login
MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-01-29 2:26 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Extreme Veteran  3025    Maryland |  Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL???Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? why do you hate non-american humans? |
| 2014-01-29 2:30 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? Illegal immigrant or not, if they're working on a federally funded construction project then they're already earning well over minimum wage. Federal law requires that all onsite labor be paid whatever the local prevailing wage rate of the union is. |
| 2014-01-29 2:34 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by dmiller5 got it from here http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357-federal-minimum-wage-increase/ see figure "F" X The Economic Policy Institute could not be viewed as an unbiased source. Even if the majority are not teenagers, there is a large percentage of minimum wage earners that are either teenagers or young adults who are in school with a small percentage of those people falling under the poverty level. Regardless of the rhetoric raising the minimum wage does little to raise people or families out of poverty. Raising the minimum wage likely hurts the poor and unemployed the most. β |
| 2014-01-29 2:36 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 1293 Pearland,Tx | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? why do you hate non-american humans? I dont hate them, i just dont like giving free passes who cut in line . They cut in infront of the line of millions of applicants of aspiring immigrants and they are going to get a pardon??? Edited by strykergt 2014-01-29 2:37 PM |
| 2014-01-29 2:40 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Pro 15655  | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by dmiller5 I dont hate them, i just dont like giving free passes who cut in line . They cut in infront of the line of millions of applicants of aspiring immigrants and they are going to get a pardon??? Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? why do you hate non-american humans? Would it be OK with you if EVERY immigrant got a pardon? Thatr's what I'd like to see. Of course, then you'd still have allo those workers on the highways in Texas, but at least it'd be fair. |
| 2014-01-29 2:53 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? I wanted to find another source for information about minimum wage workers and found this in the BLS pretty quickly. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. The other article quoted referred to people that would benefit from a increase to $10 an hour, so it likely brings in some more older people with families. |
| 2014-01-29 3:01 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by strykergt Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. That makes no sense. The reason why people hire illegal immigrants over documented workers is because it's less expensive to do so. If the "legalized illegals" are subject to the same $10 minimum wage as other documented workers, there's no incentive to hire them over documented workers and the contractors will hire whoever the most qualified candidate is. Are you saying you'd rather that the federal government hire less-qualified candidates for the same money they could pay for better-qualified candidates? |
| 2014-01-29 3:09 PM in reply to: jmcconne |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmcconne I wanted to find another source for information about minimum wage workers and found this in the BLS pretty quickly. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. The other article quoted referred to people that would benefit from a increase to $10 an hour, so it likely brings in some more older people with families. Did you notice what is the unemployment rate for that demographic? I would guess that it is significantly higher than average. |
| 2014-02-18 6:09 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? What's up with this CBO, how do they keep letting stuff like this get out. Congressional Budget Office: Wage hike would lift pay but cost jobs
|
| 2014-02-24 2:01 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 358 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? I don't understand why they don't set the MW to be 40(MW)=PovertyLine, and index it to inflation and be done with it.
It's stupid that it's a political football. |
| 2014-02-24 2:26 PM in reply to: RussTKD |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by RussTKD Poverty Guidelines and Poverty Thresholds are different depending upon the number of people in a family. I can't see how that could be used to calculate minimum wage. Maybe you are thinking of something else. I don't understand why they don't set the MW to be 40(MW)=PovertyLine, and index it to inflation and be done with it.
It's stupid that it's a political football. |
| 2014-02-24 7:19 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by dmiller5 only businesses that were paying minimum wage to begin with would raise prices, so only the price of select things would go up. Not to mention that fact that big business is more profitable now than ever in our history compared to the wages payed to the employees. Many of them can afford it without raising prices. You sound like you have a pretty good understanding of the pros and cons if the minimum wage goes to $10.10.... Can you explain how raising the bottom, thus bringing more middle class workers closer to the bottom is a positive for the vast majority of the middle class? |
| 2014-03-09 9:53 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by dmiller5 only businesses that were paying minimum wage to begin with would raise prices, so only the price of select things would go up. Not to mention that fact that big business is more profitable now than ever in our history compared to the wages payed to the employees. Many of them can afford it without raising prices. You sound like you have a pretty good understanding of the pros and cons if the minimum wage goes to $10.10.... Can you explain how raising the bottom, thus bringing more middle class workers closer to the bottom is a positive for the vast majority of the middle class? Anyone?
