MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   The relationship between the minimum wage and welfare (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/498356/the-relationship-between-minimum-wage-welfare/)

 
besson3c Feb 23, 2013 08:10 PM
The relationship between the minimum wage and welfare
Is there a relationship between the minimum wage and the number of people on welfare?

Discuss.
 
subego Feb 24, 2013 07:16 AM
Yes.

The lower the minimum wage, the more jobs you have available.

More jobs means more employment.

More employment means you have more people providing their own income.

The official definition of "on welfare" is more than 50% of your income coming from the government. Seems like common sense employing more people would push some who are on the greater than 50% side to the less than 50% side.

I'd say that works in the opposite direction as well.
 
ghporter Feb 24, 2013 10:45 AM
On the flip side, if you lower the minimum wage, you'll have more people "underemployed" due to not making enough on minimum wage to cover living expenses. The argument for raising the minimum is to increase the overall wage earned by minimum wage workers to decrease uneremployment.

If we've learned anything as a society over the past 50 years of legislative social manipulation, it must be that there is no single fix for anything. Unfortunately, it is easier for pols to run on bullet statements instead of educating their constituents to the reality of life: it's ALL gray area. Underemployment means a large group of "working poor" who cannot afford sufficient housing and insurance to cover their life's requirements. They cannot afford to take time off to go to the doctor, so they get sicker before they finally go to the emergency room for a very serious illness - and those of us who pay the taxes that fund county-level health care (the standard "indigent" care provider), wind up paying more in taxes to cover that, and then the long-term support of the individual and his/her family when the individual moves from "employed" to "disabled."

On the other hand, small businesses have managed to hang on in many cases by hiring people at minimum wage, and sometimes by manipulating hours to avoid the requirement to provide benefits. Will a higher minimum wage hurt those small businesses? Maybe.

Until I get my magic wand and can fix everything with a wave and a blink, I think we'll always be faced by choosing between two or more bad choices. The devil is always in the details.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Feb 24, 2013 10:45 AM
No. Welfare rates are tied to standard of living. The higher the standard of living the more people working as teachers and schoolbus drivers and at Walmart don't make a living wage and end up getting assistance from the government.
 
ghporter Feb 24, 2013 10:51 AM
Welfare payment rates are different from number of people ON welfare. This is an important distinction. If more people are employed, the theory is that fewer will qualify for welfare support. But... The income cutoff for welfare qualification is typically unrealistic; a part-time job that gets more than minimum wage might just cut off a family's qualification, which could be devastating. A comprehensive fix to the welfare system is needed, so that while there are broad and specific guidelines for qualification, they are flexible enough to ensure that it makes sense and is feasible for people to find and keep employment.
 
el chupacabra Feb 24, 2013 11:50 AM
Part of the problem you have when you increase minimum wage, you drive the price of everything up. So now... The people who are poor/unemployed, who could barely afford anything before, can afford even less now with increased min wage; because their wage has stayed the same... $0/hr. Min wage is a great way to create class/wealth disparity if not done right. In the US, it's not being done right.
 
el chupacabra Feb 24, 2013 01:12 PM
This is one of those things where we should look to how other countries do it to find a successful medium for the US. I'll just go over 1...

Consider exhibit Australia: I think Australia's wages are too high for "junior employees"; it's the tiered system I like better than the black and white simpleton min wage in the US. Many of the lying liberal media outlets (which you can find on page 1 of a AU min wage search) will boast Australia as having $15/hr or $18/hr min wage. In reality they have a tiered system:

For junior employees, the minimum rates are:

Under 16 years of age $5.87
At 16 years of age $7.55
At 17 years of age $9.22
At 18 years of age $10.90
At 19 years of age $13.17
At 20 years of age $15.59.

For apprentices, the rates are:

Year 1 of apprenticeship $10.22
Year 2 of apprenticeship $12.08
Year 3 of apprenticeship $14.87
Year 4 of apprenticeship $17.65.
src National minimum wage - Pay - Fair Work Ombudsman

Many critics within Australia will say the high wages have caused poverty to go up, or that people end up being let go as their age approaches into a new tier.

The problem I have with min wage is that people such as my younger self would want to work for extremely low wage just to get our foot in the door and get some knowledge and experience. By having so many laws surrounding hiring and firing process companies have to be sure you're going to work out for them or they're stuck with you, paying you a high wage, which results in them not giving many people many chances.

