Democrats starting to get the message? (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

Even if true, how would it be worse than the current situation, in which we relitigate the details of entitlements, minimum wage, taxes, etc. every couple years?

I didn't say it would be. I'm in favor of BIG (pending details, of course), just explaining why some people are skeptical of a slippery slope.

 

[Sand]

But about your last qualification: How many children is acceptable? Should the number of children you are allowed to have be determined by your economic status at the time of conception?

Probably.  Certainly having the quarter million dollars needed to rear a child to adulthood at birth isn't necessary.  On the other end if one is relying on Medicaid to pay for the birth that's a very strong signal someone isn't financially ready for parenthood.

 

[Gachi]

I didn't realize so many children were on Medicaid/CHIP. Its like 40%. That's why pediatricians make so little compared to other specialties, almost half the patients are on government healthcare which reimburses poorly. 

I think America is poorer than we realize. 40% of children rely on the government for healthcare. That's staggering. 

 

[Chaka]

Probably.  Certainly having the quarter million dollars needed to rear a child to adulthood at birth isn't necessary.  On the other end if one is relying on Medicaid to pay for the birth that's a very strong signal someone isn't financially ready for parenthood.

So let's be clear here are you advocating for the federal government to tell people who can, or cannot have children or is this more of a mental exercise?

I don't think most people realize that, IIRC, close to 40% of all Americans will experience poverty for at least a year during their lives. Most get out of it, often with government assistance. However, not surprisingly, the deeper poverty one experiences the less likely one is to get out of it regardless of the amount of hard work they put in.

 

[ren hoek]

I don't think most people realize that, IIRC, close to 40% of all Americans will experience poverty for at least a year during their lives. Most get out of it, often with government assistance. However, not surprisingly, the deeper poverty one experiences the less likely one is to get out of it regardless of the amount of hard work they put in.

Where most righties are coming from is that the welfare state perpetuates and solidifies poverty, rather than helps people out of it.  This is evidenced by 85 years of social services, and yet the biggest income disparity of all time with huge masses of people living in poverty.  

It's the same reason many of them are more neutral, even welcoming to the idea of a basic income guarantee.  They don't trust that scarce resources are being handled/distributed properly and would prefer that central planning be removed from the equation.  For what it's worth, I think scrapping entitlements and replacing it with bgi is fair, simple and much more sustainable than forcing younger generations to pay for a "safety net" they'll never see a dime of. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Where most righties are coming from is that the welfare state perpetuates and solidifies poverty, rather than helps people out of it.  This is evidenced by 85 years of social services, and yet the biggest income disparity of all time with huge masses of people living in poverty.  

It's the same reason many of them are more neutral, even welcoming to the idea of a basic income guarantee.  They don't trust that scarce resources are being handled/distributed properly and would prefer that central planning be removed from the equation.  For what it's worth, I think scrapping entitlements and replacing it with bgi is fair, simple and much more sustainable than forcing younger generations to pay for a "safety net" they'll never see a dime of. 

As Chaka pointed out, many people do get out of poverty and that is certainly helped by the welfare they receive while in it. The problem is there is a section of society that will never ever be able to provide a capitalistic system goods and/or services at a level of quality that the market will pay them a price that results in a livable income for them. And while the righties will use that as an argument that welfare perpetuates and solidifies them, they don't offer an alternative that results in them getting out of poverty. 

The fact is capitalism is a game, and money is the score. And the game always results in those who just suck at the game to have a ####ty score. And the solution of "they need to get better at the game" is as ignorant as expecting everyone to get good at football, or chess, or Space Invaders. There will always be people who suck at a game, no matter how hard they try. The "take responsibility" and "lift themselves up/bootstraps" argument is good in theory, but worthless in reality. 

 

[ren hoek]

As Chaka pointed out, many people do get out of poverty and that is certainly helped by the welfare they receive while in it. The problem is there is a section of society that will never ever be able to provide a capitalistic system goods and/or services at a level of quality that the market will pay them a price that results in a livable income for them. And while the righties will use that as an argument that welfare perpetuates and solidifies them, they don't offer an alternative that results in them getting out of poverty. 

The fact is capitalism is a game, and money is the score. And the game always results in those who just suck at the game to have a ####ty score. And the solution of "they need to get better at the game" is as ignorant as expecting everyone to get good at football, or chess, or Space Invaders. There will always be people who suck at a game, no matter how hard they try. The "take responsibility" and "lift themselves up/bootstraps" argument is good in theory, but worthless in reality. 

Welfare seems like a really inefficient use of resources.  Why can't the burden of helping the poor be placed on fellow citizens rather than government?  Is society really better on net when you take $100 from one guy, pay some bureaucrat $10 to distribute the other $90, put the $90 on a snap card- given to someone based on pretty arbitrary standards for which they had to fill out tons of paperwork and submit it, costing more time, money and resources- and then they can spend it on groceries, but only for pre-approved categories of items, which companies probably lobbied and lined some congressman's pockets to be eligible for?  

Most of the argument seems to stem from the minimum wage rate.  Like I was saying earlier, the minimum wage was at its highest in 1968- $1.60- when you adjust for inflation.  People can't save money or build toward anything in life because every dollar they earn is wasting away in the wind.  As inflation rises, purchasing power falls along with standard of living.  What we're seeing now is the aftermath from debasing the currency for several decades.  It's a hard system to understand, but workers are being fleeced of their livelihood by the financial system and it's been happening for a long time.  