|
| 2014-03-10 12:58 AM in reply to: crusevegas |
Extreme Veteran 1190 Silicon Valley | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? |
| 2014-03-12 1:37 PM in reply to: Stuartap |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. |
| 2014-03-12 1:43 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
|
| 2014-03-12 2:41 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class? By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. |
| 2014-03-13 8:39 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class? By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
I wish it were as simple as just giving a little extra money to the poor because that seems reasonable and appropriote. Even your $80-$100/week example seems pretty innocuous but $100/week times 75 Million people that work at minimum wage in the US (above age 16) equals $7.5B of additional expense per week or $390B per year of additional employer expense. Yes, it also equals an additional $390B of additional income, but it's really a wash as far as the economy as a whole is concerned. More expense = more income = net nothing. The math is really simple, if a company has to pay an additional $10k per month in payroll then that $10k has to come from somewhere. They have to reduce profits, cut costs, or increase prices. There may be a little of each, but most people agree the majority of the difference comes through increased prices. If it's an industry where the clients are rich folks then it benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, if it's an industry/product that is primarily consumed by the poor then it benefits the poor at the expense of the poor. If you strip back the layers, it's really nothing more than yet another income redistribution scheme with an attempt to take more money from the rich and middle class (by force) and give it to the poor. No matter what we do, we will always have poor people. You can raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. and we will still have poor people. Being poor isn't an income level, it's a mindset. I could give my sister $1M and she will flat broke within 30 days and likely far worse off because she has a poor mindset. The other part that people don't realize is increasing costs for a business gives them an incentive to cut costs through automation and outsourcing. Bill Gates spoke on this danger just a few months ago: Raising the minimum wage in small amounts isn't a huge deal, but it also doesn't really help anyone either. Raising it large amounts like the $15/hour being thrown around would cause a tremendous amount of impact. Personally, I feel we're much better served by creating programs that help people get out of the "poor mindset" and stop settling for minimum wage jobs in the first place.
|
| 2014-03-13 9:24 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class? By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
I wish it were as simple as just giving a little extra money to the poor because that seems reasonable and appropriote. Even your $80-$100/week example seems pretty innocuous but $100/week times 75 Million people that work at minimum wage in the US (above age 16) equals $7.5B of additional expense per week or $390B per year of additional employer expense. Yes, it also equals an additional $390B of additional income, but it's really a wash as far as the economy as a whole is concerned. More expense = more income = net nothing. The math is really simple, if a company has to pay an additional $10k per month in payroll then that $10k has to come from somewhere. They have to reduce profits, cut costs, or increase prices. There may be a little of each, but most people agree the majority of the difference comes through increased prices. If it's an industry where the clients are rich folks then it benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, if it's an industry/product that is primarily consumed by the poor then it benefits the poor at the expense of the poor. If you strip back the layers, it's really nothing more than yet another income redistribution scheme with an attempt to take more money from the rich and middle class (by force) and give it to the poor. No matter what we do, we will always have poor people. You can raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. and we will still have poor people. Being poor isn't an income level, it's a mindset. I could give my sister $1M and she will flat broke within 30 days and likely far worse off because she has a poor mindset. The other part that people don't realize is increasing costs for a business gives them an incentive to cut costs through automation and outsourcing. Bill Gates spoke on this danger just a few months ago: Raising the minimum wage in small amounts isn't a huge deal, but it also doesn't really help anyone either. Raising it large amounts like the $15/hour being thrown around would cause a tremendous amount of impact. Personally, I feel we're much better served by creating programs that help people get out of the "poor mindset" and stop settling for minimum wage jobs in the first place.
