feed you and your family...i see poor money management. because of this, those that REALLY need this assistance are being left to the side. almost gives them the thought process of, why should i try so hard, if mary jane down the road is succeeding and not doing evrything she needs to, but me joe blow am trying everything to get a job and i'm still failing.

i mean that's how i felt at one point. hell i was on partial unemployment and working a part time job at dollar general when i got laid off. it got to the point where i would have been making more or the same on unemployment if i left. i didnt quit, per say but circumstances at that time made it difficult for me to get back to work before they just had to write me off as an employee. (they switched managers, the manager didnt know my schedule i could work and i was helping my father in law at the time, back and forth w/ a pending back surgery get around).

it's hard to keep trying when the purposeful failers of life make it better than you can. i put more time into dropping resumes and putting in applications

Ive been laid, off, I have been on UE as well. But I always thought that 40 hours a week at $8/hr would lead to $10/hr, $12/hr etc if i worked hard. UE was a means to get me from 1 job to the next.

UE is really the big issue yet, its the EIC , we pay people to have kids, not let people keep extra money to take care of their children.

[bu villain]

It's hard to find someone who doesn't think our welfare system could be better but difficult question arise quickly when you get into details. Like you said, UE helped you to make a transition in your life while others may use it as a crutch. The idea of letting people keep their extra money to take care of their children sounds good but it doesn't work if the parents don't have jobs or are just plain terrible with money. You can try to provide the best incentives you can but in the end, you can't force people into being motivated, improving their skills, becoming more intelligent, etc. Some people are perfectly happy letting these people starve in the streets, others are not. There will never be universal agreement on what the right balance of benefits and what the implementation should be.

[Sinfix_15]

It's amazing to think about how pathetic and weak our country has become.

[.blank cd]

It's amazing to think about how pathetic and weak our country has become.

Why do you hate America?

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you hate America?

Entitlement society is not America. It is a disease that has infected America.

[.blank cd]

Entitlement society is not America. It is a disease that has infected America.

So you hate everything America stands for

[Sinfix_15]

So you hate everything America stands for

You are delusional.

[BanginJimmy]

It's hard to find someone who doesn't think our welfare system could be better but difficult question arise quickly when you get into details. Like you said, UE helped you to make a transition in your life while others may use it as a crutch. The idea of letting people keep their extra money to take care of their children sounds good but it doesn't work if the parents don't have jobs or are just plain terrible with money. You can try to provide the best incentives you can but in the end, you can't force people into being motivated, improving their skills, becoming more intelligent, etc. Some people are perfectly happy letting these people starve in the streets, others are not. There will never be universal agreement on what the right balance of benefits and what the implementation should be.

You are right, these programs had/have great intentions, but they have been manipulated and abused to the point they have become a career path. I'm one of those that think people on these programs should be given educational opportunities while on welfare. At the same time, it needs to have a solid time limit and many other limitations. It would be more expensive in the short term to offer free or cost deferred college or trade school but in the long run those people will have the skills needed to get higher paying jobs.

For those without the motivation to take advantage of the benefits, I am perfectly happy to let them starve on the streets.

[Julio]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day...show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. But it becomes hard when some refuse to learn.. Or shit, even have the skill level to mop a floor.

[BanginJimmy]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day...show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. But it becomes hard when some refuse to learn.. Or shit, even have the skill level to mop a floor.

I remember being in HS and worked a 40 hr work week on top of school and I couldn't wait to get my drivers license. Kids these days are so lazy and over sheltered they don't bother trying to get a job or even care about driving. With that kind of lack of motivation its no wonder they get out of HS with no job skills or even basic common sense.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[ISAtlanta300]

I remember being in HS and worked a 40 hr work week on top of school and I couldn't wait to get my drivers license. Kids these days are so lazy and over sheltered they don't bother trying to get a job or even care about driving. With that kind of lack of motivation its no wonder they get out of HS with no job skills or even basic common sense.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

You speak the truth. Back then if I wanted stuff, I would work for it, and pay for it out of my own money. I have personal experience with seeing how kids behave these days. They wait until Christmas to cash in their gift cards and Christmas money for iphones and Xboxes (that is, if they didn't already get them as a Xmas present), and after that, always have their hand out for more money. Yes, their biggest worry is getting all prestige on COD rather than getting out and working to fatten their bank account to move out of the house by at least 21......

I have actually seen a boom of 'basement dwellers' nowadays compared to years ago....

[Sinfix_15]

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day...show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. But it becomes hard when some refuse to learn.. Or shit, even have the skill level to mop a floor.

The democratic party isnt interested in teaching anyone how to fish. Theyre perfectly content robbing fisherman and buying voters with the fish they stole.

[bu villain]

You may have answered this before Sin, but what do you think is the best way to teach people to fish (on a societal level).

[Sinfix_15]

You may have answered this before Sin, but what do you think is the best way to teach people to fish (on a societal level).

Lesson 1, the consequences of not learning how to fish.

Telling someone "if you dont catch a fish, that's ok, we'll just give you some of your neighbor's fish" probably isnt going to bring the best out of someone.

If this guy doesnt catch a fish, he doesnt eat.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQPnJG5xbjx8eHqNFvQ-ht0B6MZc_-E96vpMZgu_oIITVd1DjT

If these guys dont catch a fish, the government takes fish from other people to feed them.
http://www.orlandobass.com/images/bass-boat1.jpg




and that, in a nutshell, is america. People are no longer required to be strong, educated or independent and we wonder why people are no longer strong, educated or independent.

[BanginJimmy]

You may have answered this before Sin, but what do you think is the best way to teach people to fish (on a societal level).

I'm going to answer this too and my answer will never happen in the US.

We fix our dependency problem in this country by taking the long approach. Instead of giving people money for nothing, require anyone receiving someone elses money to go to college on interest free or deferred school loans. It can be a 4 year school or a 2 year tech school. Benefits are tied to school performance and are capped at 5 years during your lifetime. At the 5 year mark or upon accepting employment the checks stop. No waivers, no appeals, no nothing. You fail a class, checks stop coming. Decide to have more kids? You can figure out how to feed and clothe them yourself, you dont get more money to pay for more bad decisions.

Take away the endless safety net and let Darwin do his job. I guarantee you that a lot of these bad decisions will stop when people start seeing others drop over the side of the net.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm going to answer this too and my answer will never happen in the US.

We fix our dependency problem in this country by taking the long approach. Instead of giving people money for nothing, require anyone receiving someone elses money to go to college on interest free or deferred school loans. It can be a 4 year school or a 2 year tech school. Benefits are tied to school performance and are capped at 5 years during your lifetime. At the 5 year mark or upon accepting employment the checks stop. No waivers, no appeals, no nothing. You fail a class, checks stop coming. Decide to have more kids? You can figure out how to feed and clothe them yourself, you dont get more money to pay for more bad decisions.

Take away the endless safety net and let Darwin do his job. I guarantee you that a lot of these bad decisions will stop when people start seeing others drop over the side of the net.

You've got my vote.

[.blank cd]

Oh boy...

We fix our dependency problem in this country by taking the long approach. Instead of giving people money for nothing,Does all this apply to corporate welfare as well?


require anyone receiving someone elses moneySomeone else's money? LOL. Do you not understand how taxes work?


go to college on interest free or deferred school loans. It can be a 4 year school or a 2 year tech school. Benefits are tied to school performance and are capped at 5 years during your lifetime. At the 5 year mark or upon accepting employment the checks stop. No waivers, no appeals, no nothing. You fail a class, checks stop coming. Decide to have more kids? You can figure out how to feed and clothe them yourself, you dont get more money to pay for more bad decisions.Interest free huh? Lol.

So what do you do about people on welfare who have completed graduate and tech classes

What about TANF?

I see a lot of thinly veiled classism going on here. Par for the course though on any welfare discussion here.

[Vteckidd]

Its actually much simpler than that.

1) Stop subsidizing people having kids. No more EIC
2) Cap UE benefits to 6 months like it used to be, no more of this 99 week crap. Its been 5 years Obama since the recession, its over, jobs are available. Recovery is here (according to them) put your money where your mouth is.


Those 2 things alone would fix a lot of the issues. Look at the HISTORICALLY LOW UE during Clinton and Bush, wonder why? Because JOBS. The single worst problem with welfare and UE is that there is no incentive to work the $7/hr job anymore. The higher end jobs are being diluted. If Obama was serious about lowering the people on FS and Welfare, he would do those top 2 things. But hes not. its a significant voting block for him.

Also, college and technical schools are almost free already. Im not going to pay people to go get an education so it further dilutes what an education really means. College isnt for everyone. It should stay that way. Just like owning a house isnt for everyone. You saw what happened when we tried to force everyone into a house that didnt deserve one, same thing is happening with education.

[Vteckidd]

Oh boy...


I see a lot of thinly veiled classism going on here. Par for the course though on any welfare discussion here.

Yeah theres 2 classes, people who wanna work, and people who dont.

PERSONAL STORY TIME:

I lost my 90K a year job, and worked a $10/hr job. It would have been WAY easier for me to go on UE and sit on my ass and do nothing vs working $10/hr for a shithead of a boss. But that $3/hr made a huge deal to me. After 6 months, I got hired at a different place making a lot better money. Not near where I was 3 years ago, but Enough that with some budgeting and some cutbacks, my standard of living isnt that drastically different.

I know 10 other people, who are still on UE that got laid off when I did, because its easier for them to collect a check than go back into the market. They are looking for jobs, but not seriously. They do some side work, but the jobs we all once had just arent there anymore. A lot of them are going to school to finish a cert or something while collecting UE.


