[The Final Dakar]

Maybe old news, but shockingly new to me.
Utah Is on Track to End Homelessness by 2015 With This One Simple Idea | NationSwell

Utah has reduced its rate of chronic homelessness by 78 percent over the past eight years, moving 2000 people off the street and putting the state on track to eradicate homelessness altogether by 2015. How’d they do it?

The state is giving away apartments, no strings attached. In 2005, Utah calculated the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while the cost of providing an apartment and social worker would be $11,000. Each participant works with a caseworker to become self-sufficient, but if they fail, they still get to keep their apartment.

In the current political climate, where some of the fringe would say that giving free housing removes incentive to work, this is quite refreshing, doubly so coming out of a red state(though maybe not so surprising given that it was apparently moved forward thanks to sometimes liberal darling Jon Huntsmen). I'll be curious to see if this propagates but I read that Wyoming is looking into duplicating this approach.

Given what we see here, day-to-day, I though a "faith in humanity restored" style article would spruce the place up a bit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In the current political climate, where some of the fringe would say that giving free housing removes incentive to work,

Some of the fringe? I didn't realize that having a job and paying your bills (including housing) was a fringe viewpoint. Guess I'm stuck in the traditional lifestyle where if I want nice things (like my own apartment) I would have to work for it.

The only reason I don't have a problem with this is because it's designed to save the taxpayer money. However, it won't be long before the masses figure out there is absolutely no reason to find gainful employment, since you can get an apartment for free no strings attached.

If I lived in Utah, I'd quit my job tomorrow and sign up to get my own free apartment. It would be stupid not to. I feel like a sucker over here actually paying rent to stay where I'm at.

[Snow-i]

Ok, I took it down.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Some of the fringe? I didn't realize that having a job and paying your bills (including housing) was a fringe viewpoint.

The viewpoint that if someone is homeless, they deserve to be, because only lazy people are homeless. That if you give them food and shelter you remove all motivation from them to improve their lives. As if the pinnacle of the majority of these peoples desire is to merely exist.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The only reason I don't have a problem with this is because it's designed to save the taxpayer money. However, it won't be long before the masses figure out there is absolutely no reason to find gainful employment, since you can get an apartment for free no strings attached.

Possibly. Or worse, some asshole state starts paying to ship homeless to Utah.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If I lived in Utah, I'd quit my job tomorrow and sign up to get my own free apartment. It would be stupid not to. I feel like a sucker over here actually paying rent to stay where I'm at.

You're full of shit. You wouldn't quit your job because having money affords you freedom to do things. What would you do all day without a job and just a home? Decay? You're not the type of person who would be content to do that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

For fun:[/img]

Is there a reason you're shitting up my thread two posts in?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The viewpoint that if someone is homeless, they deserve to be, because only lazy people are homeless. That if you give them food and shelter you remove all motivation from them to improve their lives. As if the pinnacle of the majority of these peoples desire is to merely exist.

You've obviously been listening to too much Bill Maher. Not even close.

The viewpoint is that giving people free shit with no strings attached only encourages fraud and abuse. I am not against safety nets that help people get back on their feet, infact I actually vehemently support such programs. - but that's not what this is. It's a free apartment for being homeless, no strings attached. Why should I, a taxpayer, be funding apartments for homeless people when I'm barely making my rent as it is? Why wouldn't I just quit busting my ass to make rent and just get it for free?

Possibly. Or worse, some asshole state starts paying to ship homeless to Utah.

It would be the smart thing to do in this situation.

You're full of shit. You wouldn't quit your job because having money affords you freedom to do things.

Really? How the **** would you claim to know that? I'm barely scraping by dude - my money goes towards rent, insurance, etc and I have very little each month disposable income. If I didn't have to pay rent, you're absolutely right. I would have the freedom to do whatever the **** I wanted since I wouldn't have to worry about getting my bills paid - the taxpayer would be doing that for me.

What would you do all day without a job and just a home?

Well, I would have the freedom and the time to do whatever I wanted, so that's what I'd do.

Decay? You're not the type of person who would be content to do that.

I sure as hell would rather be "decaying" at home in my completely paid-for apartment then busting my ass 60 hours a week to pay for one. Being at home "decaying" is a luxury that I usually can only afford on the weekends.