So your argument basically boils down to "the poor are fundamentally inferior, because they have a 'poor mindset', and so why should the rest of us waste money on them?" That's more or less what I figured, but thanks for putting it in such stark terms. The funny thing is that if the government proposed a bunch of "Programs that Help People Get Out of the Poor Mindset and Stop Settling For Minimum Wage Jobs In the First Place" people would yell and scream about having to pay for that too. Bottom line, people care about themselves and themselves alone, and that's going to be fine for a while, but it's ultimately unsustainable. The pool of what constitutes poor in this country is getting larger and larger as the middle class gets smaller and smaller. Sooner or later a lot of people who think they sit above what's considered "poor" are are going to look around and find that the standard of living they enjoyed is getting harder and harder to afford and that their kids will have zero chance of owning a home or paying for college on their own, and they'll wish they'd been a little more compassionate back when they were looking down their noses at the poor. That day is coming. It's already arrived for a lot of people. |
| 2014-03-13 9:38 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood So your argument basically boils down to "the poor are fundamentally inferior, because they have a 'poor mindset', and so why should the rest of us waste money on them?" That's more or less what I figured, but thanks for putting it in such stark terms. The funny thing is that if the government proposed a bunch of "Programs that Help People Get Out of the Poor Mindset and Stop Settling For Minimum Wage Jobs In the First Place" people would yell and scream about having to pay for that too. Bottom line, people care about themselves and themselves alone, and that's going to be fine for a while, but it's ultimately unsustainable. The pool of what constitutes poor in this country is getting larger and larger as the middle class gets smaller and smaller. Sooner or later a lot of people who think they sit above what's considered "poor" are are going to look around and find that the standard of living they enjoyed is getting harder and harder to afford and that their kids will have zero chance of owning a home or paying for college on their own, and they'll wish they'd been a little more compassionate back when they were looking down their noses at the poor. That day is coming. It's already arrived for a lot of people. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class? By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
I wish it were as simple as just giving a little extra money to the poor because that seems reasonable and appropriote. Even your $80-$100/week example seems pretty innocuous but $100/week times 75 Million people that work at minimum wage in the US (above age 16) equals $7.5B of additional expense per week or $390B per year of additional employer expense. Yes, it also equals an additional $390B of additional income, but it's really a wash as far as the economy as a whole is concerned. More expense = more income = net nothing. The math is really simple, if a company has to pay an additional $10k per month in payroll then that $10k has to come from somewhere. They have to reduce profits, cut costs, or increase prices. There may be a little of each, but most people agree the majority of the difference comes through increased prices. If it's an industry where the clients are rich folks then it benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, if it's an industry/product that is primarily consumed by the poor then it benefits the poor at the expense of the poor. If you strip back the layers, it's really nothing more than yet another income redistribution scheme with an attempt to take more money from the rich and middle class (by force) and give it to the poor. No matter what we do, we will always have poor people. You can raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. and we will still have poor people. Being poor isn't an income level, it's a mindset. I could give my sister $1M and she will flat broke within 30 days and likely far worse off because she has a poor mindset. The other part that people don't realize is increasing costs for a business gives them an incentive to cut costs through automation and outsourcing. Bill Gates spoke on this danger just a few months ago: Raising the minimum wage in small amounts isn't a huge deal, but it also doesn't really help anyone either. Raising it large amounts like the $15/hour being thrown around would cause a tremendous amount of impact. Personally, I feel we're much better served by creating programs that help people get out of the "poor mindset" and stop settling for minimum wage jobs in the first place.