Setting a higher minimum wage will have a lot of unintended consequences (higher prices, doors shutting, overworked employees, entry-level jobs destroyed).  If it were really that simple then we should just give everyone a million dollars and be done with it.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Welfare seems like a really inefficient use of resources.  Why can't the burden of helping the poor be placed on fellow citizens rather than government?  Is society really better on net when you take $100 from one guy, pay some bureaucrat $10 to distribute the other $90, put the $90 on a snap card- given to someone based on pretty arbitrary standards for which they had to fill out tons of paperwork and submit it, costing more time, money and resources- and then they can spend it on groceries, but only for pre-approved categories of items, which companies probably lobbied and lined some congressman's pockets to be eligible for?  

Most of the argument seems to stem from the minimum wage rate.  Like I was saying earlier, the minimum wage was at its highest in 1968- $1.60- when you adjust for inflation.  People can't save money or build toward anything in life because every dollar they earn is wasting away in the wind.  As inflation rises, purchasing power falls along with standard of living.  What we're seeing now is the aftermath from debasing the currency for several decades.  It's a hard system to understand, but workers are being fleeced of their livelihood by the financial system and it's been happening for a long time.  

Setting a higher minimum wage will have a lot of unintended consequences (higher prices, doors shutting, overworked employees, entry-level jobs destroyed).  If it were really that simple then we should just give everyone a million dollars and be done with it.  

You'll get no argument from me that government is managed poorly. As for that being an argument that these people would be better served by fellow citizens than government, I completely disagree. While the fellow citizens would manage funds more efficiently, the amount of funds available for them to manage would be a fraction of the funds available to the government to manage.  Basically you'd trade a well funded but poorly managed system for a poorly funded but well managed system, and I have no doubt that means less funds making it into the hands of people who need them. 

As for inflation, I agree that our current system of money mechanics is flawed. A lot of the flaw has to do with the government borrowing so much money into existence (national debt) that is NOT spent on creating assets with market value, but is instead spent on assets that get consumed (bombs, bullets, etc...), or have zero market value to the public when the government doesn't need them anymore (tanks, planes, air craft carriers, destroyers, etc..). Thus more money is created in the market without corresponding assets in the markets. The result is inflation. This NEEDS to change. However, it probably never will, as Americans are too used to the lifestyle that being the only world power provides, that they would never be willing to accept the change in their lives that would come from it changing. Thus inflation is part of being American.

As for giving everyone a million dollars, that would solve the problem (at least temporarily), but it's not necessary to go to the extreme to solve it. And given so many righties can't accept the simple solution, discussing an extreme solution is a red herring.  

 

[Dr Oadi]

Probably.  Certainly having the quarter million dollars needed to rear a child to adulthood at birth isn't necessary.  On the other end if one is relying on Medicaid to pay for the birth that's a very strong signal someone isn't financially ready for parenthood.

Google "percentage of American births paid for by Medicaid". 

America has been aborting their future since row vs wade and importing and subsidizing its destruction at the same time.  

 

[eoMMan]

So let's be clear here are you advocating for the federal government to tell people who can, or cannot have children or is this more of a mental exercise?

I don't think most people realize that, IIRC, close to 40% of all Americans will experience poverty for at least a year during their lives. Most get out of it, often with government assistance. However, not surprisingly, the deeper poverty one experiences the less likely one is to get out of it regardless of the amount of hard work they put in.

Meh, maybe it IS a good idea if the government steps in when some idiotic family decides to have almost a full baseball team of children without the means to care for them. I'd be okay with some sort of approval process if families decide to have...I don't know...maybe 5 or more kids. 

 

[ren hoek]

Basically you'd trade a well funded but poorly managed system for a poorly funded but well managed system, and I have no doubt that means less funds making it into the hands of people who need them. 

I doubt the lower class would really need help in the first place if the economy were left to its own devices, but that's probably a different thread.

Thus inflation is part of being American.

Yep, unfortunately.  The general consensus is that steering things towards a 1% inflation rate is optimal, because this encourages spending.  In a deflationary economy prices fall and consumption flatlines to a steady equilibrium.  I don't know how that possibly could be a bad thing, but we'll never see it in our lifetimes anyway.

And given so many righties can't except the simple solution, discussing an extreme solution is a red herring.  

Well, the simple solution is just a smaller scale version of the ridiculous one.  There are no magic pricefloors, wage controls or monetary tricks that will set a decent standard of living for all.  

Kind of funny, the minimum wage's roots are steeped in racism.  

An even more insidious substitution effect of minimum wages can be seen from a few quotations.

During South Africa’s apartheid era, racist unions, which would never accept a black member, were the major supporters of minimum wages for blacks.

In 1925, the South African Economic and Wage Commission said, “The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no native would be likely to be employed.”

Gert Beetge, secretary of the racist Building Workers’ Union, complained, “There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans.”

After a bitter 1909 strike by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in the U.S., an arbitration board decreed that blacks and whites were to be paid equal wages.

Union members expressed their delight, saying, “If this course of action is followed by the company and the incentive for employing the Negro thus removed, the strike will not have been in vain.”