Conversely, I go to school full time, I work full time, and i go to the gym 2 hours a night. Its worth it to me.

[.blank cd]

Yeah theres 2 classes, people who wanna work, and people who dont.

My point exactly.

[bu villain]

Lesson 1, the consequences of not learning how to fish.[/IMG]

That doesn't answer the question though. You are telling me how to motivate them to learn, not how to teach them. If someone says you don't get to eat until you learn brain surgery, I would starve before I figured out how to do brain surgery. Now obviously obtaining a living wage is not as hard as brain surgery but hopefully you get my point. Motivation alone isn't always enough. We need a system that can allow people to live while helping them to become self sufficient.


We fix our dependency problem in this country by taking the long approach. ... You fail a class, checks stop coming. Decide to have more kids? You can figure out how to feed and clothe them yourself, you dont get more money to pay for more bad decisions.

Take away the endless safety net and let Darwin do his job. I guarantee you that a lot of these bad decisions will stop when people start seeing others drop over the side of the net.

While I agree that your approach would increase the percentage of self-sufficient people, I am not willing to let people or their children die to achieve that. I would rather support unproductive people than let them die. Do you think there is any middle ground between someone with your values and mine that we could both accept?

[Vteckidd]

Yes, there is. Theres going to be leeches, its life.

however, i think we should all agree that its gotten out of control.

99+ weeks of UE
Millions MORE on foodstamps


If we are in year 4 of the recovery, these programs should be trimmed, not expanded.

[bu villain]

But does trimming those programs solve the problem? Is that addressing the cause or the symptom? Yes we are recovering but we certainly are not fully recovered.

[Vteckidd]

But does trimming those programs solve the problem? Is that addressing the cause or the symptom? Yes we are recovering but we certainly are not fully recovered.

yes it solves the problem.

A safety net is there to catch you when you fall. Its not there to hold you, coddle you, and never let you leave.

The net has been wokring for 4+ years. Where do you draw the line? 5 years? 10 years?

Gotta cut the cord sometime. People on UE for 99 weeks, Should be out working at Mcdonalds, YES, if they cant find a job in 99 weeks, during a RECOVERY, they should be out working a job that pays them the same amount UE does. At least at the jobthey have a chance to get promoted

[Sinfix_15]

That doesn't answer the question though. You are telling me how to motivate them to learn, not how to teach them. If someone says you don't get to eat until you learn brain surgery, I would starve before I figured out how to do brain surgery. Now obviously obtaining a living wage is not as hard as brain surgery but hopefully you get my point. Motivation alone isn't always enough. We need a system that can allow people to live while helping them to become self sufficient.



While I agree that your approach would increase the percentage of self-sufficient people, I am not willing to let people or their children die to achieve that. I would rather support unproductive people than let them die. Do you think there is any middle ground between someone with your values and mine that we could both accept?

Our species made it where we are today based on my values. Our country was formed and became what it is today based on my values. Maybe all of the problems in society today is a result of trying to accommodate you with something you can accept. Government dependency is a man made problem.

Right now in the US there are more children in need of parents than we have the ability to support. Maybe if we quit supporting dead beat adults, we would be able to take care of the children and eventually there would be a lot less dead beat adults and children in need of support. All of the problems in america are growing because of your values. America is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantee. When forced to sink or swim, some people are going to sink....

[Vteckidd]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

[.blank cd]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

No one talks about it because its not an issue. No one is paying anyone to have kids in any sense.

[Sinfix_15]

Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

Liberals are just really compassionate and caring individuals. Seeing that children are taken care of is one of their utmost priorities.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSycx8yIcAA3WEU.jpg

[Vteckidd]

No one talks about it because its not an issue. No one is paying anyone to have kids in any sense.
As usual, wrong again.

why give credits to people who have kids vs people who dont have kids. I know people whoare divorced and trade off who gets to claim the kid that year because of Tax credits.


The dependent exemption is not the only tax break that parents can claim. Provided that your income is below $110,000 for married couples filing jointly, $75,000 for a single head of household, or $55,000 for a married person filing separately, you can also claim the child tax credit. The child tax credit trims your tax bill by $1,000 per child. Because it is a credit, and not a deduction, the child tax credit gives you $1,000 back in your pocket for every child that you have.

And then theres the EIC

The earned income credit is a refundable tax credit designed for lower income working families and individuals. The amount of the credit varies depending on your level of income and how many dependents you support.

Earned Income Credit: What is the Earned Income Tax Credit? (http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm)

People are being PAID to have children, stop doing it.

A CREDIT is the same as paying someone for having a child.

[.blank cd]

As usual, wrong again.

Could you then quote the part that says they're paying for people to have kids?

Or is that just your interpretation of what the tax credit is?

[.blank cd]

Liberals are just really compassionate and caring individuals. Seeing that children are taken care of is one of their utmost priorities.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSycx8yIcAA3WEU.jpg

This is up there with some of the stupidest times you've ever pressed the post button.

[Vteckidd]

Could you then quote the part that says they're paying for people to have kids?

Or is that just your interpretation of what the tax credit is?

If you cant come to that conclusion with what i just posted, its not worth arguing. I could show you the color blue and you would argue against it.

They are giving people CREDITS for having kids, NOT DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS. That is paying people to have kids, it doesnt get any simpler than that.

[.blank cd]

Well. If they're paying people to have kids now, still haven't recieved a check yet. They must have left me out.

[bu villain]

yes it solves the problem.

A safety net is there to catch you when you fall. Its not there to hold you, coddle you, and never let you leave.

The net has been wokring for 4+ years. Where do you draw the line? 5 years? 10 years?

Gotta cut the cord sometime. People on UE for 99 weeks, Should be out working at Mcdonalds, YES, if they cant find a job in 99 weeks, during a RECOVERY, they should be out working a job that pays them the same amount UE does. At least at the jobthey have a chance to get promoted

I don't think it solves the problem because the problem is partly that people are not trained for the modern economy. Cutting the cord as you say doesn't magically make them more employable. As to when to cut it off, I don't think there is single number. It depends on many factors like economic conditions.


Our species made it where we are today based on my values. Our country was formed and became what it is today based on my values. Maybe all of the problems in society today is a result of trying to accommodate you with something you can accept. Government dependency is a man made problem.

Right now in the US there are more children in need of parents than we have the ability to support. Maybe if we quit supporting dead beat adults, we would be able to take care of the children and eventually there would be a lot less dead beat adults and children in need of support. All of the problems in america are growing because of your values. America is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantee. When forced to sink or swim, some people are going to sink....

Sure those values may have gotten us where we are but you can't ignore the suffering they caused on the way either. You only care about the end goal and how fast we can get there. I care about the journey as well. Whether you like it or not, you have to accommodate my values because this is my country too and there are a lot of people who feel the same way. Our past does not dictate our future no matter how much you wish it did. Your refusal to compromise with people you don't agree with is exactly why nothing gets done in this country. If that's what you prefer to trying to find common ground, then congratulations, our government is working exactly how you should expect.


Thats the other thing no one talks about.

I DONT WANT THE CHILDREN TO SUFFER!!

So, your answer is to keep paying people to have kids? Seems Legit

It's not an answer, it's just the lesser of two evils.

[bu villain]

They are giving people CREDITS for having kids, NOT DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS.

You can't raise a kid on a deduction if you have no income.

[Vteckidd]

You can't raise a kid on a deduction if you have no income.

Why are you having kids if you have no income?

Plus these are CREDITS for having children, its really quite simple. People get POSITIVE FUNDS IE THE GOVT PAYS THEM based upon credits and deductions.

FTR , poor people arent alone in this, there are other tax credits, deductions that should be abolished IMO.

[Vteckidd]

Well. If they're paying people to have kids now, still haven't recieved a check yet. They must have left me out.

Post last years tax return. I guarantee you , that your tax liability was less because of a child, and you received income credits due to having a child..

Would shock me if you didnt use those deductions or credits.

[Vteckidd]

I don't think it solves the problem because the problem is partly that people are not trained for the modern economy. Cutting the cord as you say doesn't magically make them more employable. As to when to cut it off, I don't think there is single number. It depends on many factors like economic conditions.

.

They arent trained to flip burgers? be a janitor? Mop floors? turn wrenches? Say hello at Wal mart? Fold clothes?

Not being prepared for the modern economy is not my problem quite frankly. If you cant figure out how to be productive, then you get to work the "crappy job" on your dime, not mine. I dont want to work $7/hr jobs, so I dont sit around bitching about not being qualified or trained. I go out and get training. I put myself through school. I learned a trade/skill. its not hard.

at some point you should be forced to take a job that is paying you that same on welfare. Otherwise you are just being lazy

[Sinfix_15]

This is up there with some of the stupidest times you've ever pressed the post button.

Where would you rank "god bless planned parenthood" on the list of the stupidest things that presidents have ever said?

[BanginJimmy]

Oh boy...
Does all this apply to corporate welfare as well?

Most definitely. If you want to talk taxes we can. As you know, most corporate welfare is rigged through the tax code.


Someone else's money? LOL. Do you not understand how taxes work?

I know exactly how taxes work. Govt takes money from citizens and spends it in a manner proscribed by Congress.


Interest free huh? Lol.

The 'interest' is paid in the form of a newly employed graduate who is no longer cashing a govt check. Instead they are writing a check.


So what do you do about people on welfare who have completed graduate and tech classes

We both know that is a VAST minority of recipients, but in those cases, they obviously chose a poor area of study. I have no problems giving them a second chance.


What about TANF?

What about it? Its a program that falls under the umbrella of welfare isnt it?