I think my point went about 10 feet over your head. You and I both have the same level of compassion for the poor, but you want to just "give them money" to make things better and I want to help them so that nobody ever has to "give them money" for the rest of their life. The old Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for the day, or teach him to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life" is very relevant to this discussion. You want to give the poor a fish, but you don't want to teach them to fish. Not only do you not want to teach them to fish, you don't want to just give them your fish, you want to force everyone else to give them their fish as well because they have too many fish due to being better fishermen. Does that sum it up pretty well? The "progressives" in our government want to fix all the symptoms of our society but they completely ignore the actual problems. Poor is a mindset whether you choose to believe it or not. Nobody is inferior to me in any way shape or form because we are all Gods creation in my eyes. I truly want to help people by lifting them up. I don't want to look down upon them and give them a hand out which does nothing more than keep them down for the long haul. |
| 2014-03-13 12:17 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood So your argument basically boils down to "the poor are fundamentally inferior, because they have a 'poor mindset', and so why should the rest of us waste money on them?" That's more or less what I figured, but thanks for putting it in such stark terms. The funny thing is that if the government proposed a bunch of "Programs that Help People Get Out of the Poor Mindset and Stop Settling For Minimum Wage Jobs In the First Place" people would yell and scream about having to pay for that too. Bottom line, people care about themselves and themselves alone, and that's going to be fine for a while, but it's ultimately unsustainable. The pool of what constitutes poor in this country is getting larger and larger as the middle class gets smaller and smaller. Sooner or later a lot of people who think they sit above what's considered "poor" are are going to look around and find that the standard of living they enjoyed is getting harder and harder to afford and that their kids will have zero chance of owning a home or paying for college on their own, and they'll wish they'd been a little more compassionate back when they were looking down their noses at the poor. That day is coming. It's already arrived for a lot of people. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class? By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
I wish it were as simple as just giving a little extra money to the poor because that seems reasonable and appropriote. Even your $80-$100/week example seems pretty innocuous but $100/week times 75 Million people that work at minimum wage in the US (above age 16) equals $7.5B of additional expense per week or $390B per year of additional employer expense. Yes, it also equals an additional $390B of additional income, but it's really a wash as far as the economy as a whole is concerned. More expense = more income = net nothing. The math is really simple, if a company has to pay an additional $10k per month in payroll then that $10k has to come from somewhere. They have to reduce profits, cut costs, or increase prices. There may be a little of each, but most people agree the majority of the difference comes through increased prices. If it's an industry where the clients are rich folks then it benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, if it's an industry/product that is primarily consumed by the poor then it benefits the poor at the expense of the poor. If you strip back the layers, it's really nothing more than yet another income redistribution scheme with an attempt to take more money from the rich and middle class (by force) and give it to the poor. No matter what we do, we will always have poor people. You can raise the minimum wage to $100/hr. and we will still have poor people. Being poor isn't an income level, it's a mindset. I could give my sister $1M and she will flat broke within 30 days and likely far worse off because she has a poor mindset. The other part that people don't realize is increasing costs for a business gives them an incentive to cut costs through automation and outsourcing. Bill Gates spoke on this danger just a few months ago: Raising the minimum wage in small amounts isn't a huge deal, but it also doesn't really help anyone either. Raising it large amounts like the $15/hour being thrown around would cause a tremendous amount of impact. Personally, I feel we're much better served by creating programs that help people get out of the "poor mindset" and stop settling for minimum wage jobs in the first place.
I think my point went about 10 feet over your head. You and I both have the same level of compassion for the poor, but you want to just "give them money" to make things better and I want to help them so that nobody ever has to "give them money" for the rest of their life. The old Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for the day, or teach him to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life" is very relevant to this discussion. You want to give the poor a fish, but you don't want to teach them to fish. Not only do you not want to teach them to fish, you don't want to just give them your fish, you want to force everyone else to give them their fish as well because they have too many fish due to being better fishermen. Does that sum it up pretty well? The "progressives" in our government want to fix all the symptoms of our society but they completely ignore the actual problems. Poor is a mindset whether you choose to believe it or not. Nobody is inferior to me in any way shape or form because we are all Gods creation in my eyes. I truly want to help people by lifting them up. I don't want to look down upon them and give them a hand out which does nothing more than keep them down for the long haul. If what you were saying was true, that what you and others want to do is merely to teach and empower the poor to fend for themselves, so to speak, there would be all kinds of inventive legislation coming out of the GOP and conservatives in general proposing ways to do that. Instead, what we get is guys like Paul Ryan saying stuff like this, which is, more or less what you said