I want to be sure I'm interpreting you correctly; you're saying I wouldn't quit my job because I would find my life empty without slaving over my work all week every week? Do you even have a job?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is there a reason you're shitting up my thread two posts in?

Oh, sorry. I forgot only you are allowed to shit up threads with meaningless pictures. My bad. I'll take it down.

[besson3c]

I'm with Dakar.

I don't think that most people are content just to survive, they are most content when they are surrounded by material possessions, which you need a decent income to support in a sustainable manner.

I think some people, particularly on the right, get riled up when they see people who feel entitled to these sorts of possessions and try to game the system in order to take what they think is theirs. I'm sure the former is relatively common, but hopefully the latter is relatively rare.

Of course there is welfare abuse, but I'm not convinced that long term successful abuse of it is as rampant as some seem to think, and that this would be adding to the problem.

[besson3c]

I'm also quite okay with short term abuse of it. People deal with all sorts of unspeakable trauma in their lives. I would be okay with, for example, some woman who was beaten by her husband but who is capable of working living off of welfare for a year or whatever.

[andi*pandi]

The odd thing, is that this solution is actually cheaper than other methods of helping the homeless, and is a better living. In some places, taxpayers pay outrageous $$ to have homeless families live in crappy motels, and someone just had the bright idea to use that money towards real houses where you know, you can cook food and the babies won't fall out of unsecured second story windows.

Having a time limit on this kind of support would help prevent abuse, as would requiring some kind of job.

I would not want to live in one of those crappy motel rooms, even if I could sit on my ass all day and watch tv.

[subego]

Has the thread gone on enough for us to know what the picture was?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm also quite okay with short term abuse of it. People deal with all sorts of unspeakable trauma in their lives. I would be okay with, for example, some woman who was beaten by her husband but who is capable of working living off of welfare for a year or whatever.

I mean, yeah. Absolutely. I'm very for helping people get back on their feet. I'm actually very for it.

However, the fact that they compare it to jail, as if that's the alternative makes it seem like they're just trying to sweep the homeless problem under the rug with cheap housing. They're going to be extremely dismayed when this results in every homeless person in a 500 mile radius descending upon their town for a free handout. The people like the one you've described will end up suffering even more as they get lost among the fraud and abuse. The homeless-and-drug-addicted group will have a safe, constitutionally protected environment to use, make, and sell drugs paid for by the taxpayer. I don't think this program will last long when the taxpayer gets the real bill.

1) A full time student, where if you don't pass your classes you don't get anymore assistance
2) Seeking medical help, be it physical therapy, treatment for mental distress/disability, emotional counseling, or disease. If the ailment that you have prevents you from working again, require a hearing and an interview with a judge (with an attorney present, be it public defender or private lawyer) to ensure the disability is legitimate and it's not an attempt to game the system.
3) Actively seeking employment at the salary level of your previous job (or less, if you prefer), or entry level in any chosen field.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean, yeah. Absolutely. I'm very for helping people get back on their feet. I'm actually very for it.

However, he fact that they compare it to jail, as if that's the alternative makes it seem like they're just trying to sweep the homeless problem under the rug with cheap housing. They're going to be extremely dismayed when this results in every homeless person in a 500 mile radius defending upon their town for a free handout. The people like the one you've described will end up suffering even more as they get lost among the fraud and abuse. The homeless-and-drug-addicted group will have a safe, constitutionally protected environment to use, make, and sell drugs paid for by the taxpayer. I don't think this program will last long when the taxpayer gets the real bill.

1) A full time student, where if you don't pass your classes you don't get anymore assistance
2) Seeking medical help, be it physical therapy, treatment for mental distress/disability, emotional counseling, or disease. If the ailment that you have prevents you from working again, require a hearing and an interview with a judge (with an attorney present, be it public defender or private lawyer) to ensure the disability is legitimate and it's not an attempt to game the system.
3) Actively seeking employment at the salary level of your previous job (or less, if you prefer), or entry level in any chosen field.

There are certainly things we can and should do to curb abuse, but again, I'm not convinced that the long term abuse of welfare is rampant. I think that whenever you create any kind of program there will be people that abuse it, it most definitely exists, but I would think that most people on welfare would prefer to not be on it.