Current laws forcing high pay and making it difficult to fire people only help worthless lazy unproductive losers that really should learn their lesson by being fired or not receiving raises. Those of us who knew we were good workers didn't need to depend on government to protect us from being fired and dictate a "fair" wage.

(simple thoughts by el chupacabra)
By the way if a 13 year old kid comes to my door and says "I'll cut your lawn for $20" and it takes him 3 hours did I just break the law by hiring him for less than min wage?

What if he looks Mexican? Should I run a bureaucrat approved background check ask for his documents, social security #, drivers license, etc to make sure I don't hire an illegal since so many people seem to think legal employment status lies with the employers. Or should I just not hire Mexicans so I don't have to deal with it?
 
ebuddy Feb 24, 2013 07:44 PM
Some perspective on minimum wage;
  • Approximately 3.9 million people are at or below Federal minimum wage.
  • They tend to be young and most are 25 years of age or younger.
  • 41% of them live at home. 21% live in a dual-earnings home as married with or without children. 23% are single without children. Just 15% would be the targeted beneficiary of a minimum wage increase; the single parent or earner with children and all eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Otherwise, the average household income of a minimum wage earner is greater than $43,000 per year.
  • A 2004 Duke University study found that minimum wage hikes attract teenagers from wealthy families into the workforce, decreasing employment opportunities for current low-skill employees. Worse, Cornell University economists found that black, young adults and teenagers suffered over four times more employment loss than non-blacks of the same age as a result of a minimum wage hike.
  • A 1998 Survey found an average belief among economists that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a 2.1% decrease in affected employment.
  • The United States General Accounting Office found "virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would be if no minimum wage existed."

So... who are we rushing to rescue in this scenario? Teenagers living at home and/or married people, bored with the doldrums of contentment, who've decided $9/hr is finally worth giving up television, gaming, and FB? At the expense of unskilled people, minorities, and single parents? No thanks, bad idea.
 
besson3c Feb 24, 2013 08:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4219062)
Some perspective on minimum wage;
  • Approximately 3.9 million people are at or below Federal minimum wage.
  • They tend to be young and most are 25 years of age or younger.
  • 41% of them live at home. 21% live in a dual-earnings home as married with or without children. 23% are single without children. Just 15% would be the targeted beneficiary of a minimum wage increase; the single parent or earner with children and all eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Otherwise, the average household income of a minimum wage earner is greater than $43,000 per year.
  • A 2004 Duke University study found that minimum wage hikes attract teenagers from wealthy families into the workforce, decreasing employment opportunities for current low-skill employees. Worse, Cornell University economists found that black, young adults and teenagers suffered over four times more employment loss than non-blacks of the same age as a result of a minimum wage hike.
  • A 1998 Survey found an average belief among economists that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a 2.1% decrease in affected employment.
  • The United States General Accounting Office found "virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it would be if no minimum wage existed."

So... who are we rushing to rescue in this scenario? Teenagers living at home and/or married people, bored with the doldrums of contentment, who've decided $9/hr is finally worth giving up television, gaming, and FB? At the expense of unskilled people, minorities, and single parents? No thanks, bad idea.

You're fixating on a single narrative.

Poverty is expensive, we all pay for it. The question here is whether raising the minimum wage helps lessen that disparity between the rich and poor and therefore boosts the economy, or whether there is no direct relationship between the minimum wage and the expense of poverty. I remain undecided.
 
Shaddim Feb 24, 2013 10:04 PM
I don't know of anyone making minimum wage who isn't still in school and living with their folks. My lowest paid employee is my garage assistant, (who is 19, going to tech school, lives with his mom) and he makes $10.50 /hr. It might be because I live in a "resort area", but most job postings I see, for fast food and simple labor, start at $9.

Personally, I think raising the MW is largely feel-good legislation, as usual, and doesn't address the real issues. It's just another diversion.
 
besson3c Feb 24, 2013 10:10 PM
A little confirmation bias?

Somebody has to work at McDonalds, and its not always teenagers.
 
besson3c Feb 24, 2013 10:11 PM
Shaddim: are you Doofy by any chance?
 
Shaddim Feb 24, 2013 11:25 PM
No. I've visited the UK but never lived there.