I see a lot of thinly veiled classism going on here.

No you dont, you just want to try to put a negative label on it.

Giving people money for an endless time period isnt working, its time to try something different. Its time to start teaching people to fish instead of just handing them fish every first and fifteenth. Maybe those on the left will be proven correct in saying people on welfare dont want to be there and just need a way out. Personally, I think the number of people that want off welfare is FAR under 50%. Most would rather just cash a check instead of working for one.

I've posted the article before and I'm not looking for it again. Norway had something like 5 years of unemployment. Amazingly, most people were finding work within a couple months of their benefits ending. They shortened the time to get it to 3 years and the same thing happened. People find a way to work and take care of themselves when they are forced to. The same would be true with welfare programs.

[BanginJimmy]

While I agree that your approach would increase the percentage of self-sufficient people, I am not willing to let people or their children die to achieve that. I would rather support unproductive people than let them die. Do you think there is any middle ground between someone with your values and mine that we could both accept?

I'm sure there is but I dont even know where to begin. No one thing is going to fix the financial mess we are in as a nation. I believe you have to start fixing the problem with those that dont contribute to society first.

[bu villain]

They arent trained to flip burgers? be a janitor? Mop floors? turn wrenches? Say hello at Wal mart? Fold clothes?

Not being prepared for the modern economy is not my problem quite frankly. If you cant figure out how to be productive, then you get to work the "crappy job" on your dime, not mine. I dont want to work $7/hr jobs, so I dont sit around bitching about not being qualified or trained. I go out and get training. I put myself through school. I learned a trade/skill. its not hard.

at some point you should be forced to take a job that is paying you that same on welfare. Otherwise you are just being lazy

I actually think the idea of the government providing welfare recipients with jobs or teaming up with corporations to provide them jobs would be great. Although we do need to be careful about having skilled people forced into a menial job just because they can't find an opening for their skills immediately either so we need to balance it.


I'm sure there is but I dont even know where to begin. No one thing is going to fix the financial mess we are in as a nation. I believe you have to start fixing the problem with those that dont contribute to society first.

Easier said then done. Some people think that misery and pain are the only way to motivate people, I happen to disagree.

[Sinfix_15]

I actually think the idea of the government providing welfare recipients with jobs or teaming up with corporations to provide them jobs would be great. Although we do need to be careful about having skilled people forced into a menial job just because they can't find an opening for their skills immediately either so we need to balance it.



Easier said then done. Some people think that misery and pain are the only way to motivate people, I happen to disagree.

Being able to hold out for a better job is a luxury............ how in the hell did we get to a point where people who need government aid to live are too good to take certain jobs. If you're too good to work a job, then you dont need government aid. I dont want my tax dollars going to you being able to hold out for a good job. Get a job, then look for a better job.......

I want to bang my head against the wall sometimes when i read your posts...... it's time for people to pop the government's titty out of their mouth and grow up.

[BanginJimmy]

Although we do need to be careful about having skilled people forced into a menial job just because they can't find an opening for their skills immediately either so we need to balance it.

This is an incredibly stupid mindset. Do you honestly think someone that is working a job that is below what their education and experience demands will just stop looking for better employment?


Easier said then done. Some people think that misery and pain are the only way to motivate people, I happen to disagree.


So what will? Handouts didnt work. Please and thank you didnt work. Whats left?

[Sinfix_15]

i wish all of those dumb ass kids would listen to this speech, but i know they wont.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNXwKGZHmDc

[bu villain]

Being able to hold out for a better job is a luxury............ how in the hell did we get to a point where people who need government aid to live are too good to take certain jobs. If you're too good to work a job, then you dont need government aid. I dont want my tax dollars going to you being able to hold out for a good job. Get a job, then look for a better job.......

I want to bang my head against the wall sometimes when i read your posts...... it's time for people to pop the government's titty out of their mouth and grow up.

It's a luxury that may be good for society. Taking a minimum wage job can adversely impacts a person's ability to get a better job that has a greater societal benefit later. I'm not saying someone should hold out forever for the perfect job. Just that if a neurosurgeon gets fired, he shouldn't go work at McDonald's the next day just to have a job because another hospital may not want to hire the neurosurgeon who's last job was McDonalds. Unfortunately hiring managers can be just as irrational and judgemental as the rest of humanity.


So what will? Handouts didnt work. Please and thank you didnt work. Whats left?

Handouts were never intended to be motivation. I think greasing the path to success is the best bet. That means improving education and training programs, making it cheaper and more easily accessible. Working with companies to figure out what the demand is and funnel people in that direction. I think those sorts of plans would be much more effective than just telling people to figure it out on their own with little to no help.

[Echonova]

I want to bang my head against the wall sometimes when i read your posts......I disagree with this part of your post. bu's post are always well thought out and void of personal attacks or insults (at least that I remember). While we may have differing points of view, his posts always make me think. "Left or right" everybody has hypothetical answers that can solve every issue. Problem with that is, we are human beings and as such we tend to screw things up and not do things perfectly.

I believe we all want the same thing, just disagree on how to get there or on how to do it.

[bu villain]

I disagree with this part of your post. bu's post are always well thought out and void of personal attacks or insults (at least that I remember). While we may have differing points of view, his posts always make me think. "Left or right" everybody has hypothetical answers that can solve every issue. Problem with that is, we are human beings and as such we tend to screw things up and not do things perfectly.

I believe we all want the same thing, just disagree on how to get there or on how to do it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Personal insults do nothing to add to the discussion. As a matter of fact they usually inhibit a good discussion. If someone feels the need to attack people personally, I see that as a personal weakness and a sign of immaturity. It is like a child throwing a temper tantrum. I must admit, Sinflix tests my strength on that sometimes as well.

I agree with the rest of your statement as well. Human desires and goals are often universal. That is another reason why personal attacks are so juvenile. It's as if people can't fathom different perspectives on an issue.

[BanginJimmy]

Handouts were never intended to be motivation. I think greasing the path to success is the best bet. That means improving education and training programs, making it cheaper and more easily accessible. Working with companies to figure out what the demand is and funnel people in that direction. I think those sorts of plans would be much more effective than just telling people to figure it out on their own with little to no help.

How many more education and training programs do we need? We already spend FAR more than any other country in the world on per capita education and lets be honest, we arent getting even a fraction of our money's worth. Community colleges couldnt possibly be any cheaper or accessible. It took me less than 2 weeks from the day I walked in the door to start classes at West Ga Tech or whatever they call it now and it cost me about $400 a quarter between books and registration. It would have been much less if I had been eligible for HOPE.

If you cant figure out on your own that you need some kind of education or job skills in order to get and stay employed I dont think college or tech school is going to help either. I dont think the 20yo mother of 3 has any hope of living above the poverty level either.

[bu villain]

How many more education and training programs do we need? We already spend FAR more than any other country in the world on per capita education and lets be honest, we arent getting even a fraction of our money's worth. Community colleges couldnt possibly be any cheaper or accessible. It took me less than 2 weeks from the day I walked in the door to start classes at West Ga Tech or whatever they call it now and it cost me about $400 a quarter between books and registration. It would have been much less if I had been eligible for HOPE.

Like you said, we aren't getting or moneys worth. We need to do things differently, not just add more schools doing the exact same thing. And when I say education, I am talking about starting from preschool. Our school systems range from terrible to mediocre at best. We need to do better


I dont think the 20yo mother of 3 has any hope of living above the poverty level either.

How can you motivate someone with no hope? If you want that 20yo mother to benefit society, you're gonna have to start with her having hope to live a better life.

[Sinfix_15]

It's a luxury that may be good for society. Taking a minimum wage job can adversely impacts a person's ability to get a better job that has a greater societal benefit later. I'm not saying someone should hold out forever for the perfect job. Just that if a neurosurgeon gets fired, he shouldn't go work at McDonald's the next day just to have a job because another hospital may not want to hire the neurosurgeon who's last job was McDonalds. Unfortunately hiring managers can be just as irrational and judgemental as the rest of humanity.



This is the dumbest shit i've ever read in my life.

Why should my tax dollars support your career strategy? If you dont want mcdonalds on your resume, that's your choice. If you cant afford to make that choice, then oh well. If you're a neurosurgeon and want to hold out for another high profile job, that's fine. I would too...... but you do it on your own dime. If you dont have that dime, then you do what you have to do to take care of yourself.

[Sinfix_15]

I disagree with this part of your post. bu's post are always well thought out and void of personal attacks or insults (at least that I remember). While we may have differing points of view, his posts always make me think. "Left or right" everybody has hypothetical answers that can solve every issue. Problem with that is, we are human beings and as such we tend to screw things up and not do things perfectly.

I believe we all want the same thing, just disagree on how to get there or on how to do it.

This is why BU's post anger and frustrate me. I actually have respect for him and think he is a smart and rational guy.... when i see someone like him come to the conclusions that he does, it makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity. Blank never angers me, because i expect him to be irrational and stupid.

I'm also pretty sure that i do not want the same things as some of the people here.

[BanginJimmy]

Like you said, we aren't getting or moneys worth. We need to do things differently, not just add more schools doing the exact same thing. And when I say education, I am talking about starting from preschool. Our school systems range from terrible to mediocre at best. We need to do better

On this point we agree completely. Our schools are failing us and its hurting us as a nation, not just those that have the bad to mediocre education. The logical starting point would be to get the bad and uncaring teachers out of the classroom, but to do that the unions would need to be busted or somehow convinced to play along. We both know thats not going to happen though.




How can you motivate someone with no hope? If you want that 20yo mother to benefit society, you're gonna have to start with her having hope to live a better life.