[subego]

It's more than conscious abuse.

If you have the need provided for it conditions you not to seek to fill the need yourself.

I'm not judgemental about it, but it's a fundamental flaw in the system.

That flaw doesn't mean scrap the system, but it's going to be a way it's broken, and you can't really fix it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's more than conscious abuse.

If you have the need provided for it conditions you not to seek to fill the need yourself.

I'm not judgemental about it, but it's a fundamental flaw in the system.

That flaw doesn't mean scrap the system, but it's going to be a way it's broken, and you can't really fix it.

I tend to think of the kind of people that do not seek to fill the need themselves as being insecure, perhaps mentally unbalanced in some manner.

I would take what you wrote one step further by saying that mental health issues can't be fully fixed, and this sort of profile is a symptom of this.

[subego]

I'd say it's basic reasoning.

The amount of effort I'm going to spend on things I need is going to be greater than the amount of effort I spend on things I don't.

[ebuddy]

I'm on the fence with this. Homelessness is broken out by vagrants (typically about two years without home) , addicts, and/or mentally ill.

In keeping with how Americans vote based on WIIFM and NIMBY;

• Yes, give the homeless a place to live! Get them off the streets looking all vagranty and making me feel bad about my gated community.
• Wait - Hell to the NO! Not in MY apartment complex! Not in MY neighborhood bringing down my property value!

I can't imagine a State that doesn't have a means-tested Section 8 program. Somehow I've got to think there is a mad-middle being overlooked here. First of all, approximately 6% DO actually choose to be homeless so you'll never eradicate it. I mean seriously, get that out of your heads folks. If there is a means to house those who actually have the mental and physical wherewithal to overcome their temporary challenges, let's do something about it. For the drug-addicted and mentally-ill, you're just staging them in some compound of other addicts and mentally-ill people and if not carefully managed could pose some substantial health and safety risks if not straight harden what are otherwise harmless, law-abiding people. Remember, you're also housing families with children running about. Again, if not carefully and thoughtfully managed void of political wrangling, this could go severely awry. You also have to, without question, try to discern real need from abuse. When/if the rate of free apartments move from 10% of your city populace to 15%, you have to be willing politically or otherwise, to tighten the system. After all, this really isn't fair to those who are busting their asses to play the game we want us all playing.

I've always appreciated the Great Experiment in States strategizing their own solutions and I'd be curious how this program has manifest over the next 5 years. I'm not outright in opposition to it, but it's going to require a strong handle on facts and modifications through trial and error that almost assuredly come at a political cost. They must be willing to accept failure and adjust the strategy. Once the "Program" is in place and the money has begun flowing, this becomes much more difficult.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You've obviously been listening to too much Bill Maher. Not even close.

Nope, not even close.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The viewpoint is that giving people free shit with no strings attached only encourages fraud and abuse.

It only encourages fraud and abuse insomuch as someone is dishonest. Which is to say, I think the kind of people who worry about this are the ones who would exploit the system when given a chance, e.g., assholes.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It would be the smart thing to do in this situation.

This kind of viewpoint is why we can't have nice things.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Really? How the **** would you claim to know that? I'm barely scraping by dude - my money goes towards rent, insurance, etc and I have very little each month disposable income.

I know that because a man of your intelligence knows that a couple hours pay is enough to purchase a one way bus trip to Utah. If you really wanted to be there, you could be by next payday.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well, I would have the freedom and the time to do whatever I wanted, so that's what I'd do.

Please, elaborate. What is it you're going to be doing all day, moneyless?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I sure as hell would rather be "decaying" at home in my completely paid-for apartment then busting my ass 60 hours a week to pay for one. Being at home "decaying" is a luxury that I usually can only afford on the weekends.

Once again, BS. A bus ticket doesn't cost much. Get to it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I want to be sure I'm interpreting you correctly; you're saying I wouldn't quit my job because I would find my life empty without slaving over my work all week every week? Do you even have a job?

No, I'm saying you wouldn't quit your job because you'd find your life empty without everything else you do after working. I mean, I could be wrong. Maybe you have no friends and sit at home every night sucking on ramen noodles.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm with Dakar.