Why is my opinion clouded by bias and yours isn't? With that statement and the one made to ebuddy regarding his fixation, you don't appear to be "undecided" at all, which fits with your usual MO.
 
besson3c Feb 24, 2013 11:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4219074)
No. I've visited the UK but never lived there.

Why is my opinion clouded by bias and yours isn't? With that statement and the one made to ebuddy regarding his fixation, you don't appear to be "undecided" at all, which fits with your usual MO.

I'm decided that what was said is unsatisfying to me as an answer, yes, but that doesn't mean I've decided what sort of answer would be satisfying to me.
 
subego Feb 25, 2013 06:43 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4219064)
You're fixating on a single narrative.

Poverty is expensive, we all pay for it. The question here is whether raising the minimum wage helps lessen that disparity between the rich and poor and therefore boosts the economy, or whether there is no direct relationship between the minimum wage and the expense of poverty. I remain undecided.
The relationship between minimum wages and number of available jobs is simple supply and demand. If you increase the cost, you constrict the supply.

If minimum wage is X, employed person Y is a certain amount of "poverty drain" on society.

If minimum wage is X+, person Y is no longer employed.

Isn't person Y now a bigger poverty drain on society?


To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good reason to drop the MW, where that should be is truly one of the great sociological questions of all time (IMO), however the argument we're going to spend that money anyways is spurious.

There's no free lunch.
 
ebuddy Feb 25, 2013 06:58 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4219064)
You're fixating on a single narrative.
No, you're looking for one.

Quote
Poverty is expensive, we all pay for it. The question here is whether raising the minimum wage helps lessen that disparity between the rich and poor and therefore boosts the economy, or whether there is no direct relationship between the minimum wage and the expense of poverty. I remain undecided.
Aside from everything else I mentioned, raising those @ $7.25/hr to $9.00/hr may work well for those earning minimum, but contributes to stagnating wages for those already @ $9.00/hr or higher. Not to mention that part-time workers are five times more likely to be earning minimum wage than full-time workers and the last thing we need right now is more underemployment. You can show no appreciable decline in wealth disparity by merely increasing the minimum wage. It's the same solution to the same problem over and over again.
 
ebuddy Feb 25, 2013 07:04 AM
Besson3c: are you screener by any chance?
 
subego Feb 25, 2013 07:05 AM
Never mind.
 
besson3c Feb 25, 2013 05:05 PM
Yeah, I can see how increasing the minimum wage just futzes with the unemployment and poverty numbers, I can see why this would be labeled a gimmick. The point about higher wages stagnating is an interesting one too.

Besides, if you're making under $10/hour it's not like you've taken a big bite out of poverty.
 
Hawkeye_a Feb 25, 2013 09:05 PM
Instead on babbling on about this issue, I think what I would like to say could be best summed up by this YouTube video …

Milton Friedman - Minimum wage, welfare & the poor

I'd like to add… "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." -Milton Friedman

Cheers
 
el chupacabra Feb 25, 2013 10:34 PM
What I don't understand is how the-poor™ complained about how $5,15 just wasn't enough to live on; then when raised to $7 it still just wasn't enough... It's a dog chasing its tail. Meanwhile Mexicans and El Salvadorans are coming here and saying "hell you won't work for $5/hr, we'll work for $4. And we'll have so much left over well send it back to multiple family members, and we'll still have so much left over we'll pool our money and open a tire business when we all get our permanent resident card".

They end up becoming wealthy while the native US-poor™ are still doing the same fast food or meat packing job talking about American Idol, getting drunk, and how 'the man' is keeping them down. Then they get fired for talking too much on their smart phone and try to sue the employer since they were only fired because the boss was...

Then they have to get on food stamps right away because inflation caused by wage hikes quickly depletes their savings while they're looking for a new job.

Then employer replaces them with someone from 3rd world country because for some reason they take work more seriously, for less pay.

Edit: I have a hard time feeling sorry for some poor when a group of people who dropped out in the sixth grade, can barely read Spanish much less English come here having no problem making ends meet with less than min wage; and all their friends back home look at them like they're rich.
 
Shaddim Feb 26, 2013 12:02 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219192)
What I don't understand is how the-poor™ complained about how $5,15 just wasn't enough to live on; then when raised to $7 it still just wasn't enough... It's a dog chasing its tail. Meanwhile Mexicans and El Salvadorans are coming here and saying "hell you won't work for $5/hr, we'll work for $4. And we'll have so much left over well send it back to multiple family members, and we'll still have so much left over we'll pool our money and open a tire business when we all get our permanent resident card".