Anyone, no matter their current station or class, can live a better, more financially stable life. If they dont already know that, its because they dont want to. You simply cant motivate someone to seek more for themselves if they dont care to better themselves. There is a segment of our population that is simply content living off the govt and blaming others for their own failures.

[Echonova]

I'm also pretty sure that i do not want the same things as some of the people here.I was speaking in a broad ambiguous term like "world peace", but I understand what you mean.


And I agree.

[David88vert]

Did anyone watch ABC News' coverage tonight on the fast food workers strike? One of the key people they showed was a young woman, who's statement was promoted by ABC as the main statement of the workers, as support for why the minimum wage needs to be more than doubled, from $7.25/hr to $15/hr.
Her statement was that she has 8 people in her household that her paycheck has to support, and that they were barely getting by. For this reason, McDonalds needs to pay her $15/hr, and if they think that $7.25/hr is enough (minimum wage), then they need to live her life and see how hard it is to get by.

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity. It is there to turn a profit for its shareholders, not to support 8 people in return for the work efforts of 1. The business has no business of knowing how many people you are trying to support - only to pay you an agreed to wage for the work agreed to. As a worker, you are trading your time and effort in exchange for compensation (financial, health, etc).
This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one. If it is not enough, then go find a job that does pay enough. Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.

[BanginJimmy]

Did anyone watch ABC News' coverage tonight on the fast food workers strike? One of the key people they showed was a young woman, who's statement was promoted by ABC as the main statement of the workers, as support for why the minimum wage needs to be more than doubled, from $7.25/hr to $15/hr.
Her statement was that she has 8 people in her household that her paycheck has to support, and that they were barely getting by. For this reason, McDonalds needs to pay her $15/hr, and if they think that $7.25/hr is enough (minimum wage), then they need to live her life and see how hard it is to get by.

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity. It is there to turn a profit for its shareholders, not to support 8 people in return for the work efforts of 1. The business has no business of knowing how many people you are trying to support - only to pay you an agreed to wage for the work agreed to. As a worker, you are trading your time and effort in exchange for compensation (financial, health, etc).
This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one. If it is not enough, then go find a job that does pay enough. Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.


I have a more basic question. WTF would be you even try supporting that many people while working a fast food job? I know nothing of this lady and I didnt see the coverage of her, but I am going to assume that her real problem is generational bad decision making.

[.blank cd]

This is why BU's post anger and frustrate me. I actually have respect for him and think he is a smart and rational guy.... when i see someone like him come to the conclusions that he does, it makes me lose a little bit of faith in humanity. Blank never angers me, because i expect him to be irrational and stupid.

Code words for smarter than you.

The truth is, it's fiscally cheaper to give people welfare than it is to let them die in the streets, or "fend for themselves" as you say.

[.blank cd]

Here is the problem with that.
McDonalds is a business, not a charity.Was it you the other day that said businesses should be charitable when it came to emergency healthcare? Might have been someone else...
It is there to turn a profit for its shareholdersIs that the line they're handing out now-a-days? Lol. All this time i thought they were there to make shitty hamburgers and fries. Maybe next time Im there, I should ask for the diversified portfolio combo with a side of derivatives.


This argument that minimum wage is not enough is an idiotic one.Its not, really. It's been to low for too long. $15/hr may be a bit much, but you don't ask for 50 cents more and expect them to throw 3 more dollars at you. I hear the same BS excuse about how we're gonna have to start paying $20 for a hamburger if minimum wage goes up, but it seems that the opponents excuses never stand up to simple math.


Arguing that businesses should give you more for the same work effort just because you are trying to support more people than you should is dumb, and shows that the people making minimum wage don't understand even what the concept of work actually is.Im pretty sure that isn't anyone's argument. But then again, I hear about wealthier people getting COL raises (not performance based raises) all the time. Maybe we should take that concept away too. Or maybe the cost of living only increases if you're making a lot more than minimum wage. Maybe if your making minimum wage, gas is still 1.05 a gallon, milk is 1.50, bread is .89 cents, and rent is 200/month. It should be raised, and it should be indexed to inflation and production. If the cost of living goes up, minimum wage should go up. If someone is getting a non-performance based raise making 100k a year, someone making 15k should get one too. It doesn't matter how much you make a year, bread, milk, water, gas all cost the same whether you're a millionaire or whether you work at Mickey Ds.

And we need to stop pretending like everyone's home situation is the same. Children happen, regardless of income. Period. It's been happening that way for hundreds of thousands of years. It will keep happening that way until the end of time.

[David88vert]

Was it you the other day that said businesses should be charitable when it came to emergency healthcare? Might have been someone else...


I didn't say anything like that.


Is that the line they're handing out now-a-days? Lol. All this time i thought they were there to make shitty hamburgers and fries. Maybe next time Im there, I should ask for the diversified portfolio combo with a side of derivatives.

Clearly, you have no experience working in corporations. When you have worked for a couple of Fortune 50 companies for a few years, come back and try to speak with some knowledge.


Its not, really. It's been to low for too long. $15/hr may be a bit much, but you don't ask for 50 cents more and expect them to throw 3 more dollars at you. I hear the same BS excuse about how we're gonna have to start paying $20 for a hamburger if minimum wage goes up, but it seems that the opponents excuses never stand up to simple math.

They actually broke down the cost of making a $1 hamburger in the same report. $0.34 was the cost of materials, around $0.23 cents was the approximate rent, $0.25 went to pay employees, and $0.18 was the actual profit. If there were to raise minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, as they are being asked to, it would increase the cost by 25%, and raise the cost of that $1 burger to $1.25. A $6.00 meal would become $7.50. That's your simple math being presented by McDonalds, liberal ABC News, and McDonalds.


Im pretty sure that isn't anyone's argument. But then again, I hear about wealthier people getting COL raises (not performance based raises) all the time. Maybe we should take that concept away too. Or maybe the cost of living only increases if you're making a lot more than minimum wage. Maybe if your making minimum wage, gas is still 1.05 a gallon, milk is 1.50, bread is .89 cents, and rent is 200/month. It should be raised, and it should be indexed to inflation and production. If the cost of living goes up, minimum wage should go up. If someone is getting a non-performance based raise making 100k a year, someone making 15k should get one too. It doesn't matter how much you make a year, bread, milk, water, gas all cost the same whether you're a millionaire or whether you work at Mickey Ds.

I'm pretty sure that you are wrong (as I actually watched it), and ABC News would say that you are wrong also - as that is the exact message that they broadcast on air at 7pm tonight.

Companies not owned by the government determine how they give raises and bonuses - that's called being in business. Are you advocating that the government take over all businesses and determine what compensation that someone should be entitled to?

You seem to think that life should be "fair". You haven't yet woken up to reality. Flipping burgers at McDonalds shouldn't be a career.

[.blank cd]

Clearly, you have no experience working in corporations. When you have worked for a couple of Fortune 50 companies for a few years, come back and try to speak with some knowledge.Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP


Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.



So, wrong as usual.



I'm pretty sure that you are wrong (as I actually watched it), and ABC News would say that you are wrong also - as that is the exact message that they broadcast on air at 7pm tonight.Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?


Companies not owned by the government determine how they give raises and bonuses - that's called being in business. Are you advocating that the government take over all businesses and determine what compensation that someone should be entitled to?I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.


You seem to think that life should be "fair". You haven't yet woken up to reality. Flipping burgers at McDonalds shouldn't be a career.
The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

[.blank cd]

They actually broke down the cost of making a $1 hamburger in the same report. $0.34 was the cost of materials, around $0.23 cents was the approximate rent, $0.25 went to pay employees, and $0.18 was the actual profit. If there were to raise minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, as they are being asked to, it would increase the cost by 25%, and raise the cost of that $1 burger to $1.25. A $6.00 meal would become $7.50. That's your simple math being presented by McDonalds, liberal ABC News, and McDonalds.
So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

We know that marginal propensity to consume is higher in individuals with lower disposable income and lower in individuals with higher disposable income, what do you think will happen to the extra $8/hr: Will it be spent or saved?

[BanginJimmy]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds)

You are proving to be less logical and more of a troll every day.


I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...
BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP)

Thats the business they are in, not why they are in business.



Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.

No, its the result of good decision making. This is the exact opposite of the type of decision making of a non management employee above the age of 20.



The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

This is a cute little rant and all, but what basis does it have in reality? Who is saying someone shouldnt have the ability to eat and live? It isnt McDonalds fault their employees are easily replaced and therefore, not worthy of higher salaries. If someone is working there after they get out of HS, or college if they go that route, that is the result of their own decisions. Its not McDonalds or BK's or Dominos job to support your lifestyle. It is on you to gain the necessary education and experience to find employment that will support your lifestyle.

[Sinfix_15]

Code words for smarter than you.

The truth is, it's fiscally cheaper to give people welfare than it is to let them die in the streets, or "fend for themselves" as you say.

If i was jobless, on welfare, food stamps and sat at home smoking weed all day, you would be in here defending my honor.

I find that hard to believe.... seeing as how i walk past homeless people all the time and it doesnt cost me a dime.

[Sinfix_15]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds)

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP)


Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.



So, wrong as usual.


Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?

I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.


The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

Everyone does have the right to eat and live. I like eating lobster and living with a bunch of shit to play with. That's why i put in the work to get a good job. If people dont like mcdonalds and riding the bus, they should do the same.

[David88vert]

Well, since you were so sure about it, I did some research to see what they said about it, and it seems that McDonalds did indeed get in the business of selling shitty hamburgers and French fries, and not what you said they were in the business for. You can read more about what they do here

McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds)

I also did some research on the company I used to work for, BP. THEY said they're in the business of energy exploration and conversion, and not what you said. You can read more about what they do here...

BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP)

Profitability to shareholders is a RESULT of what they're in business for.

So, wrong as usual.

Running a cash register at a gas station is not the same as working with executive management. When you have put some time into helping executives scope out a 25 year plan for a company, let me know.

Generating profit is the whole reason that a company exists, you believe that their goal is to sell fried burgers and greasy fries as a favor to society? LOL




Is that the message they broadcasted at 7? Or was that your interpretation of said message?


Actually, it is what they broadcast - I'm not interpreting it. Your attempt to imply that it is not is a failure.



I don't think I advocated or implied that at all.

Re-read your statement and then work on improving your communication skills then. How exactly were you proposing that businesses be stopped from giving COL increases? Wouldn't that be through a law? If not, how would you enforce it?



The reality is, everyone should be able to eat and live. Neither of which is a luxury. Especially to those that put fourth a marginal effort. This idea that people are making careers flipping burgers and living off welfare doesn't necessarily exist and is really just a generality that pundits and bloggers and generally angry and less knowledgable people have fabricated, and that you and others have latched on to, because its been presented to you ipse dixit. I would venture to say a very very small percentage of people who flip burgers for McDonald's woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I want to be the best shitty burger flipper this company's ever seen". You're using the exception as the rule so to speak, and that's really not how it works, in reality.

I agree with the italized part.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that you are 100% wrong that people are not making careers flipping burgers. When I was first out of high school, I worked at a local Burger King for a couple of months. I was the youngest person that worked there. The two ladies that made biscuits every morning had been there for close to 20 years each, and received government assistance, and provided for their families off their salary. Our main guy that made burgers during the lunch rush also had been making fast food burgers for over 20 years, and was very good at it. He did not have kids, but did support his mom as she lived with him in his rental house. Only one of them could afford a car. All three of them were white (not black), and all made more than minimum wage, but only by a little bit. None of them were looking for a better paying job, they just went day-by-day, with no ambition to move from their current employment.

These aren't exceptions to the rule - go walk in you local fast food restaurants at lunchtime and see if you have just kids working, or grown adults that have been doing this for awhile.

My statements haven't come from others - I've seen it in real life. You should try it sometime.

[David88vert]

So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

This information was broadcast on ABC News, so you can research and review it yourself.
If you were to double minimum wage, then costs would rise 25%, that is what they made very clear. Anyone who has taken a Econ 101 course would know that as cost rises, demand decreases, so it is unlikely that current consumption rates would remain the same.
One industry, like fast food, does not have the capability to topple the US economy - I would hope that you already know that. To even ask that question is not logical.




We know that marginal propensity to consume is higher in individuals with lower disposable income and lower in individuals with higher disposable income, what do you think will happen to the extra $8/hr: Will it be spent or saved?

Spent.

What you seem to not comprehend is that this would not be a "raise for fast food workers". This would affect all industries that have workers currently paid under the "new minimum wage rate". We both know that this new rate will not be $15/hr - that would be too big of an increase, too quickly. The effect would be devasting on the economy, as employers would adjust their rates to keep their profit margins, making the prices of many items rise quickly. Of course, the prices on some items can only rise so much, or enough people will quit buying them, causing the businesses to close, and putting those workers in the unemployment line. Those striking workers don't think about that though, and it appears that you don't think about that either.

[.blank cd]

I find that hard to believe.... seeing as how i walk past homeless people all the time and it doesnt cost me a dime.

Ok. If you took away welfare altogether at this very second, do you think that homeless population would increase or decrease?

[.blank cd]

Running a cash register at a gas station is not the same as working with executive management. When you have put some time into helping executives scope out a 25 year plan for a company, let me know.I did a tiny bit more than run a cash register.


Generating profit is the whole reason that a company exists, you believe that their goal is to sell fried burgers and greasy fries as a favor to society? LOLMaybe you should ask McDonalds why they're in business.



Re-read your statement and then work on improving your communication skills then. How exactly were you proposing that businesses be stopped from giving COL increases? Wouldn't that be through a law? If not, how would you enforce it?It was a hypothetical statement.




I can tell you from firsthand experience that you are 100% wrong that people are not making careers flipping burgers. When I was first out of high school, I worked at a local Burger King for a couple of months. I was the youngest person that worked there. The two ladies that made biscuits every morning had been there for close to 20 years each, and received government assistance, and provided for their families off their salary. Our main guy that made burgers during the lunch rush also had been making fast food burgers for over 20 years, and was very good at it. He did not have kids, but did support his mom as she lived with him in his rental house. Only one of them could afford a car. All three of them were white (not black), and all made more than minimum wage, but only by a little bit. None of them were looking for a better paying job, they just went day-by-day, with no ambition to move from their current employment.

These aren't exceptions to the rule - go walk in you local fast food restaurants at lunchtime and see if you have just kids working, or grown adults that have been doing this for awhile.

My statements haven't come from others - I've seen it in real life. You should try it sometime.
Seems as if your statements are anecdotal evidence

[.blank cd]

This information was broadcast on ABC News, so you can research and review it yourself.
If you were to double minimum wage, then costs would rise 25%, that is what they made very clear. Anyone who has taken a Econ 101 course would know that as cost rises, demand decreases, so it is unlikely that current consumption rates would remain the same.
One industry, like fast food, does not have the capability to topple the US economy.
I would say the demand curve for a dollar hamburger is a bit flatter than other things...



What you seem to not comprehend is that this would not be a "raise for fast food workers". This would affect all industries that have workers currently paid under the "new minimum wage rate". We both know that this new rate will not be $15/hr - that would be too big of an increase, too quickly. The effect would be devasting on the economy, as employers would adjust their rates to keep their profit margins, making the prices of many items rise quickly. Of course, the prices on some items can only rise so much, or enough people will quit buying them, causing the businesses to close, and putting those workers in the unemployment line. Those striking workers don't think about that though, and it appears that you don't think about that either.
Ok, so we went from talking about McDonalds to the entire group of people making minimum wage, and we went from talking about doubling minimum wage, to not doubling minimum wage

We know that $15 is a starting point for a negotiation. So lets say they settle on $10, which is reasonable.

Using our same marginal propensity to consume, what do you think people making minimum wage are going to do with the extra $3/hr? Will it be spent or saved?

[David88vert]

I did a tiny bit more than run a cash register.

Maybe you should ask McDonalds why they're in business.

It was a hypothetical statement.

Seems as if your statements are anecdotal evidence

I doubt that you had the ear of the executives of BP. And certainly not included in any long-term strategy planning.

I know why McDonalds is in business. They certainly aren't there to take money from the shareholders and give it to the employees.

So, you can use hypotheticals and it should be taken as a serious discussion point, but if I use real life experience, then that is anecdotal evidence, and shouldn't really be considered? Considering that you have no scientific or statistical evidence to support your statements, it appears that once again, I am the only one bringing any evidence to the table.

[.blank cd]

I know why McDonalds is in business. They certainly aren't there to take money from the shareholders and give it to the employees.They are there to take money from you in exchange for a Big Mac, fries, and a large diet coke.


So, you can use hypotheticals and it should be taken as a serious discussion point, but if I use real life experience, then that is anecdotal evidence, and shouldn't really be considered?I wasn't using a hypothetical statement as empirical evidence. You however, used anecdotal evidence as evidence that suggests there is a large percentage of people who've made flipping fast food burgers a dedicated career choice. So yes, your anecdotal evidence should not, and is rarely, if ever, considered in place of actual empirical evidence in the science of economics, or the science of anything at all for that matter.

So, instead of saying "I worked in/walked in 1 of 12000 franchises and this lady had been there for 29 years, so this is what it's like", show me the data

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. If you took away welfare altogether at this very second, do you think that homeless population would increase or decrease?

In the short term it would increased. In the long term it would decrease.

[.blank cd]

In the short term it would increased. In the long term it would decrease.

You're right. It would increase.

So using right now as our base homeless/indigent population, we know as someone who's homeless, you have a few options

We can starve and die
We can panhandle or steal and get by
Or We can get a job.

Lets say 1/3 do each. So when the homeless population increases:

What happens to the jail population?
What happens to the hospital population?
What happens to the pool of unskilled labor?

[David88vert]

I would say the demand curve for a dollar hamburger is a bit flatter than other things...

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?

Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending. Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees? Where is the tipping point where they decide to close the less profitable stores, and when they need to cut some benefits?




Ok, so we went from talking about McDonalds to the entire group of people making minimum wage, and we went from talking about doubling minimum wage, to not doubling minimum wage

We know that $15 is a starting point for a negotiation. So lets say they settle on $10, which is reasonable.

Using our same marginal propensity to consume, what do you think people making minimum wage are going to do with the extra $3/hr? Will it be spent or saved?

Now we can get to the core of your statements. You consider that going from $7.25/hr to $10/hr is reasonable for minimum wage. From earlier statements, you also mentioned tying pay increases to the rate of inflation. That is what the Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich introduced as a plan back in June of 2012. The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” would bump the minimum wage up from $7.25 an hour and require an annual increase tied to inflation.
Are you sure that you aren't a Democrat?

President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team (http://change.gov/agenda/poverty_agenda/)


Lower income people are definitely more likely to spend any increase in income, rather than save it. There is no question about that. What they will spend it on though is another matter. There is no one saying that fast food workers will spend it on fast food. They are highly likely to spend it in their local economy - I think that we can agree on that. Stores that sell low cost items, like dollar stores, would likely benefit from an increase in minimum wage, even though they have to pay out more to their employees.
As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#1)
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?