I don't think that most people are content just to survive, they are most content when they are surrounded by material possessions, which you need a decent income to support in a sustainable manner.

Hell, let's go further. Let's say 1% of the population is content to completely decay away or die on the streets. And let's say we can identify this 100% accuracy. What do we do with them then? Do we house them, knowing they'll be sucking on our teat forever? Do we banish them to a slow death on streets? Euthanize them?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The odd thing, is that this solution is actually cheaper than other methods of helping the homeless, and is a better living.

Another theoretical: There's little objection to the program if its fiscally sound, but is that the only way it can be done? i.e., Do you cancel the program the second it costs $11,001 if leaving them on the street and them using emergency services is $10,999? And what about food? We already hand it out for free now even though we get no 'return' on it. Is it possible in the future this kind of thing might become standard not for fiscal reasons, but for the same reason we give anyone starving food now?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hell, let's go further. Let's say 1% of the population is content to completely decay away or die on the streets. And let's say we can identify this 100% accuracy. What do we do with them then? Do we house them, knowing they'll be sucking on our teat forever? Do we banish them to a slow death on streets? Euthanize them?

No Dakar, we give it to those who are unable to work. Not to those who are unwilling. This program makes no distinction, and why I'm highly skeptical about it.

I listed three simple, common sense ways to ensure that this program and programs like it succeed with that goal.

[subego]

Here's the thing.

A year of minimum wage without overtime in Utah is a touch over $15,000. This is the state offering up 2/3s of that.

One can argue the MW should go up, but if you do that you unavoidably throw people out of work.


I want to make clear again, these are not value judgements. They are observations. As value judgements go, of course I want the MW to be higher. It's only one must take these observations into account.

I feel I need to stress these things because I'm afraid of coming off like an uncaring asshole. I'm not. $7.25 an hour is akin to slavery, except slaves actually got taken care of, because they were seen as having more value than MW workers. I don't have a pleasant solution to this.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the thing.

A year of minimum wage without overtime in Utah is a touch over $15,000. This is the state offering up 2/3s of that.

One can argue the MW should go up, but if you do that you unavoidably throw people out of work.


I want to make clear again, these are not value judgements. They are observations. As value judgements go, of course I want the MW to be higher. It's only one must take these observations into account.

I feel I need to stress these things because I'm afraid of coming off like an uncaring asshole. I'm not. $7.25 an hour is akin to slavery, except slaves actually got taken care of, because they were seen as having more value than MW workers. I don't have a pleasant solution to this.

Which is exactly why we as a society should be focusing on strengthening the private sector economy. If there's more wealth to be had in the private sector, we can do thing such as raising the MW without causing as many MW positions to be eliminated. The fact that we haven't done anything for the economy, and instead have gone backwards means that we cannot setup solvent safety nets since even the working/middle classes are struggling.

A strong economy not only would have a direct effect on the homeless rate, but allow local municipalities to have the resources to provide for those stuck in unfortunate situations.

Just think of how far that 500 million we wasted on the ObamaCare site could have gone if it were still in the hands of the people. And that example doesn't even constitute the tip of the iceberg. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity and I would bet my life savings that we will not be the first.

Again, this is a situation where half assed government regulation address the symptom of a problem, creating undesirable side effects while failing to make a dent in what caused the problem in the first place - a piss poor economy.

Instead of focusing on what we should do with our homeless, why are we not taking active steps to reduce the homeless population in the first place? It's no secret that our economy has stuttered and stalled under this Administration, and the answer does not lie in government spending. It doesn't lie in free handouts based on a ridiculous notion that people would rather work than not work all else the same. It doesn't lie in government intrusion into small business. It lies in unleashing the American exceptionalism that made our country what it is in the first place, and that's where we should turn to solve the problems before us.

[reader50]

bump

[The Final Dakar]

Gracias

Still working: Chronic homelessness in Utah down 91 percent under decade-long 'Housing First' initiative | Deseret News

"Of that 91 percent, the remaining balance is 178 people. We know them by name, who they are and what their needs are," said Gordon Walker, director of the state Division of Community and Housing, which takes the lead on the annual Point-in-Time Count of homeless people.