They end up becoming wealthy while the native US-poor™ are still doing the same fast food or meat packing job talking about American Idol, getting drunk, and how 'the man' is keeping them down. Then they get fired for talking too much on their smart phone and try to sue the employer since they were only fired because the boss was...

Then they have to get on food stamps right away because inflation caused by wage hikes quickly depletes their savings while they're looking for a new job.

Then employer replaces them with someone from 3rd world country because for some reason they take work more seriously, for less pay.

Edit: I have a hard time feeling sorry for some poor when a group of people who dropped out in the sixth grade, can barely read Spanish much less English come here having no problem making ends meet with less than min wage; and all their friends back home look at them like they're rich.
Amen to this. That was my family 2 generations back, my grandfather built a (small) business empire in S Florida, after arriving here with $40. Worked his ass off 12 hrs /day, 6 days /wk, selling flowers on the street in Miami for 4 years, saving money to start his first major business. In 15 years he was a millionaire, all with a 5th grade education.

It's not "fun", it's not easy. I worked 80-90 hour weeks, hit every legal angle I could until something broke open. That's what it takes, nothing short of; complete devotion, an idea, and a dash of luck... actually the luck only helped things happen more quickly, even without it I would have gotten where I was headed.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Feb 26, 2013 12:27 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219192)
What I don't understand is how the-poor™ complained about how $5,15 just wasn't enough to live on
Heath Insurance, which some states require and ObamaCare will soon require costs 10k/yr. for an individual. Pay for that on minimum wage.
 
el chupacabra Feb 26, 2013 02:32 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4219202)
Amen to this. That was my family 2 generations back, my grandfather built a (small) business empire in S Florida, after arriving here with $40. ..

That's what it takes, nothing short of; complete devotion, an idea, and a dash of luck... actually the luck only helped things happen more quickly, even without it I would have gotten where I was headed.
A good story. A great example of how some of the jobs today's people scoff at and dismiss with labels such as "blue collar" are really the most important in our society. And It really is about devotion. One might fail a few times but there's so many niches out there waiting for people to learn and exploit.

Just recently I foreclosed a house on a poor liberal. I went in a couple days ago and found they had taken the time to vandalize the place (to show the mann) but apparently didn't have time to sell their stuff on Craigslist. So I sold it. One of the things intrigued me; a unique piece of all wooden furniture worth about $1000. Within 1 day my inbox was full of people wanting it. It reminded me of all the simple things people could learn to make or build that don't require a lot of talent; the poor™ could make a lot of money doing carpentry and selling on Craigslist.

Ironically in the foreclosed home I was digging through the ashes of the gas fire place (wondering why there were ashes), to find they were too cheap poor to use the gas so they burned trash. The trash consisted of a lot of beer and cigarette boxes. I also found vet receipts for their 3 pets. I found... they were able to afford 2 ceiling fans in every room, tile upgrades, floor upgrades, a hot tub, an expensive custom built piece of furniture that they were too lazy to post to craigslist, alcohol, cigs, pets, pet food, pet medical bills; paint and honey for vandalism, but weren't able to afford their cheap mortgage, and likely their own medical bills. It's so cliche. Now some people I feel sorry for. But you see this all the time. The problem isn't they don't have the money, they just don't know how to prioritize.

Quote
BLAZE_MkIV
Heath Insurance, which some states require and ObamaCare will soon require costs 10k/yr. for an individual. Pay for that on minimum wage.
I've had an autoimmune disease since college, one that's gotten particularly out of hand lately. Right out of college my med bills were higher than the average youngster, and I got paid a little over min wage. With 16 hour shifts and saving, I was able to afford my medical bills without insurance. To be fair local min wage was higher than federal. And luckily there wasn't a czar forcing me to pay $10k for nothing because we weren't fully socialized yet. And in that time government + insurance inc hadn't driven the prices up like they are today. But if I had needed to pay $10k, I could have (barely) done it from my emergency fund, which I'd been saving for my whole life; because those of us who were truly poor, don't squander money.