More importantly, let's note that about 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. This year, with Obamacare coming, companies created 4 times more part-time jobs than full-time jobs - and that's a new trend, and a major flip-flop from last few years. You support the program that is helping create more of these minimum wage jobs, and just want to pay them more? How is that sustainable?


I think that I need to be clear here - I am not against raising the minimum wage, just against the government making quick, drastic changes to private industries when the current economic situation does not call for it, unlike the undereducated fast food workers who are calling for it. McDonalds does not have an obligation to support a family of 8 for the work of 1 person flipping burgers or manning a cash register. Do you understand that a "living wage" is not the same as minimum wage?

[David88vert]

They are there to take money from you in exchange for a Big Mac, fries, and a large diet coke.

That is the method that they use. That is not why they are there. You are presenting a small business mindset, which is not the same as how a corporate executive thinks.


I wasn't using a hypothetical statement as empirical evidence. You however, used anecdotal evidence as evidence that suggests there is a large percentage of people who've made flipping fast food burgers a dedicated career choice. So yes, your anecdotal evidence should not, and is rarely, if ever, considered in place of actual empirical evidence in the science of economics, or the science of anything at all for that matter.

Did I say for you to take personal experience as scientific research? I don't see where I stated anything even remotely like that.
I did say that you did not present anything of evidence - just conjecture.


So, instead of saying "I worked in/walked in 1 of 12000 franchises and this lady had been there for 29 years, so this is what it's like", show me the data

I already gave you a link to the BLS, but look up the Center for Economic and Policy Research - a liberal think tank. They did a study as well on minimum wage.

Let me ask you this - what do you think will be accomplished by raising the minimum wage? Give examples.

[.blank cd]

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?Elasticity of demand.


Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending.So you would say, to someone with a lower income, a $1 hamburger is equally as discretionary as a $10-$20 car wash?


Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage



President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team (http://change.gov/agenda/poverty_agenda/)Considering it was $5, and now its 7.25, and considering the opposition, Obama and I would say...

http://cronkitehhh.personal.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/obama-not-bad.jpeg


As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#1)
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?We'll round it off and say 4m since everyone who makes more than minimum wage would likely be bumped up too, and those who make less than min wage maybe bumped all the way, or maybe just $3

So around $3/hr, at maybe an average of 30hrs a week, times 4 million, times 52 weeks. MPC is about 80:20. That would be the economic benefit over the year. 15% of THAT would go to state and federal taxes depending where you live.

If all of the places that sold low cost goods and groceries and cheap hamburgers hired just one person to keep up with increased sales, how many jobs would that be?

[David88vert]

Elasticity of demand.

The last I checked, $1 hamburgers are not considered to be Veblen or Giffen goods, and as such, the demand would be negative, not positive, per the formula. This works with necessities, such as gasoline, but not luxuries, such as eating out. You can still easily carry a lunch, it does not prohibit you from eating. When you studied the formula, did they not teach you about substitution of goods or breadth of definition?



So you would say, to someone with a lower income, a $1 hamburger is equally as discretionary as a $10-$20 car wash?


No, the lower income individual might not even have a car. That is secondary to what is discretionary.
The fact is, to the lower income person, eating out even for a hamburger is discretionary.
And the person who makes more than minimum wage, and has a car, might choose not to get a car wash every week, and instead wash it themselves or cut back on the amount of washes, as they are now spending more for every other service that involves minimum wage employees.
The key is that you aren't producing more wealth, you are just rearranging people's priorities based upon a manipulated price point.




Considering it was $5, and now its 7.25, and considering the opposition, Obama and I would say...


It's hardly what he promised. Would you agree that it is a broken promise? If you think that it is not a broken promise, please explain how it is not.

You might appreciate this though: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

Basically, there are less people at minimum wage than in the past, so isn't that a good thing? Are you wanting more people to be working at minimum wage, or less people at minimum wage?



We'll round it off and say 4m since everyone who makes more than minimum wage would likely be bumped up too, and those who make less than min wage maybe bumped all the way, or maybe just $3

So around $3/hr, at maybe an average of 30hrs a week, times 4 million, times 52 weeks. MPC is about 80:20. That would be the economic benefit over the year. 15% of THAT would go to state and federal taxes depending where you live.

If all of the places that sold low cost goods and groceries and cheap hamburgers hired just one person to keep up with increased sales, how many jobs would that be?

Where is this increase demand coming from? Have you even been to Econ 101? As prices rise, demand falls - learn the basics first. You aren't creating wealth, you are simply shuffling people around. People working at a Starbucks that closes will simply shift to working for Family Dollar. As you stated, Starbucks makes 11% profit. What happens when some of the stores that are already near the bottom of the list of profitable stores tip over the edge? If a $4.25 Chai tea jumps to $5, do you actually think that demand will stay the same or increase?
When demand falls, Starbucks either has to cut costs or lower prices. They aren't going to lower the price back to $4.25 and make less profit. They will cut staff, who will have to go and find another job. This could be by laying off individuals or closing a location.

Or, to you, does only what the government collect in taxes matter?

Let me ask you this question. how many college graduates have you interviewed this year in regards to giving them job offers? I have interviewed quite a few, and find that they fall into two camps - those that make the effort to prepare for an interview, and those that put forth no effort to even read a little online or watch a YouTube video. I've found that only about 1 out of 10 even are hirable for a job that requires no experience, only a slight bit of reading prior to an interview. And I'm not talking about minimum wage - jobs that pay $40-45K to start, and that have training included at full pay rate.
Oh yeah, but my real world experience really doesn't matter though, right?

[Vteckidd]

So, assuming this is 100% correct (albeit limited) information, and the math works out as it should, and I could effectively double the minimum wage at McDonalds by charging an extra quarter for my dollar burger and current consumption rates remained stable, would this topple a US economy?

?

topple? no, but all you would do is pay the Minimum wage worker more, and his dollars would be worth LESS. You would have solved nothing and caused a raising in prices, and also massively distorted unskilled and skilled labor jobs. The toppling effect would be extremely detrimental to the low skilled worked you are trying to help.

Cost of unskilled labor going up means cheap goods will raise in prices which.........doesnt help the low paged worked.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 hr HURTS the worker, doesnt help them at all, actually hurts everyone else as well. A business doesnt operate in a vacuum , all other competitors will be affected.

A 25% price raise kills the middle class and poor. thats all that matters.

Simple fact is they are unskilled labor workers, they deserve the lowest wages out of unskilled labor workers because they do a job anyone can master with no education and no training. these jobs arent made to be careers (unless you go into management). If they dont want to work for minimum wage, they get to go find a job that pays them better. If they cant, thats not mcdonalds problem.

I say give them their $15/hr raise, and then layoff half the workforce. Or fire them all because there are people waiting to take their jobs.

[Vteckidd]

And you base your statement upon what statistical or scientific evidence?

Generally, people tend to cut back on eating out first when they try to save money, then luxuries like car washes, etc. - i.e. discretionary spending. Do you think that Starbucks will continue to make their same profit if they have to increase the payout to the employees? Where is the tipping point where they decide to close the less profitable stores, and when they need to cut some benefits?




Now we can get to the core of your statements. You consider that going from $7.25/hr to $10/hr is reasonable for minimum wage. From earlier statements, you also mentioned tying pay increases to the rate of inflation. That is what the Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich introduced as a plan back in June of 2012. The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” would bump the minimum wage up from $7.25 an hour and require an annual increase tied to inflation.
Are you sure that you aren't a Democrat?

President Barack Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. How did he do on keeping that promise?
Poverty | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team (http://change.gov/agenda/poverty_agenda/)


Lower income people are definitely more likely to spend any increase in income, rather than save it. There is no question about that. What they will spend it on though is another matter. There is no one saying that fast food workers will spend it on fast food. They are highly likely to spend it in their local economy - I think that we can agree on that. Stores that sell low cost items, like dollar stores, would likely benefit from an increase in minimum wage, even though they have to pay out more to their employees.
As for a real benefit, in 2012, 1.6 million people in the country made minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 million were paid below minimum wage, and that is a total of 3.6 million workers - less than 5% of the total work force.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#1)
So, how much of an economic stimulus would you gain by increasing the minimum wage?

More importantly, let's note that about 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. This year, with Obamacare coming, companies created 4 times more part-time jobs than full-time jobs - and that's a new trend, and a major flip-flop from last few years. You support the program that is helping create more of these minimum wage jobs, and just want to pay them more? How is that sustainable?


I think that I need to be clear here - I am not against raising the minimum wage, just against the government making quick, drastic changes to private industries when the current economic situation does not call for it, unlike the undereducated fast food workers who are calling for it. McDonalds does not have an obligation to support a family of 8 for the work of 1 person flipping burgers or manning a cash register. Do you understand that a "living wage" is not the same as minimum wage?

STOP, he doesnt like facts.

[Vteckidd]

Considering it was $5, and now its 7.25, and considering the opposition, Obama and I would say...

You just nuked yourself without even knowing it.

We have raised minimum wage how many times?


In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children,[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.[8]

Look at the poverty rates
File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_20 11._United_States..PNG)

Despite raising minimum wage, it does JACK SHIT to poverty rates. Theres ZERO correlation with raising minimum wage and people improving their situation because of it. This is what you and other libs dont understand. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BOTTOM CLASS of people, Everyone CANT make $50k a year. Embrace it. Then, we can talk about getting these people training and education to get out of poverty into a job that pays better. And those that dont want to do it, fuck em, let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

You make people rich by education and training, not by arbitrarily handing them money because .............they feel like it.