That's kind of amazing.

While some of the remaining chronic homeless have been offered services and housing multiple times, "we're getting down to a small number and the greater portion are the harder to house," said Tamera Kohler, director of the Utah State Community Services Office.

Early on in the initiative, Walker attended a memorial service for 53 people who had died. Their average age was 46. None of them was in housing.

At a service eight or nine years later, 74 people had died, but their average age was 52, and 49 were in housing. Permanent supportive housing made it possible for people to receive regular medical, dental and mental health care, among other needed services.

"My takeaway from what we've been doing is, people's lives have been extended or people's lives have been saved," he said.

No mention of money save or spent on the program, unfortunately. Still, I can't believe this is in the entire state.

[subego]

1) I miss ebuddy

2) WHAT WAS THE GODDAMN PICTURE?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

1) I miss ebuddy

Same

2) WHAT WAS THE GODDAMN PICTURE?

[OAW]

^^^^

Now that's pretty funny!

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are certainly things we can and should do to curb abuse, but again, I'm not convinced that the long term abuse of welfare is rampant. I think that whenever you create any kind of program there will be people that abuse it, it most definitely exists, but I would think that most people on welfare would prefer to not be on it.

It depends on how it is setup but at the start, only few people are happy to be on it. Where it becomes a real issue is where you get perks for dependents. Its only logical that if you have more kids you need more money, more furniture, more bedrooms etc etc so people don't question the idea of giving a family with 6 kids more money than a family with 1, just logical right?

A problem we had in the UK was for quite a long time you could get an awful lot of help and free stuff if you had enough kids. We're even talking holidays abroad in certain cases, paid for by the government. This was eventually curbed somewhat to a point where if a teenage girl had one child she could get a free apartment to live in and this then became a valid career option or life choice. If you were a high school underachiever who even without a kid was never going to get into college anyway, would you rather slog away working in a McDonalds for minimum wage to share a nasty place with others or just get yourself knocked up and get a free place, no work all to yourself. You might be wise enough to know this isn't a no-brainer but now imagine you're a lazy teenage idiot and look at the options again.

When you have parenthood as an access to free housing, then further parenthood as a way of generating higher income, what you end up with is large families of often neglected kids, parents with too much time on their hands who often turn to drink if they didn't already have other reasons to have done that beforehand because the oldest kids can raise the youngest ones for you and then you actually teach those kids (the girls anyway) how to game the system the way you did.

From this its easy to see how unchecked, what looks like a fair and reasonable safety net system will eventually breed a substantial population of people who who choose not to work. Its a little bit like Idiocracy. The people who have to plan for their kids financially can't afford as many as those who they are paying via taxes to have more.

Over here these arrangements ended up with people being very entitled. These kids didn't live in poverty unless the parents drank all the money. Many of them grew up in houses with all mod cons, Xboxes, Satellite TV etc etc. Its a bell thats very difficult to unring. Look at people complaining about the bedroom tax. "Its not fair that the government want to charge me for the extra bedroom that I don't need in the free house they give me because someone without a home could be living in there." Thats what a lot of people essentially said about that.

The safety net of welfare should have a basic limit of keeping you alive and little more than that. I'm for a system where paying in should earn you some credit so you don't immediately lose your house if you lose your job, the longer you paid in, the longer the breathing space you get with your existing bills being covered. After a fair period, you should be expected to downsize and live off a reduced amount and if you get tempted to just sit there not earning longer term then eventually you get down to what is essentially like jail except you are free to come and go and look for work or do anything you like that costs nothing. We are talking shelter, basic nutrition, we already have healthcare here, heat when its cold and light to read by. Nothing more than that. No TV licence, no satellite or streaming services, internet, games consoles etc etc. No booze. The point is to stop you starving to death or dying from exposure. No more than that really.

Also, people on welfare (and in jail for that matter) should be ineligible to play the lottery.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Gosh, I agree with WAS for once.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah this is an area where I do come over as quite conservative.

I once had a notion of making the 'debt to society' a literal thing. So that prison terms didn't cost the state any money and if you could rehabilitate yourself and generate a profit over the cost of your stay you might even get out early.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I once had a notion of making the 'debt to society' a literal thing.