There are different costs of living depending where you live in city, what state etc, so a universal fed min wage standard makes no sense.
 
screener Feb 26, 2013 05:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4219094)
Besson3c: are you screener by any chance?
:lol:Sad.
 
screener Feb 26, 2013 05:01 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4219068)
I don't know of anyone making minimum wage who isn't still in school and living with their folks. My lowest paid employee is my garage assistant, (who is 19, going to tech school, lives with his mom) and he makes $10.50 /hr. It might be because I live in a "resort area", but most job postings I see, for fast food and simple labor, start at $9.

Personally, I think raising the MW is largely feel-good legislation, as usual, and doesn't address the real issues. It's just another diversion.
Cheap F#$k.
 
screener Feb 26, 2013 05:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219215)
A good story. A great example of how some of the jobs today's people scoff at and dismiss with labels such as "blue collar" are really the most important in our society. And It really is about devotion. One might fail a few times but there's so many niches out there waiting for people to learn and exploit.

Just recently I foreclosed a house on a poor liberal. I went in a couple days ago and found they had taken the time to vandalize the place (to show the mann) but apparently didn't have time to sell their stuff on Craigslist. So I sold it. One of the things intrigued me; a unique piece of all wooden furniture worth about $1000. Within 1 day my inbox was full of people wanting it. It reminded me of all the simple things people could learn to make or build that don't require a lot of talent; the poor™ could make a lot of money doing carpentry and selling on Craigslist.

Ironically in the foreclosed home I was digging through the ashes of the gas fire place (wondering why there were ashes), to find they were too cheap poor to use the gas so they burned trash. The trash consisted of a lot of beer and cigarette boxes. I also found vet receipts for their 3 pets. I found... they were able to afford 2 ceiling fans in every room, tile upgrades, floor upgrades, a hot tub, an expensive custom built piece of furniture that they were too lazy to post to craigslist, alcohol, cigs, pets, pet food, pet medical bills; paint and honey for vandalism, but weren't able to afford their cheap mortgage, and likely their own medical bills. It's so cliche. Now some people I feel sorry for. But you see this all the time. The problem isn't they don't have the money, they just don't know how to prioritize.


I've had an autoimmune disease since college, one that's gotten particularly out of hand lately. Right out of college my med bills were higher than the average youngster, and I got paid a little over min wage. With 16 hour shifts and saving, I was able to afford my medical bills without insurance. To be fair local min wage was higher than federal. And luckily there wasn't a czar forcing me to pay $10k for nothing because we weren't fully socialized yet. And in that time government + insurance inc hadn't driven the prices up like they are today. But if I had needed to pay $10k, I could have (barely) done it from my emergency fund, which I'd been saving for my whole life; because those of us who were truly poor, don't squander money.

There are different costs of living depending where you live in city, what state etc, so a universal fed min wage standard makes no sense.
Another shaddim, great.
 
The Final Dakar Feb 26, 2013 05:31 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219300)
Sad.
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219301)
Cheap F#$k.
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219304)
Another shaddim, great.
Will your next post be a whole four words? /ontheedgeofmyseat
 
ebuddy Feb 26, 2013 07:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219300)
:lol:Sad.
That you've possibly established an unsavory standard? Yes, I agree.

I hold out hope though. You'll make one hell of an opinionated conservative some day. ;)
 
el chupacabra Feb 26, 2013 08:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219304)
Another shaddim, great.
Not quite; but it is a grand goal to reach for.
 
Shaddim Feb 27, 2013 12:09 AM
Don't feed the troll.
 
screener Feb 27, 2013 02:54 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4219310)
Will your next post be a whole four words? /ontheedgeofmyseat
You didn't miss my meaning now did you.
 
screener Feb 27, 2013 02:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219335)
Not quite; but it is a grand goal to reach for.
Keep on bragging then.
 
screener Feb 27, 2013 02:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4219365)
Don't feed the troll.
You're still a cheap F$#k, unless you aren't $'s.
 
screener Feb 27, 2013 03:01 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4219324)
That you've possibly established an unsavory standard? Yes, I agree.

I hold out hope though. You'll make one hell of an opinionated conservative some day. ;)
Not a chance, to many stupid people elected to office by even stupider people.
 
Snow-i Feb 27, 2013 03:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219481)
Not a chance, to many stupid people elected to office by even stupider people.
too*

Oh, the irony.
 