Its the dumbest argument anyone can make, and no one with any sense believes that raising minimum wage solves problems. It doesnt.

Id bet you ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY that raising minimum wage to $15 hour, these people will be bitching in 2-3 years because it wont change a thing. Just like the last 70 times we raised minimum wage. The funny thing is most states pay MORE than minimum wage. Minimum wage is $7.25? Average Mcdonalds starting pay is $7.40. They voluntarily pay more.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3vp03FkHLl8/UUmkd4Zkt5I/AAAAAAAAH8M/mAkwsNu43YE/s1600/za-nominal-federal-vs-national-average-minimum-wage-1994-2012.png

tieing minimum wage to inflation, just means more inflation. Costs go up, prices go up. PERIOD. Instead of talking about giving people money, talk about making them better people to get hired at better jobs. Its really that simple.

[David88vert]

You left out that when our wages increase, jobs that can be done overseas will be outsourced, as those labor rates are lower, and bring the company more profit. Imports become cheaper as well, which has a negative effect on locally established businesses.

Also, the talk of raising minimum wage is just a distraction from the real issue. What you really want to accomplish is raising the ability of each dollar to purchase more goods and services. In other words, raising the minimum wage does not have a positive effect for the lower income individuals UNLESS you keep the expenses for the items that they need at the same prices. If the prices of the goods that the lower income needs increase, that negates the effect of giving them more income.
If you really want to improve their ability to get what they need, you need to find a way to lower the cost of goods and services that the lower income need, and keep the prices of luxury items at current levels. The ratio of the buying power of the dollar is what needs to be addressed, not the minimum wage.

[Vteckidd]

You left out that when our wages increase, jobs that can be done overseas will be outsourced, as those labor rates are lower, and bring the company more profit. Imports become cheaper as well, which has a negative effect on locally established businesses.

Also, the talk of raising minimum wage is just a distraction from the real issue. What you really want to accomplish is raising the ability of each dollar to purchase more goods and services. In other words, raising the minimum wage does not have a positive effect for the lower income individuals UNLESS you keep the expenses for the items that they need at the same prices. If the prices of the goods that the lower income needs increase, that negates the effect of giving them more income.
If you really want to improve their ability to get what they need, you need to find a way to lower the cost of goods and services that the lower income need, and keep the prices of luxury items at current levels. The ratio of the buying power of the dollar is what needs to be addressed, not the minimum wage.

I think thats too much for some people in this forum to comprehend. If they are advocating for raising minimum wage as a means to improve someones lifestyle, they dont understand concepts such as this.

Its inflation 101.

MAKE THINGS IN THE USA!!!!

What people dont understand is that their Iphones, Flat Screens, etc would cost $1000-$5000 if that happened. Then they would be saying "GREEDY US CORPORATIONS CHARGING TOO MUCH!"

Honestly, I want Peter Schiff to go out to these protests, and interview someone who is working for minimum wage at MCEEDEES and ask them what their resume looks like. I want to see who these people REALLY are. I suspect most of them are paid thugs from SEIU or they have a resume that reads like minimum wage workers should

[David88vert]

Let's look at a small scale, if you don't mind. I am pretty familiar with San Francisco. If you aren't aware, they have their own minimum wage laws, which adjust every year, and are pegged to inflation (they did this back in 2003). As of this year, the new minimum wage is $10.55.

Anyone that has gone out there knows how expensive everything is there. A piece of toast and a coffee is $6, and keeps increasing in price constantly. A regular adult movie ticket is $16.50 (only $13.75 for your child) at the Metreon. Oh yeah, the median home price is now over $1 million. The CPI is 92.1 vs 75.4 for the average of the country (Atlanta scores 74.0).

So, how is that extra $3.30 an hour ($5K/yr) improving their quality of life, when their buying power keeps diminishing? It costs $84,133 a year for a family of four to live comfortably, but not extravagantly, in San Francisco, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Federal Poverty Guidelines say a family of four is "officially" poor if it brings in less than $23,550 per year. Even 300 percent of that poverty line, $70,650, falls well below the comfortable threshold proposed by the Economic Policy Institute for Bay Area cities. So, should we triple minimum wage to $30/hr? Will that fix everything?

[Vteckidd]

Minimum wage law backfires in American Samoa | Acton Institute (http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011/07/06/minimum-wage-law-backfires-american-samoa)

[Vteckidd]

Let's look at a small scale, if you don't mind. I am pretty familiar with San Francisco. If you aren't aware, they have their own minimum wage laws, which adjust every year, and are pegged to inflation (they did this back in 2003). As of this year, the new minimum wage is $10.55.

Anyone that has gone out there knows how expensive everything is there. A piece of toast and a coffee is $6, and keeps increasing in price constantly. A regular adult movie ticket is $16.50 (only $13.75 for your child) at the Metreon. Oh yeah, the median home price is now over $1 million. The CPI is 92.1 vs 75.4 for the average of the country (Atlanta scores 74.0).

So, how is that extra $3.30 an hour ($5K/yr) improving their quality of life, when their buying power keeps diminishing? It costs $84,133 a year for a family of four to live comfortably, but not extravagantly, in San Francisco, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Federal Poverty Guidelines say a family of four is "officially" poor if it brings in less than $23,550 per year. Even 300 percent of that poverty line, $70,650, falls well below the comfortable threshold proposed by the Economic Policy Institute for Bay Area cities. So, should we triple minimum wage to $30/hr? Will that fix everything?

No because tripling their buying power does 2 things

It triples everyone elses buying power, it diminishes everyones buying power.

Here is a SIMPLE example:
remember when everyone was up in arms over the 800 billion in stimulus money, and some people said "Just give the money directly to people"

IIRC every HOH would have gotten 250K?

Do you think every good would have stayed the same? If the government gave everyone a million dollars tomorrow, would everyone be able to purchase goods at the same prices today? The short answer is no, because the dollar would be destroyed and worth LESS.

If everyone was given a million dollars tomorrow, would Ferrari keep their prices the same?

[.blank cd]

The last I checked, $1 hamburgers are not considered to be Veblen or Giffen goods, and as such, the demand would be negative, not positive, per the formula. This works with necessities, such as gasoline, but not luxuries, such as eating out. You can still easily carry a lunch, it does not prohibit you from eating.On a side note, lets examine this. Is food a necessity? If its cheaper for me to buy $1 hamburger for the day than it is to spend $5 on perishable food for the day, where would I be more likely to get my food?


No, the lower income individual might not even have a car. That is secondary to what is discretionary.
The fact is, to the lower income person, eating out even for a hamburger is discretionary.Cheeseburger Bobby's is discretionary, BK value menu burger, not so much.


And the person who makes more than minimum wage, and has a car, might choose not to get a car wash every week, and instead wash it themselves or cut back on the amount of washes, as they are now spending more for every other service that involves minimum wage employees.
The key is that you aren't producing more wealth, you are just rearranging people's priorities based upon a manipulated price point.I don't think anyone's looking to produce more wealth.


It's hardly what he promised. Would you agree that it is a broken promise? If you think that it is not a broken promise, please explain how it is not.Broken promise? Lol. Gotta find any way we can turn a positive into a negative.


Basically, there are less people at minimum wage than in the past, so isn't that a good thing? Are you wanting more people to be working at minimum wage, or less people at minimum wage?Less people on minimum wage is great. People making minimum wage less dependent on welfare would be better



Where is this increase demand coming from? Have you even been to Econ 101? As prices rise, demand falls - learn the basics first. You aren't creating wealth, you are simply shuffling people around. People working at a Starbucks that closes will simply shift to working for Family Dollar. As you stated, Starbucks makes 11% profit. What happens when some of the stores that are already near the bottom of the list of profitable stores tip over the edge? If a $4.25 Chai tea jumps to $5, do you actually think that demand will stay the same or increase?You must have stopped at Econ 99. But you're sorta right.


Let me ask you this question. how many college graduates have you interviewed this year in regards to giving them job offers? I have interviewed quite a few, and find that they fall into two camps - those that make the effort to prepare for an interview, and those that put forth no effort to even read a little online or watch a YouTube video. I've found that only about 1 out of 10 even are hirable for a job that requires no experience, only a slight bit of reading prior to an interview. And I'm not talking about minimum wage - jobs that pay $40-45K to start, and that have training included at full pay rate.
Oh yeah, but my real world experience really doesn't matter though, right?

I don't do any hiring, but I don't know what that has to do with anything we're discussing here.

[.blank cd]

STOP, he doesnt like facts.

I love facts. Still waiting on some. All I'm seeing is homebrewed economics here.

[.blank cd]

No because tripling their buying power does 2 things

It triples everyone elses buying power, it diminishes everyones buying power.

Here is a SIMPLE example:
remember when everyone was up in arms over the 800 billion in stimulus money, and some people said "Just give the money directly to people"

IIRC every HOH would have gotten 250K?

Do you think every good would have stayed the same? If the government gave everyone a million dollars tomorrow, would everyone be able to purchase goods at the same prices today? The short answer is no, because the dollar would be destroyed and worth LESS.

If everyone was given a million dollars tomorrow, would Ferrari keep their prices the same?

I can't handle all this correlation=causation going on in here

"MINIMUM WAGE INCREASED. THIS IS WHY COST OF LIVING IS HIGH!"