Our nation’s first minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, had racist motivation.

During its legislative debate, its congressional supporters made such statements as, “That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”

During hearings, American Federation of Labor President William Green complained, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.”

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/08/the-racist-roots-of-minimum-wage-laws/

 

[Politician Spock]

Well, the simple solution is just a smaller scale version of the ridiculous one. 

A smaller scale version of a ridiculous solution is better than no solution. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

As Chaka pointed out, many people do get out of poverty and that is certainly helped by the welfare they receive while in it. The problem is there is a section of society that will never ever be able to provide a capitalistic system goods and/or services at a level of quality that the market will pay them a price that results in a livable income for them. And while the righties will use that as an argument that welfare perpetuates and solidifies them, they don't offer an alternative that results in them getting out of poverty. 

The fact is capitalism is a game, and money is the score. And the game always results in those who just suck at the game to have a ####ty score. And the solution of "they need to get better at the game" is as ignorant as expecting everyone to get good at football, or chess, or Space Invaders. There will always be people who suck at a game, no matter how hard they try. The "take responsibility" and "lift themselves up/bootstraps" argument is good in theory, but worthless in reality. 

Spock - you have been on fire lately. 

 

[ren hoek]

A smaller scale version of a ridiculous solution is better than no solution. 

Not if it makes things worse 

 

[tommyGunZ]

I doubt the lower class would really need help in the first place if the economy were left to its own devices, but that's probably a different thread.

Back when children worked 60 hour weeks and 1 in 3 elders lived in poverty?  

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wait, did Ren just say he didn't understand why deflation was a bad thing?  

 

[ren hoek]

 

[Politician Spock]

Not if it makes things worse 

It won't. The claims of higher prices, doors shutting, overworked employees, entry-level jobs destroyed can be said to occur when any business costs go up. That includes COGS, rent, equipment, utilities, etc, etc... typically labor makes up 30% of a typical business's revenue, and minimum wage labor is but a fraction of that. I'm not claiming that raising minimum wage won't cause business costs to increase. Of course it will. But it's literally not possible to make things worse. The only businesses that will be hurt by this are those that have been exploiting the lower class by paying them less than what they need to live. And I won't feel sorry for them at all if they fail. They'll be replaced by businesses who pay a living wage. And if that means your morning ham, egg and cheese biscuit costs you $1 more, I won't feel sorry for you either. The only reason it was so cheap is because people were being exploited to make it that cheap. 

 

[humpback]

As Chaka pointed out, many people do get out of poverty and that is certainly helped by the welfare they receive while in it. The problem is there is a section of society that will never ever be able to provide a capitalistic system goods and/or services at a level of quality that the market will pay them a price that results in a livable income for them. And while the righties will use that as an argument that welfare perpetuates and solidifies them, they don't offer an alternative that results in them getting out of poverty. 

The fact is capitalism is a game, and money is the score. And the game always results in those who just suck at the game to have a ####ty score. And the solution of "they need to get better at the game" is as ignorant as expecting everyone to get good at football, or chess, or Space Invaders. There will always be people who suck at a game, no matter how hard they try. The "take responsibility" and "lift themselves up/bootstraps" argument is good in theory, but worthless in reality. 

In the same vein, life is a "game", and there are always going to be those who just suck at it. Raising the minimum wage would help some people out of poverty (would likely hurt others), but let's be honest, you aren't "winning" if you're trying to raise a family of ~6 on $15/hr.

Your last sentence is silly imo- no, not every single person is capable, but most can do more of this than they currently are. It is used too frequently and not all will be successful, but it's far from worthless. For many people it'll have a much larger positive impact than raising the minimum wage would.

 

[Chaka]

Your last sentence is silly imo- no, not every single person is capable, but most can do more of this than they currently are. It is used too frequently and not all will be successful, but it's far from worthless. For many people it'll have a much larger positive impact than raising the minimum wage would.

Again this myth of bootstraps (which originally was meant to reference something that is literally impossible) being propogated. It's as if 2007-8 never happened or we just want to ignore the fact that sometimes circumstances way beyond your control just #### you up and start a cycle that you can't get out of without help.

The notion that the 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of circumstances they can control is insane. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

Back when children worked 60 hour weeks and 1 in 3 elders lived in poverty?  

This tripe again?  I guess i wouldn't expect anything less from this forums foremost Limousine liberal.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Again this myth of bootstraps (which originally was meant to reference something that is literally impossible) being propogated. It's as if 2007-8 never happened or we just want to ignore the fact that sometimes circumstances way beyond your control just #### you up and start a cycle that you can't get out of without help.

The notion that the 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of circumstances they can control is insane. 

Conversely, the notion that 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of "The Man" is also insane.  

No one has done more to keep people in poverty than the Democratic Party.  That's not even debatable.

 

[ren hoek]

The claims of higher prices, doors shutting, overworked employees, entry-level jobs destroyed can be said to occur when any business costs go up.

Yes... that's why you don't force every business to comply with them.  

But it's literally not possible to make things worse.

Rendering millions of people unemployable seems worse.  

They'll be replaced by businesses who pay a living wage. And if that means your morning ham, egg and cheese biscuit costs you $1 more, I won't feel sorry for you either.