The Final Dakar Feb 27, 2013 04:04 PM
lawl
 
Shaddim Feb 27, 2013 04:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Snow-i (Post 4219493)
too*

Oh, the irony.
Was going to point out the irony, but you're already on it. ;)
 
Shaddim Feb 27, 2013 04:34 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219479)
You're still a cheap F$#k, unless you aren't $'s.
Okay, I'll play. How is $10.50 /hr, to a 19 y/o who's never held a real job before, being cheap? I'm helping him build a work ethic and providing an internship to give him credits in school. He's smart, punctual, follows instructions well, but doesn't have a great deal of practical experience as a mechanic, only having done some side jobs for extra cash.

FYI, when he started he asked for $9 /hr, I started him @10.50, and I helped him pay for his books last semester.

Explain to us all, if you can, how you're anything but a childish, obnoxious, waste of fresh air?
 
ebuddy Feb 27, 2013 07:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219481)
Not a chance, to many stupid people elected to office by even stupider people.
Breathe my man, it's all good. You're too dug in. See how mean everyone else is being to you? Don't listen to them. I got your back, man. Let's hash this out.

You have something to say, just take your time and let the forum know what you think on The relationship between the minimum wage and welfare.
 
mduell Feb 27, 2013 09:59 PM
I read a piece the other day how the bulk of welfare recipients had low income due to insufficient hours at above minimum wage jobs, not full time at minimum wage jobs. Trying to find it again.

In the meantime, the proposition raising the minimum wage help the minimum wage earner is curious: can you name any other issue where prominent economists argue price floors benefit the lowest value-added suppliers?
 
ebuddy Feb 28, 2013 07:54 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by mduell (Post 4219530)
In the meantime, the proposition raising the minimum wage help the minimum wage earner is curious: can you name any other issue where prominent economists argue price floors benefit the lowest value-added suppliers?
Hmm... excellent question. I had read that the overwhelming majority of those at minimum wage are indeed working part-time. I suppose it also depends on what is meant by "welfare". I saw an interesting article on disposable income by income range;

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...y%20Earned.jpg

The long and the short of it is that the Middle class are being squeezed here and it's becoming less "worth it" to be gainfully employed.
 
el chupacabra Mar 1, 2013 01:11 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by screener (Post 4219481)
Not a chance, to many stupid people elected to office...
They're hardly stupid; they're boiling frogs all day long. Every action they take never sets them back. The greatest trick they ever pulled is convincing everyone that what they do are mistakes... because they're incompetent... because they're stupid...

Now let them try and fix it again
 
besson3c Mar 1, 2013 01:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219778)
They're hardly stupid; they're boiling frogs all day long. Every action they take never sets them back. The greatest trick they ever pulled is convincing everyone that what they do are mistakes... because they're incompetent... because they're stupid...

Now let them try and fix it again

But to me the solution is to not pretend that we don't need government, the solution is to figure out a way to fix government. Yes, this is damn, damn hard, and seemingly unrealistic given our history and what we've come to know of government in this country, but I'd say the vehemence in the default distrust many Americans feel towards their government in general is somewhat unique to this country. I'm not saying that other countries trust their government unconditionally, but just that, and I have no real proof to substantiate this, American distrust is pretty profound.
 
Cold Warrior Mar 1, 2013 08:23 PM
10 points for screener. Too bad they're not redeemable for bitcoins, because that wouldn't be so cheap.
 
el chupacabra Mar 2, 2013 04:10 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4219786)
But to me the solution is to not pretend that we don't need government,
Although I often post about not needing government, it's mostly to get people thinking about how worthless our government has become; so worthless it can almost be compared to no government at all as far as usefulness is concerned... not as far as corporatocracy is concerned.

Quote
the solution is to figure out a way to fix government. Yes, this is damn, damn hard, and seemingly unrealistic given our history and what we've come to know of government in this country,
As a nation we need to universally support policy purely objectively based on whats fair & right. That seems to be the major obstacle. The winning policy tends to revolve around "how much money are you going to funnel to me; how much free food, forced wage, medical, energy, housing credits do I get?". If people truly think 7.25/hr is immoral then when they see made in USA, or made in China, both exactly the same quality, they should buy the more expensive USA product. Vote for wages with your choice in actions, not in supporting gov who enacts the same min wage in every city as if cost of living is remotely the same across country. As long as so many people are going to vote for such unfair, FLEETING short term financial gain we are in major trouble.

We might look at how Europe does some things; except as guilty as the US is, it's not as guilty as Europe in the immoral ways it gets its money; which makes it hard to use them as a model when trying to justify increased spending to various programs (ie healthcare).