LOL

What's happening in here is that you're all referencing these facts together like one causes the other. Fact one says cost of living went up, fact two says minimum wage went up. None of these facts suggest causation. You're jumping to your own conclusions here, because someone wants you to believe they're linked. "Common sense" might tell you that when one thing goes up another thing could go up with it, but the reality is that economics, and politics in general transcend "common sense"

[.blank cd]

No because tripling their buying power does 2 things

It triples everyone elses buying power, it diminishes everyones buying power.If you can prove this, have your work peer reviewed because there's a Nobel prize in economics waiting for you.


Here is a SIMPLE example:
remember when everyone was up in arms over the 800 billion in stimulus money, and some people said "Just give the money directly to people"

IIRC every HOH would have gotten 250K?Are we talking about giving every American $200k, or are we talking about giving a small section of the workforce a cost of living raise? I get confused because topics get thrown around In here so much...

[Vteckidd]

You dont believe facts, so why should i argue facts with you?

Its like beating a dead horse.

You think arbitrarily giving people more money doesnt affect the dollars value or cause inflation. the fact you dont believe these 2 things makes it impossible to argue or reason with you. You dont accept normal economic functions, therefore, i cannot argue economics with you.

Economic policies that allow the cheap jobs to exist, but encourage people to find better paying jobs based upon skillset and education is what works.

Finding ways to cheapen their dollars and pay them more doesnt work. It hasnt for 50 years. Did you skip my poverty chart? Minimum wage increases, poverty stays the same, more people on welfare. Cant explain that. you guys focus on all the wrong solutions. Tell the $7/hr worker to go EARN a $15 hour job. Oh theres not $15 hour jobs around for you? Blame who you voted for.

But the dirty little secret here is that the Dems dont really want this, they need a class of uneducated low wage workers to keep believing in their "evil rich guy OWES you" mantra.

[Vteckidd]

I can't handle all this correlation=causation going on in here

"MINIMUM WAGE INCREASED. THIS IS WHY COST OF LIVING IS HIGH!"

LOL

What's happening in here is that you're all referencing these facts together like one causes the other. Fact one says cost of living went up, fact two says minimum wage went up. None of these facts suggest causation. You're jumping to your own conclusions here, because someone wants you to believe they're linked. "Common sense" might tell you that when one thing goes up another thing could go up with it, but the reality is that economics, and politics in general transcend "common sense"

So you believe that if we raise minimum wage to $15/hr, no other ramifications would happen?

People making $15/hr now would just accept it? Prices wouldnt change? Inflation would not happen? Dollar would be worth the same? Nothing would happen, people would just make double in 1 sector and no other economic implications would happen.

The only saving grace is you are in the VAST majority that believe this. Paying your unskilled labor force double wages because they are unskilled, hurts THEM, it doesnt help them. It cheapens their buying power. We have already proven this.

Mcdonalds would not pay their work force DOUBLE and keep prices the same. You would pay the worker more, but their goods would now COST MORE due to the increase in their salaries for low cost goods. Low cost labor= they buy low cost goods. this happens with EVERY SINGLE SECTOR and industry that tries to artificially control markets.

The reason why I wont get a nobel peace price is because this is so common knowledge that it requires ZERO critical thinking to understand

[Sammich]

free food and $15/hour...dont mind if i do

[David88vert]

On a side note, lets examine this. Is food a necessity? If its cheaper for me to buy $1 hamburger for the day than it is to spend $5 on perishable food for the day, where would I be more likely to get my food?

The grocery store, where you can get more food for less than that $1 burger - which wouldn't be staying at $1 anyway, as it would be going up in process.

When you go to a fast food restaurant, on which side of the counter do you see the minimum wage earners?



Cheeseburger Bobby's is discretionary, BK value menu burger, not so much.

It is completely discretionary at any restaurant. Have you never packed a lunch?



I don't think anyone's looking to produce more wealth.

Then you are doing nothing more than manipulating numbers, but keeping the values the same. This will mean that raising minimum wage does not have a significant positive effect, as it does not address the real issues.



Broken promise? Lol. Gotta find any way we can turn a positive into a negative.


Read his own statements. He made them, and did not adhere to them.




Less people on minimum wage is great. People making minimum wage less dependent on welfare would be better

That sounds great, unfortunately, it would not improve their situation.



You must have stopped at Econ 99. But you're sorta right.

No real answer? Here's one: You have almost no experience in real world business. I have a lot of it and at multiple levels and types.



I don't do any hiring, but I don't know what that has to do with anything we're discussing here.

The real world - something you know nothing about.

[David88vert]

I love facts. Still waiting on some. All I'm seeing is homebrewed economics here.

I produce data, you produce unsubstantiated conjecture. Perhaps you should read my posts - they have the facts, which you claim to love.

[Vteckidd]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-chiklis-fan-page/bringing-the-runaways-home/574449619262905

Michael Chikilis admits TAX BREAKS CREATE JOBs......GASP

[.blank cd]

So you believe that if we raise minimum wage to $15/hr, no other ramifications would happen?didnt say that.


The reason why I wont get a nobel peace price is because this is so common knowledge that it requires ZERO critical thinking to understand

And this is why exactly there's so many people on the wrong side of most issues.

[Vteckidd]

How you know Blank is done with a topic


didnt say that.
Make vague statement , dont answer question........CHECK



And this is why exactly there's so many people on the wrong side of most issues.

make vague statement with no facts , snarky in nature , continue dodging.........check

I know im right, so theres nothing further to debate honestly

[.blank cd]

The grocery store, where you can get more food for less than that $1 burger - which wouldn't be staying at $1 anyway, as it would be going up in process.

When you go to a fast food restaurant, on which side of the counter do you see the minimum wage earners?

It is completely discretionary at any restaurant. Have you never packed a lunch?I don't think you understand what "discretionary spending" is...


No real answer? Here's one: You have almost no experience in real world business. I have a lot of it and at multiple levels and types.Experience that affords you tons of anecdotal evidence it seems.

There's definitely a real answer, just hoping you'd figure it out on your own.

[.blank cd]

nothing to add, understood. This is par for the course for you :)

I know im right, so theres nothing further to debate honestly

Gotcha...

So common sense and personal experience are better than basic economic principles. I better let some economists know they're wasting all their time. Lol

[David88vert]

I don't think you understand what "discretionary spending" is...

Experience that affords you tons of anecdotal evidence it seems.

There's definitely a real answer, just hoping you'd figure it out on your own.

I have experience in all levels of business in determining what is discretionary, and what is not - and Fortune 50 companies rely on my knowledge and experience. They believe that I have figured it out. How many believe that you have figured it out? What experience do you have?

We still await for you to produce any evidence at all.

I follow well documented economic principals and adhere to set legal policies. You don't seem to understand even the basics of economics.

[Vteckidd]

I have managed more small businesses than you can count. I have more sales experience than i can type on this page. I owned my own business.

I now manage a growing $500K+ a year ecommerce branch that was doing $1200 a year before I took it over.

You have nothing to add to this discussion anymore, all you do is double talk and pick apart what you like and dont like. you have not shown you grasp any concepts that are basic entry level knowledge. Until you start answering questions and proving your case, theres nothing else to argue about.

FYI , answering questions with "LOL" or some other meaningless comment doesnt mean you answered anything.

Like usual, im awaiting some actual meat and potatoes in your argument, present some facts, not OTHER peoples half written articles, FACTS. Form your own opinion, and prove it. I have done it, you havent

[.blank cd]

I have experience in all levels of business in determining what is discretionary, and what is not - and Fortune 50 companies rely on my knowledge and experience. They believe that I have figured it out.

You might want to start pretending like you know what you're talking about then. Lol

[.blank cd]

Like usual, im awaiting some actual meat and potatoes in your argument, present some facts, not OTHER peoples half written articles, FACTS. Form your own opinion, and prove it. I have done it, you havent

I'm good. As long as we're considering "common sense" and "zero critical thinking" as "meat and potatoes".

Lol

[Vteckidd]

This is how you know you have won an argument vs Blank CD, when he cant defend his position, and has no thoughts of his own.

+1 Vteckidd

[Vteckidd]

How you know Blank is done with a topic


Make vague statement , dont answer question........CHECK




make vague statement with no facts , snarky in nature , continue dodging.........check



FYI i called this few posts back

[David88vert]

You might want to start pretending like you know what you're talking about then. Lol

I have produced enough facts, data, and details for you already. You haven't been able to do the same.
It's pretty obvious to everyone who knows how economics works, and who has no knowledge of what he is talking about.

I would tell you to pretend, but you can't even pull that off with any degree of success.

Here some more info for you. This study looked at those who would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.50, comparable to the level proposed by President Obama. Just over 11% of workers who would gain from an increase live in poor households. Over 63% of the workers who would gain are second or third earners in families making well over the federal poverty line. 43% of workers who would benefit live in households with income over $50,000 a year. So, how is raising the minimum wage going to help these people and boost the economy?
http://epionline.org/downloads/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.PDF

This study shows that nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage earners receive a raise with the first 1-12 months on the job. Entry-level jobs, providing many workers with their first job experience have employers will increase their pay to retain their better-skilled employees, as they gain experience. You are the only one that things experience is over-rated.
http://epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf

In the 70s, President Ford signed the Earned Income Tax Credit. Low-income households receive a refundable tax credit, the amount of which is based on their other income. It acts as a guarantee of minimum income, rather than a minimum wage. As a worker's wages rise, the amount of EITC they can claim goes down. Their wages may go up, but the overall amount of household income they have may stay the same. The benefit of increasing the EITC, rather than a simple minimum wage hike, is that you can concentrate the benefits on those with lower incomes, and those raising a family.
Ask yourself - who are we wanting to help, and how can we best help that group, without negatively impacting everyone else.

[BanginJimmy]

It seems that this thread has run its couse. Locking.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.