Well certainly wouldn't lead to a cycle of poverty leading to crime leading to poverty.

[subego]

This is like the minimum wage question. I don't want the experience of being on welfare to suck, but if it doesn't suck a bit more than a minimum wage job, then it's more attractive than a minimum wage job.

And as I said, minimum wage is already in slavery territory.

I don't have a shiny, happy solution to this, but I stand by the truth of my observations.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is like the minimum wage question. I don't want the experience of being on welfare to suck, but if it doesn't suck a bit more than a minimum wage job, then it's more attractive than a minimum wage job.

And as I said, minimum wage is already in slavery territory.

I don't have a shiny, happy solution to this, but I stand by the truth of my observations.

Raise the minimum wage seems like the obvious answer. Doubly so when it's failing at its purpose – to provide a livable wage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Raise the minimum wage seems like the obvious answer. Doubly so when it's failing at its purpose – to provide a livable wage.

If you raise the minimum wage, you kill jobs, thus getting more people on welfare.

One can argue we have a moral duty to suck that up, but sucking it up isn't a solution

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you raise the minimum wage, you kill jobs

That's debatable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you raise the minimum wage, you kill jobs, thus getting more people on welfare.

One can argue we have a moral duty to suck that up, but sucking it up isn't a solution

Not necessarily ....

Ten years ago, San Francisco raised its minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.50 an hour, a 26 percent increase. Since then, it has gone up at regular intervals to its current $10.74 an hour, the highest big-city starting wage in the country.

The city has slapped other mandates on businesses, including paid sick leave and a requirement to provide health-care coverage or pay into a pool for uninsured residents.

What have the effects been on employment?

Almost none, according to economists at the University of California, Berkeley, who have studied San Francisco, eight other cities that raised their minimum wages in the past decade, and 21 states with higher base pay than the federal minimum.

Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found.

The average increase among cities raising the minimum wage was 40 percent. The average step increase for a phased-in pay hike was 17 percent.

“Our data show that an increase up to $13 an hour has no measurable effect on employment,” said Michael Reich, a Berkeley economics professor with the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

Still, Reich, whose work has been cited by President Obama in pressing for a higher federal minimum, stopped short of saying there would be no significant impact if Seattle leaders were to raise the minimum wage here to a proposed $15 an hour, a 61 percent jump.

“We have not studied what would happen at $15,” Reich said.

Studies look at what happened when cities raised minimum wage | The Seattle Times

OAW

[subego]

I should have said:

Kill jobs
or
Raise prices
or
Distribute more work over less employees
or
Delightful combination

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well certainly wouldn't lead to a cycle of poverty leading to crime leading to poverty.

It wouldn't because in my version you don't get out until the debt is paid.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Raise the minimum wage seems like the obvious answer. Doubly so when it's failing at its purpose – to provide a livable wage.

I don't know anyone who earns the federal minimum wage, even high school kids working a part-time job make more. There shouldn't even be one, since each state has wildly variable costs of living, they should decide that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

I should have said:

Kill jobs
or
Raise prices
or
Distribute more work over less employees
or
Delightful combination

When federal minimums go over the "habitable zone" you have uneven work distribution and accelerated inflation. One good example of that is Australia, where they're considering lowering it again, since its ****ed up their economy so badly.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I don't know anyone who earns the federal minimum wage

The minimum wage is so low that you can earn more than it and still not be making a livable wage. Which is why it's too low.

[subego]

I get the impression there are plenty of illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage, and not only manage to eke out an existence, they raise a family, on top of it.

Again, I need to be very clear here. I'm not castigating citizens for being unwilling to follow this model, but we can't pretend the model doesn't exist.

There's a "livable wage" and a "minimum acceptable lifestyle". These are different.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I get the impression there are plenty of illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage, and not only manage to eke out an existence, they raise a family, on top of it.

Are we talking about the type of people who are found living 19 deep in a room? Because, yes, if you pool your resources and forego some humane conditions, you can make that happen.

Originally Posted by subego 

There's a "livable wage" and a "minimum acceptable lifestyle". These are different.