I know you don't like to hear this; much of it is about 'shrinking government'. The logic is that a smaller government has less leverage and therefore easier to hold accountable for its actions by the populous. The only entities powerful enough to hold them accountable are large industry run special interests; so who is the fed going to try to please? I must disclose smaller government does not mean "closer to anarchy". It means take back some power. We don't need a super soviet federation overlord making blanket legislation for 300,000,000 people. Much of that power can be transferred to the states. People could pick which states to move to based on which fits their culture and ideals. I wouldn't mind having a micromanagement government city like Singapore in the US; as long as we could choose not to live there; and at least if it got out of hand the locals could say "no, thats not why we voted this law, now we're taking it back". Try doing that to the fed.
Quote
but I'd say the vehemence in the default distrust many Americans feel towards their government in general is somewhat unique to this country. I'm not saying that other countries trust their government unconditionally, but just that, and I have no real proof to substantiate this, American distrust is pretty profound.
I don't think our distrust is greater... I think in many other countries people never knew anything but a dictatorship and have gotten used to it or given up on it. In the US people are vehement because they are so sure of what they are seeing unfold right before their eyes; maybe they've seen it before, or read their history books. If you were at a party and some people started asking about artists, and somebody stepped in answering their questions... all wrong... and you saw people were believing it.... you might vehemently correct them.

Many conservative feel there is still time to prevent a Mao like regime, or any number of other terrible regimes that used promises of free stuff and the utopian beliefs of young people to concentrate power.
 
besson3c Mar 2, 2013 04:24 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219892)
As a nation we need to universally support policy purely objectively based on whats fair & right.
I couldn't disagree more.

Screw what is fair and right, trying to find the best policy based on moral arguments is, I think, exactly why we are going nowhere fast. What we need is pure objectivity of what produces the best bang for our buck. This is all math and economics. If you screw over the poor this will have mathematical/economic consequences, and likewise for the rich. If we were able to leave our emotions and sense of morality out of this, perhaps we could find this best balance based on the cold, hard numbers? Sure our sense of morality can and will influence how we best implement policy based on these findings, but we need to start from these cold, hard numbers, not emotions and morality.

Quote
I don't think our distrust is greater... I think in many other countries people never knew anything but a dictatorship and have gotten used to it or given up on it. In the US people are vehement because they are so sure of what they are seeing unfold right before their eyes; maybe they've seen it before, or read their history books. If you were at a party and some people started asking about artists, and somebody stepped in answering their questions... all wrong... and you saw people were believing it.... you might vehemently correct them.

Many conservative feel there is still time to prevent a Mao like regime, or any number of other terrible regimes that used promises of free stuff and the utopian beliefs of young people to concentrate power.
Why do so many conservatives speak like this? Do you realize how ignorant this makes you sound?

Democracies are the norm around the world in established first world countries we might even think of partially emulating in some way, not dictatorships. Our democracy is not some rare thing that only Americans are familiar with.
 
hyteckit Mar 2, 2013 04:27 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219033)

For junior employees, the minimum rates are:

Under 16 years of age $5.87
At 16 years of age $7.55
At 17 years of age $9.22
At 18 years of age $10.90
At 19 years of age $13.17
At 20 years of age $15.59.
In the US, there will be an age discrimination lawsuit.

Should be based on experience or apprenticeship.

Quote, Originally Posted by el chupacabra (Post 4219033)

For apprentices, the rates are:

Year 1 of apprenticeship $10.22
Year 2 of apprenticeship $12.08
Year 3 of apprenticeship $14.87
Year 4 of apprenticeship $17.65.
src National minimum wage - Pay - Fair Work Ombudsman
 
ebuddy Mar 2, 2013 09:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4219893)
Why do so many conservatives speak like this? Do you realize how ignorant this makes you sound?

Democracies are the norm around the world in established first world countries we might even think of partially emulating in some way, not dictatorships. Our democracy is not some rare thing that only Americans are familiar with.
The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy and it is this fact that would make America unique in its governance.

What I want to know is why it's virtually impossible for liberals to complain about conservative ignorance without displaying it?
 
el chupacabra Mar 2, 2013 02:06 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4219893)
I couldn't disagree more.