No, they'll be replaced by nothing.  Millions of low-skilled workers will languish away on account of your good intentions.  Millions more entry-level high school students that would otherwise get involved in the workforce will stay home.  A nation-wide $15 minimum wage is a catastrophe when you sit down and look at the economic reality of it.  

If you really want a living wage, direct your outrage at the monetary system.  

 

[humpback]

Again this myth of bootstraps (which originally was meant to reference something that is literally impossible) being propogated. It's as if 2007-8 never happened or we just want to ignore the fact that sometimes circumstances way beyond your control just #### you up and start a cycle that you can't get out of without help.

The notion that the 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of circumstances they can control is insane. 

You sure love your straw men...

 

[Chaka]

Conversely, the notion that 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of "The Man" is also insane.  

No one has done more to keep people in poverty than the Democratic Party.  That's not even debatable.

It is incredibly disheartening that people would rather spend time ascribing blame than address the issue.

It is entirely debatable and blame falls upon all our houses. But don't pretend that the Democratic party is responsible for the systematic dismantling of the social safety net that began under Reagan.

 

[Chaka]

You sure love your straw men...

It's not a straw man. You seem to want to say #### 'em to 40 million Americans because of an insignificant number of bad actors. 

It's sad that the "moral majority" loses their morality when it comes near their wallets.

 

[humpback]

It's not a straw man. You seem to want to say #### 'em to 40 million Americans because of an insignificant number of bad actors. 

It's sad that the "moral majority" loses their morality when it comes near their wallets.

Straw man or massive reading comprehension problem, one or the other.

 

[Politician Spock]

Yes... that's why you don't force every business to comply with them.  

Rendering millions of people unemployable seems worse.  

No, they'll be replaced by nothing.  Millions of low-skilled workers will languish away on account of your good intentions.  Millions more entry-level high school students that would otherwise get involved in the workforce will stay home.  A nation-wide $15 minimum wage is a catastrophe when you sit down and look at the economic reality of it.  

If you really want a living wage, direct your outrage at the monetary system.  

I've directed more than enough rage at the monetary system over the years. So much so people have called me a doomsday prepper. The problems with our currency have absolutely NOTHING to do with why too many people don't have a living wage.

Imagine a company was providing hamburger meat to McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, et al... but that hamburger meat company was not earning enough from what it was charging the fast food companies to cover all their costs. Instead of a producing a profit they were producing a net loss. The result would be that everyone would be paying a cheaper price than what they should be paying for hamburgers at all the fast food places. YEAH! CHEAP BURGERS!!!! Right?
 

But cheap hamburger prices are NOT good! Why? Because this hamburger meat company doesn't go out of business, because the government provides it welfare assistance to keep it going, Thus the people can buy cheap burgers, but only because the government is subsidizing the costs. 

Now that is just a hypothetical (there is some truth to it, but that's a whole different discussion). But what is NOT a hypothetical is that COGS and Labor costs have the same impact to McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, et al.... bottom line. If they are sourcing labor from resources that are not earning enough from what they charge the fast food companies for their labor, then they can't cover all their costs any more than the hamburger meat company can. This results in everyone paying a cheaper price than what they should be paying for hamburgers at all the fast food places. YEAH! CHEAP BURGERS!!!! Right?

But again cheap hamburger prices are not good, because the labor doesn't go out of business, because the government provides them welfare assistance. Thus the people can buy cheap burgers, but only because the government is subsidizing the costs.

The reason why they charge the fast food companies so little for their labor is 1) because there are so many of them available (high supply produces lower prices); and 2) because they SUCK at the game of capitalism. If you don't have negotiating skills, don't have any leverage of scarcity, and more importantly don't have the accounting skills needed to do a personal P&L, you will naturally end up being paid less than you need. In other words, you SUCK at the game of capitalism. And what the employers just call "the market price" for that labor is just the words the capitalist uses to describe their exploitation. If you don't pay someone enough for them to live on, you are exploiting them. Ending this exploitation is the entire purpose of the minimum wage. It has absolutely nothing to do with the flaws of our money mechanics. All the flaws of our money mechanics does to this is require that the minimum wage be increased year after year to match the inflated costs of living. This is where government has failed. It failed to keep the minimum wage synchronized with modern money mechanics. 

 

[Chaka]

Straw man or massive reading comprehension problem, one or the other.

Please expand upon your position about the part of PS's post you commented on.

The "take responsibility" and "lift themselves up/bootstraps" argument is good in theory, but worthless in reality. 

 

[ren hoek]

I've directed more than enough rage at the monetary system over the years. So much so people have called me a doomsday prepper. The problems with our currency have absolutely NOTHING to do with why too many people don't have a living wage.

It has absolutely everything to do with why people aren't making a living wage.  People that hold US dollars, literally every worker in the country, lose money as the government counterfeits trillions of dollars in new currency.  Or like you said, when they agree to take on more debt due to military spending, entitlement programs and insolvent budgets.  This devaluation extends to earnings, savings, and a loss in purchasing power.  