If the current minimum is a livable wage I'm surprised I don't see more articles illustrating how. As it is, we have places like McDonald's admitting that you need a second job just to survive.

I'm also curious how many of those immigrant families are in colder climes, because from my experience living paycheck to paycheck, summers are easy, but come winter the heating bill is going to destroy you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't want the experience of being on welfare to suck, but if it doesn't suck a bit more than a minimum wage job, then it's more attractive than a minimum wage job.

I'll also point out that the social stigma this country loves to attach to needing financial help is brutal. Welfare is seen as the refuge of the lazy.

Of course, minimum wage jobs aren't much more attractive when we've managed to add the angle of entitlement to wanting to a full-time job to be enough to sustain you.

God help you if you work full-time and are on welfare. A bullet to the head might look attractive.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are we talking about the type of people who are found living 19 deep in a room? Because, yes, if you pool your resources and forego some humane conditions, you can make that happen.

If the current minimum is a livable wage I'm surprised I don't see more articles illustrating how. As it is, we have places like McDonald's admitting that you need a second job just to survive.

I'm also curious how many of those immigrant families are in colder climes, because from my experience living paycheck to paycheck, summers are easy, but come winter the heating bill is going to destroy you.

Aren't people packing themselves 19 to a room and foregoing humane conditions doing so because that's trading up from what they have at home in terms of opportunity?

This is the disconnect for me. We have people begging to work for $7 an hour, and people claiming it won't be enough until it's at least $15. How they can both have a point unless they're talking about different things?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Aren't people packing themselves 19 to a room and foregoing humane conditions doing so because that's trading up from what they have at home in terms of opportunity?

Here's the thing: I only ever see that brought up to devalue the worth of our nation's poorest and most disadvantaged. When it comes to the richest on this country, their share of the wealth, their compensation compared to the average worker, their tax rates, we're told that what they have is what makes America great. But when the less well off in this country demand pay and living conditions better than immigrants from third world countries, they are seen as entitled and lazy.

So what is it? Do we hold all citizens to the standard of how the world operates or do we hold them to the ideal that America is a better place, where our spoils make it all the way down even to the least well off? Because the way I see the discussion being framed, it's rank hypocrisy where we're holding our best-off to one standard and are worse-off to another. And I don't think the discussion is rooted in philosophical ideals or moral standards but purely and entirely by money.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you raise the minimum wage, you kill jobs, thus getting more people on welfare.

A further point – as it is now, having a job doesn't mean you're not on welfare. Look at Wal•Mart. A large chunk of their employees qualify for welfare because the pay is too low. In that case, doesn't the government covering the shortcoming of walmart's wages count as corporate welfare? Is a situation where walmart workers (and walmart itself) rely less on the government not more ideal? Wouldn't the amount of people on assistance go down, even while the amount those remaining need goes up be a better if not more honest situation?

[The Final Dakar]

I apologize for bombing you but my thoughts are never timely, clear or concise.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's the thing: I only ever see that brought up to devalue the worth of our nation's poorest and most disadvantaged. When it comes to the richest on this country, their share of the wealth, their compensation compared to the average worker, their tax rates, we're told that what they have is what makes America great. But when the less well off in this country demand pay and living conditions better than immigrants from third world countries, they are seen as entitled and lazy.

So what is it? Do we hold all citizens to the standard of how the world operates or do we hold them to the ideal that America is a better place, where our spoils make it all the way down even to the least well off? Because the way I see the discussion being framed, it's rank hypocrisy where we're holding our best-off to one standard and are worse-off to another. And I don't think the discussion is rooted in philosophical ideals or moral standards but purely and entirely by money.

You'll just have to take me at my word I won't begrudge an American for saying they don't want to be a slave.

Bringing up illegal immigrants is not meant as a slur upon American work ethic, it's to highlight a minimum wage leaves you with jobs which aren't worth the minimum wage.

At its core, the problem is one of qualifications. There's a large group of people who aren't qualified to do anything worth the minimum wage or higher. The proposed fix makes the problem worse. Not only does it enlarge the group of people who lack qualifications it places the onus of being the "good citizen" on corporations.

We're seeing how that's worked out. "Made in America" lately?

This is a "feel-good" solution, not a solution-solution.