Screw what is fair and right, trying to find the best policy based on moral arguments is, I think, exactly why we are going nowhere fast.
I don't know what specific morals you don't like here; if you think Im using the word in a religious sense Im not. Fair and right means people shouldn't vote for candidates/policy just because the numbers look bigger to their personal bank account. i.e. "I'm going to vote dem because they'll force companies to give me $9/hr rather than $7.. yayy me" Or Im going to vote dem because they promise to give me x dollars more for doing less. Thats not right; doesn't make economical sense. Do people really think they have a right to be hired in the first place? If no, then you don't have a right to tell me what Im going to pay someone. If people don't like what I pay they can quit. On top of that it's not in the best interest of the-poor, mathematically, to have a min wage standard or the vast number of free handouts they have. Most self proclaiming poor need to take a look at themselves and see that their situation is their own fault. Then they'll be able to get our of it anytime they want. There's people born with no arms & no legs who have million $ cash flow; yet the perfectly healthy, fit, no mental disability poor can't figure out how to make 30k/yr.

Nobody has built wealth based on how much min wage or handouts they get. They should support business friendly policy since it makes it easier for them to be hired so they can get their foot in the door faster.
Quote
What we need is pure objectivity of what produces the best bang for our buck.
We are not getting any bang for our buck when we make money so easy to certain classes of democrats that there's little incentive to work anymore.

Quote
This is all math and economics. If you screw over the poor this will have mathematical/economic consequences, and likewise for the rich.
I see where your coming from now. This is matter of perspective. Maybe the society you wish to see looks better with minimal slums and poor people. From the purely mathematical point of view of many "rich", this is 100% wrong. If we look at the history of other nations we see class suppression; the more poor you have; worked out great for the few wealthy ruling elite. Best to have a desperate slave class of people, desperate to work for the next gov/corporate stipend, than a middle class who may have even a small voice or bit of free time to stand up to you... Even worse a middle class who competes with you driving prices up. Why do the wealthy favor outsourcing to China so much? Thats just 1 of many examples, I could come up with.

The government could have given the bailouts to the poor, to pay their mortgage; But what did they actually do? Who lost and who won? This goes back to what I said about who's big government really going to try to please.

I don't want to screw the poor or cut them off completely. But the gov's free handouts arent giving them any extra skill, or adding economic value in any way. At the very least the gov could hire them themselves or for a company 'like some other countries do'. Many people just get paid to sit at home... and have babies. Instead of giving trillions to do nothing; Why not, pay their education, apprenticeship, hire them to dig a giant hole, for hadron collider, for few billion. I mean insert ANYTHING
Quote
If we were able to leave our emotions and sense of morality out of this, perhaps we could find this best balance based on the cold, hard numbers?
That's exactly what Lenin said. Cold hard numbers say kill the leeches, kill the disabled, kill the ones we decide are weak or not doing what we think is important. Obviously I dont think you support any of that, but that's what opening this can of worms (look just at cold hard numbers, no morals or emotions) logically ends at.
Quote
Sure our sense of morality can and will influence how we best implement policy based on these findings, but we need to start from these cold, hard numbers, not emotions and morality.
I agree, lets not use our emotions when we show up at the polls to vote ourselves a happy raise. Morality is important if we want to avoid the kind of slave labor we see all throughout Asia, Africa & mid east. But how are we avoiding it when our actions support firing people here to move jobs to Asia, then supporting it again when we purchase those products? How does it make mathematical economic sense to raise wages so high here people get their job taken by someone in another country without such legislation?

Quote
Why do so many conservatives speak like this? Do you realize how ignorant this makes you sound?

Democracies are the norm around the world in established first world countries we might even think of partially emulating in some way, not dictatorships. Our democracy is not some rare thing that only Americans are familiar with.
Democracies are not the norm around the world at all. We can split hairs over whether it's technically called a dictatorship or some other similar term. You speak like theres so many 1st world counties out there. The number of countries that are even remotely in the same league as US I can count on 1 hand. The US has a higher standard of living than most (arguably all) countries in Europe, all countries in South America, Central America, Caribbean, all but 1 country in Asia, Africa, Mid east.... Im not sure about Australia-New Zealand; but from what I understand Aus provides no where near the opportunity of the US nor does it have access to the conveniences we do. Much of this come back on self centered behavior of their governments. Governments who did the math... but only looked at it as how it affects the well being of the elite

Im curious what you think about what ebuddy said a few posts up.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2