Using the Department of Labor's own CPI inflation calculator equates the 1968 minimum wage to $11.37.  That's a pretty generous figure in my opinion, but let's say it's right.  They could set the minimum wage to $11.37 but that puts millions of people out of work today.  The thing about places like McDonald's and Wal-Mart is they have a voluntary contract with their workers.  If there were some magical market for goods that cost more money, but gave workers a 'living wage' and good benefits, don't you think it would have been invented by now?  Are you going to guilt consumers into paying more money for stuff when they're just trying to scrape by themselves?  Who are you to take more affordable options off the table for them, having no idea about whether or not they can afford it like you can?  Is a 16-year old kid scooping ice cream at a Dairy Queen really worth $11.37?  Or $15?  Hell fking no he isn't.  But he works that job to save what little money he can and get his foot in the door.  You aren't doing him or consumers a favor by deleting his job from the marketplace.  

People don't start businesses to be nice.  They start businesses to turn a profit.  With any luck, they can provide a livelihood for their employees too.  It's not easy to run a business anymore- not when you have to get operational licenses, pay rent and start-up costs, pay for obscenely overpriced healthcare plans if you have any intention of keeping an employee over 30 hours, pay 25-30% of your income to the state, competing against industry titans that rig the legal code in their favor, etc.  

The places people frequent to buy stuff, i.e. places they can get a quality product at a cheap price, get there by operating on razor thin margins.  The reason people don't buy expensive stuff is because they benefit more personally from making affordable choices.  The reason the lower class is in a perpetual state of struggle is because the financial system and accompanying bureaucracy have fleeced them of their livelihood.  Nothing will change until people understand and confront this.  

 

[Sand]

The notion that the 40 million, or so, Americans who live in desperate poverty are there solely because of circumstances they can control is insane. 

This notion that wet have 40 million in desperate poverty is ridiculous and easily disprovable.    You need to get facts from someone other than Media Matters and come up with less laughable straw men. 

 

[Chaka]

This notion that wet have 40 million in desperate poverty is ridiculous and easily disprovable.    You need to get facts from someone other than Media Matters and come up with less laughable straw men. 

I don't know what Media Matters is and I'm fine with the notion that it is less than that but the US Census puts the number of Americans below the poverty line at 43.1 million. 

For an individual that is roughly $12,000 per year in earnings or less. $1,000 per month or less seems like a pretty desperate situation to me, YMMV.

 

[Politician Spock]

It has absolutely everything to do with why people aren't making a living wage.  People that hold US dollars, literally every worker in the country, lose money as the government counterfeits trillions of dollars in new currency.  

The bolded is correct, especially the underlined part. If people not making a living wage are the result of government borrowing more money into existence, then LITERALLY EVERY WORKER in the country would not be making a living wage, because as you point out what the government does effects everyone. 

The reason why those that suck at capitalism are not making a living wage while those that are good at it are making a living wage despite what the government does to the currency is again, because they suck at capitalism. One thing one has to do to be good at capitalism is to make sure you get cost of living wage increases year after year after year after year. Those that suck at capitalism don't, and the government just let it happen by not making minimum wage increases. 

 Using the Department of Labor's own CPI inflation calculator equates the 1968 minimum wage to $11.37.

Exactly! The fact that it's not is because government failed to make the necessary increases.

 That's a pretty generous figure in my opinion,

It shouldn't be. There's absolutely NOTHING generous about getting the bare minimum needed to live. And making less than that is abhorrent. If you don't see that, something is very wrong with your point of view. 

but let's say it's right.  They could set the minimum wage to $11.37 but that puts millions of people out of work today.  The thing about places like McDonald's and Wal-Mart is they have a voluntary contract with their workers.  If there were some magical market for goods that cost more money, but gave workers a 'living wage' and good benefits, don't you think it would have been invented by now?  

Absolutely not. Again, the issue is too many people SUCK at capitalism. And not only does that make them losers at this game, it puts them in a downward spiral of losing. That is to say, the more they lose, the more desperate they become, and the more desperate they become the more they lose. Prices that are based on desperation are extreme. On one end of the spectrum if there is a drinking water shortage, such as there was in Flint Michigan a few years ago, those that have drinking water to sell hike the price up to ridiculous levels, and they'll get what they ask for it because people are desperate for clean drinking water. Ayn Rand disciples and their ilk say "well, that's the natural market price, nothing wrong with that." The rest of the world that actually have morals see that it's not a natural price at all. It's a price exploiting desperation, and it's immoral. This is why price gouging is illegal. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, exploiting the desperation of those in poverty is exploitation as well. It's immoral and the minimum wage laws exist to make it illegal. So, no I absolutely disagree that the market would naturally "invent" a market where those in poverty will get a livable wage without government intervention. Unregulated capitalism will naturally never result in that happening. 

Are you going to guilt consumers into paying more money for stuff when they're just trying to scrape by themselves? Who are you to take more affordable options off the table for them, having no idea about whether or not they can afford it like you can?

I do not think doing the right thing should be thrown under the rug because someone people won't like it. 

Is a 16-year old kid scooping ice cream at a Dairy Queen really worth $11.37?  Or $15?  Hell fking no he isn't.  But he works that job to save what little money he can and get his foot in the door.  You aren't doing him or consumers a favor by deleting his job from the marketplace.  

This is a discussion that is needed to be had AFTER it is accepted that most people earning minimum wage deserve a livable wage. I agree completely that some people don't need a livable wage, for example, as you point out 16 year olds scooping ice cream. The discussion will be about exceptions of minimum wage requirements, such as perhaps making teenagers in school exceptions. For example, the current minimum wage has an exception, a lower amount for tipped employees. It wouldn't be hard at all to say workers attending high school are only entitled to a $7/hr minimum wage. But again, these types of discussions of how to work out the details aren't productive while so many hold the opinion that most people making minimum wage don't need more. 

People don't start businesses to be nice.  They start businesses to turn a profit.  With any luck, they can provide a livelihood for their employees too.  It's not easy to run a business anymore- not when you have to get operational licenses, pay rent and start-up costs, pay for obscenely overpriced healthcare plans if you have any intention of keeping an employee over 30 hours, pay 25-30% of your income to the state, competing against industry titans that rig the legal code in their favor, etc.  

The places people frequent to buy stuff, i.e. places they can get a quality product at a cheap price, get there by operating on razor thin margins.  The reason people don't buy expensive stuff is because they benefit more personally from making affordable choices.  The reason the lower class is in a perpetual state of struggle is because the financial system and accompanying bureaucracy have fleeced them of their livelihood.  Nothing will change until people understand and confront this.  

I own a business. I employ 20 people. I know it's not easy. I also know that if a supplier raises prices on me and I can't find a replacement supplier with lower prices, then that's what I have to pay to continue being in business. I may have to increase prices to compensate. That may cause me to lose customers. That may put me out of business. That's the risk I knew could happen BEFORE I went into business. However, the reward of succeeding far exceeds the risk, and to be honest, if I was making people suffer in their lives in order to reduce the risk I'm taking to achieve the reward, that would make me an #######. If my success requires someone to suffer, then I'm not successful at all. 

 

[SameSongNDance]

This notion that wet have 40 million in desperate poverty is ridiculous and easily disprovable. You need to get facts from someone other than Media Matters and come up with less laughable straw men.

But not easy enough to disprove in your post?

 

[James Daulton]

This notion that wet have 40 million in desperate poverty is ridiculous and easily disprovable.    You need to get facts from someone other than Media Matters and come up with less laughable straw men. 

What's that, 13% or so of the total US population?  That number seems low to me.

 

[bigbottom]

The bolded is correct, especially the underlined part. If people not making a living wage are the result of government borrowing more money into existence, then LITERALLY EVERY WORKER in the country would not be making a living wage, because as you point out what the government does effects everyone. 

The reason why those that suck at capitalism are not making a living wage while those that are good at it are making a living wage despite what the government does to the currency is again, because they suck at capitalism. One thing one has to do to be good at capitalism is to make sure you get cost of living wage increases year after year after year after year. Those that suck at capitalism don't, and the government just let it happen by not making minimum wage increases. 

Exactly! The fact that it's not is because government failed to make the necessary increases.

It shouldn't be. There's absolutely NOTHING generous about getting the bare minimum needed to live. And making less than that is abhorrent. If you don't see that, something is very wrong with your point of view. 

Absolutely not. Again, the issue is too many people SUCK at capitalism. And not only does that make them losers at this game, it puts them in a downward spiral of losing. That is to say, the more they lose, the more desperate they become, and the more desperate they become the more they lose. Prices that are based on desperation are extreme. On one end of the spectrum if there is a drinking water shortage, such as there was in Flint Michigan a few years ago, those that have drinking water to sell hike the price up to ridiculous levels, and they'll get what they ask for it because people are desperate for clean drinking water. Ayn Rand disciples and their ilk say "well, that's the natural market price, nothing wrong with that." The rest of the world that actually have morals see that it's not a natural price at all. It's a price exploiting desperation, and it's immoral. This is why price gouging is illegal. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, exploiting the desperation of those in poverty is exploitation as well. It's immoral and the minimum wage laws exist to make it illegal. So, no I absolutely disagree that the market would naturally "invent" a market where those in poverty will get a livable wage without government intervention. Unregulated capitalism will naturally never result in that happening. 

I do not think doing the right thing should be thrown under the rug because someone people won't like it. 

This is a discussion that is needed to be had AFTER it is accepted that most people earning minimum wage deserve a livable wage. I agree completely that some people don't need a livable wage, for example, as you point out 16 year olds scooping ice cream. The discussion will be about exceptions of minimum wage requirements, such as perhaps making teenagers in school exceptions. For example, the current minimum wage has an exception, a lower amount for tipped employees. It wouldn't be hard at all to say workers attending high school are only entitled to a $7/hr minimum wage. But again, these types of discussions of how to work out the details aren't productive while so many hold the opinion that most people making minimum wage don't need more. 

I own a business. I employ 20 people. I know it's not easy. I also know that if a supplier raises prices on me and I can't find a replacement supplier with lower prices, then that's what I have to pay to continue being in business. I may have to increase prices to compensate. That may cause me to lose customers. That may put me out of business. That's the risk I knew could happen BEFORE I went into business. However, the reward of succeeding far exceeds the risk, and to be honest, if I was making people suffer in their lives in order to reduce the risk I'm taking to achieve the reward, that would make me an #######. If my success requires someone to suffer, then I'm not successful at all. 

Wow. So much to think about in this post. Thanks. 

 

[Sand]

But not easy enough to disprove in your post?

Eh - I provide more links to studies than anyone here.   We've covered this in more than one thread - no reason to repost something I've covered multiple times. 

 

[humpback]

Please expand upon your position about the part of PS's post you commented on.

It's right there in the post- I think that the phrase is overused and not everyone is capable of doing so, but it's certainly not "worthless". Are you suggesting that no one is capable of taking on more personal responsibility to help themselves?

 

[ren hoek]

Exactly! The fact that it's not is because government failed to make the necessary increases.

The problem is, many jobs out there aren't worth a livable wage.  I don't like seeing people struggle either but it's not right to force even more people into unemployment on the off chance that a hand full start receiving whatever wage you deem appropriate.  If you think people suck at capitalism now just wait til you put them out on the street.  

The wages you see out there aren't an accident.  They are a pricepoint for low-skilled labor.  Several dollars an hour flipping burgers is worth more to that guy than sitting at home doing nothing.  If you set higher price controls on labor, people are going to shut doors, fire people, raise prices or just use less labor.  

There really shouldn't be a minimum wage at all.  Doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary to designate a certain pricepoint for labor, and no one can go lower than that for any reason, no matter the employee's circumstances or how voluntary the arrangement is?  Notice that lawyers don't contract their services out for 10 bucks an hour.  It's because they have a marketable skill that clients are willing to pay more money for.  Wages are set by the consumer just as they are by the employer and employee.  

It shouldn't be. There's absolutely NOTHING generous about getting the bare minimum needed to live. And making less than that is abhorrent. If you don't see that, something is very wrong with your point of view. 

I meant that the inflation calculations by the CPI tool were very generous toward the people controlling the money supply; I think we'd find it's much higher in reality once the dust settles.  

I don't like it either, but the answer to the problem isn't to put more people out of work.  How about instead of setting arbitrary price floors on labor, they just not be taxed at all?  No income tax, no sales tax.  That allows them some flexibility without boning would-be employers who would seek to hire low-skilled workers for simple jobs.

On one end of the spectrum if there is a drinking water shortage, such as there was in Flint Michigan a few years ago, those that have drinking water to sell hike the price up to ridiculous levels, and they'll get what they ask for it because people are desperate for clean drinking water.

Disaster capitalism can be pretty immoral, I agree.  

I do not think doing the right thing should be thrown under the rug because someone people won't like it.

That's where I disagree.  I don't think putting artificial price controls on labor is the right thing, nor is forcing voluntary consumer/worker/employer arrangements effectively out of business.  

I think this is another good example of how a bgi would enable the poor to have more autonomy over how their "welfare" is allocated.  

However, the reward of succeeding far exceeds the risk, and to be honest, if I was making people suffer in their lives in order to reduce the risk I'm taking to achieve the reward, that would make me an #######. If my success requires someone to suffer, then I'm not successful at all. 

You aren't forcing anyone to suffer.  You are not enslaving people and subjugating them to forced labor.  You are offering them a voluntary contract to render services for payment.  And because the market you work in likely generates enough revenue to afford paying them decent wages, you don't have to worry about do-gooders pricing your line of work out of existence because they decided your voluntary arrangement wasn't good enough for the employee.

There are so many economic considerations that figure into why people are poor right now, and the minimum wage has nothing to do with them.  It does nothing to address how over-encumbered the economy is with regulation and bureaucratic restriction.  The loss in savings and value of the currency by mismanagement and debt-spending.  The legal code being written and bought by huge corporations.  The unreal amount of wages being stolen from workers to pay for government services like cruise missiles and atrocious health insurance plans.  The minimum wage wouldn't even be an afterthought if those things were in order.  

 

[Politician Spock]

The problem is, many jobs out there aren't worth a livable wage.

True. Which means that employer should NOT be hiring someone who needs a livable wage to do that job. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's right there in the post- I think that the phrase is overused and not everyone is capable of doing so, but it's certainly not "worthless". Are you suggesting that no one is capable of taking on more personal responsibility to help themselves?

Nope.  We need to keep them on the Democrat Plantation.

 

[Politician Spock]

The problem is, many jobs out there aren't worth a livable wage.  I don't like seeing people struggle either but it's not right to force even more people into unemployment on the off chance that a hand full start receiving whatever wage you deem appropriate.  If you think people suck at capitalism now just wait til you put them out on the street.  

The wages you see out there aren't an accident.  They are a pricepoint for low-skilled labor.  Several dollars an hour flipping burgers is worth more to that guy than sitting at home doing nothing.  If you set higher price controls on labor, people are going to shut doors, fire people, raise prices or just use less labor.  

There really shouldn't be a minimum wage at all.  Doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary to designate a certain pricepoint for labor, and no one can go lower than that for any reason, no matter the employee's circumstances or how voluntary the arrangement is?  Notice that lawyers don't contract their services out for 10 bucks an hour.  It's because they have a marketable skill that clients are willing to pay more money for.  Wages are set by the consumer just as they are by the employer and employee.  

I meant that the inflation calculations by the CPI tool were very generous toward the people controlling the money supply; I think we'd find it's much higher in reality once the dust settles.  

I don't like it either, but the answer to the problem isn't to put more people out of work.  How about instead of setting arbitrary price floors on labor, they just not be taxed at all?  No income tax, no sales tax.  That allows them some flexibility without boning would-be employers who would seek to hire low-skilled workers for simple jobs.

Disaster capitalism can be pretty immoral, I agree.  

That's where I disagree.  I don't think putting artificial price controls on labor is the right thing, nor is forcing voluntary consumer/worker/employer arrangements effectively out of business.  

I think this is another good example of how a bgi would enable the poor to have more autonomy over how their "welfare" is allocated.  

You aren't forcing anyone to suffer.  You are not enslaving people and subjugating them to forced labor.  You are offering them a voluntary contract to render services for payment.  And because the market you work in likely generates enough revenue to afford paying them decent wages, you don't have to worry about do-gooders pricing your line of work out of existence because they decided your voluntary arrangement wasn't good enough for the employee.

There are so many economic considerations that figure into why people are poor right now, and the minimum wage has nothing to do with them.  It does nothing to address how over-encumbered the economy is with regulation and bureaucratic restriction.  The loss in savings and value of the currency by mismanagement and debt-spending.  The legal code being written and bought by huge corporations.  The unreal amount of wages being stolen from workers to pay for government services like cruise missiles and atrocious health insurance plans.  The minimum wage wouldn't even be an afterthought if those things were in order.  

If I pay a vendor less than what they need to succeed as a business, then I don't have a viable business model. My profit is only temporary until the vendor goes out of business and I then need to pay a different vendor a price they know is needed to keep them in business.

If I pay an employee less than what they need to live as a person, then I don't have a viable business model either. However my profit is not temporary, because the government subsidizes my exploitation of that employee.

Right now we have a ton of businesses that are not viable business models. When government raises minimum wage back to a livable wage like it was intended to be, we will see non-viable business models fail. 

I have been saying for years that many of the economic numbers people use to convince themselves the economy is okay, or even good or great, are misleading. The best indicator of how the economy is doing is median household income. Yet, even that is incomplete. For example, a household making $50,000 a year with one person working 40 hours a week is not the same as a household making $50,000 a year with two people working 100 hours a week. Decades ago a dad could have one job and support a family of five where mom stays at home to take care of the kids. Today that dad has to get a second job, and mom has to work two jobs as well for that house to keep it's value in the economic numbers. And those jobs they do today have higher productivity requirements than in the past. Households are spending a lot more of their time working, in harder work for little to no increase in total compensation. Our economic situation is HORRIBLE compared to what it was a few decades ago, but the economic numbers don't reflect that. And a HUGE reason for that is because the people who are not good at capitalism are getting owned by people who are good at capitalism. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. The winners are winning, and the losers are losing. 

The non-viable businesses that are only staying alive because their exploitation is being subsidized need to fail. Until they fail and can be replaced by viable businesses, our country will never heal from this problem. 

 

[Gachi]

Nope.  We need to keep them on the Democrat Plantation.

Hstorically haven't Americans done better economically under democratic presidents? 

Also, democrats tend to be pro-social change and equality (civil rights legislation, voting rights, unions, women's rights, etc). 

 

[ren hoek]

I think I agree on what's happening, if not on the answer itself.  Suffice it to say I think the answer is decentralization and spontaneous order, not minimum wage sleight of hand.  

Fighting over the minimum wage is misguided crumbs.  Fighting for real autonomy over what happens with the product of our own labor, our currency, and a fair entrepreneurial framework is where favor shifts toward working people. Well met PS 

@Politician Spock

 

[TobiasFunke]

Transparency should have been a winning issue for Clinton. But she couldn't hammer Trump on it because of her hypocrisy. So yeah, it definitely had something to do with her losing.

No, she was fine on transparency, especially as compared to Trump.  Think taxes, for example, or responding to accusations of misstatements instead of ignoring the criticisms. People are just idiots and she wasn't an effective campaigner. 

 

[The Commish]

No, she was fine on transparency, especially as compared to Trump.  Think taxes, for example, or responding to accusations of misstatements instead of ignoring the criticisms. People are just idiots and she wasn't an effective campaigner. 

Tobias...love ya dude, but this is the ONLY way she was "fine" on transparency...The ONLY way.  By any other useful measure she falls flat on her face.

 

[Henry Ford]

Y'know, you come in every thread and spout this fake stuff.  

You claim to have it so good so why aren't you doing more to help?  Nothing is stopping you from sending in more tax money.

Yes, something is.  If you pay more than your tax return says you should, the IRS refunds it.

 

[eoMMan]

Yes, something is.  If you pay more than your tax return says you should, the IRS refunds it.

"If you want to make a voluntary contribution to the US government, you must do so by sending a separate payment to the Treasury via the Bureau of the Fiscal Service with the notation that it be used to “reduce the debt held by the public”. You may deduct (as a charitable donation) a gift to the government to reduce the debt."

Google lost my link..

 

[Henry Ford]

"If you want to make a voluntary contribution to the US government, you must do so by sending a separate payment to the Treasury via the Bureau of the Fiscal Service with the notation that it be used to “reduce the debt held by the public”. You may deduct (as a charitable donation) a gift to the government to reduce the debt."

Google lost my link..

That's not tax money.

Edit: Here's the link.

 

[RCon]

No, she was fine on transparency, especially as compared to Trump.  Think taxes, for example, or responding to accusations of misstatements instead of ignoring the criticisms. People are just idiots and she wasn't an effective campaigner. 

Compared to Trump?  Sure.  Judged pass/fail on her own?  No, she is/was clearly a "fail" on transparency.