above, : ”We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…you need to get involved, you need to get involved yourself, whether through a good mentor program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference. And that’s how we resuscitate our culture.” So his suggestion for how we fix it? Basically, "I dunno. They should find a mentor to help them or go to church or something." Thanks Paul. Great ideas there. He goes on to cite the work of Charles Murray, who believes and has written that intelligence is genetic and that, in particular, blacks are genetically less intelligent than other races, which accounts for their lower average socioeconomic status. You should explain to him that thing about us all being G-d's creation, and therefore equal, because I think he missed the memo. My point is, it's all well and good to say that entitlement programs enable the circle of poverty to continue, and therefore are ultimately detrimental to the people they're trying to help--and there's certainly a lot of truth in that. But, changing the mindset of a culture doesn't happen with the flip of a switch, and the way to make it happen isn't to abruptly pull the rug out from anyone. We didn't get here overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight either. If I truly believed that the GOP and Conservatives actually were willing to devote time and energy and yes, money, to developing programs to assist the poor in the way you're referring to, I would feel very differently, but who are we kidding? They no more want to spend billions on teaching the poor to fish than they do on giving them fish to eat. Not if it's their paychecks paying for the fishing rods. Our society and its economy is a construct that is based on rules that we have created. As with any system, when the rules overwhelmingly favor one side or another, the system cannot perpetually sustain itself if the system depends on everyone acheiving at least a certain level of success, which our national economy certainly does. I'm in favor of long-term change too- the kind you're referring to. But I haven't heard any good ideas from anyone on how to do that, least of all from the party that's proposing the end of entitlement programs and opposing the minimum wage hike. |
| 2014-03-13 12:32 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by strykergt That makes no sense. The reason why people hire illegal immigrants over documented workers is because it's less expensive to do so. If the "legalized illegals" are subject to the same $10 minimum wage as other documented workers, there's no incentive to hire them over documented workers and the contractors will hire whoever the most qualified candidate is. Are you saying you'd rather that the federal government hire less-qualified candidates for the same money they could pay for better-qualified candidates? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? No, that is absolutely not the reason. Most make decent wages. What the employer gets is to pay them under the table with no benefits and no legal recourse. The immigrant gets paid under the table. He gets prevailing wages in most cases, but earns more. Even accepting less money, they will still earn the same as an American on the books. At least in the construction industry here, many roofer are illegal, but get paid the prevailing wage for offers. I only know because I have a few friends that had companies here. This notion that illegals accept work at much lower wages is just nonsense. Even getting prevailing wages, both parties make out over hiring Americans. And this other notion that illegals do jobs Americans do not want... is absolutely 100% false. They have darn near taken over the construction industry. An industry Americans most certainly want to do. |
| 2014-03-13 2:18 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If what you were saying was true, that what you and others want to do is merely to teach and empower the poor to fend for themselves, so to speak, there would be all kinds of inventive legislation coming out of the GOP and conservatives in general proposing ways to do that. Instead, what we get is guys like Paul Ryan saying stuff like this, which is, more or less what you said above, : ”We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…you need to get involved, you need to get involved yourself, whether through a good mentor program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference. And that’s how we resuscitate our culture.” So his suggestion for how we fix it? Basically, "I dunno. They should find a mentor to help them or go to church or something." Thanks Paul. Great ideas there. He goes on to cite the work of Charles Murray, who believes and has written that intelligence is genetic and that, in particular, blacks are genetically less intelligent than other races, which accounts for their lower average socioeconomic status. You should explain to him that thing about us all being G-d's creation, and therefore equal, because I think he missed the memo. My point is, it's all well and good to say that entitlement programs enable the circle of poverty to continue, and therefore are ultimately detrimental to the people they're trying to help--and there's certainly a lot of truth in that. But, changing the mindset of a culture doesn't happen with the flip of a switch, and the way to make it happen isn't to abruptly pull the rug out from anyone. We didn't get here overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight either. If I truly believed that the GOP and Conservatives actually were willing to devote time and energy and yes, money, to developing programs to assist the poor in the way you're referring to, I would feel very differently, but who are we kidding? They no more want to spend billions on teaching the poor to fish than they do on giving them fish to eat. Not if it's their paychecks paying for the fishing rods. Our society and its economy is a construct that is based on rules that we have created. As with any system, when the rules overwhelmingly favor one side or another, the system cannot perpetually sustain itself if the system depends on everyone acheiving at least a certain level of success, which our national economy certainly does. I'm in favor of long-term change too- the kind you're referring to. But I haven't heard any good ideas from anyone on how to do that, least of all from the party that's proposing the end of entitlement programs and opposing the minimum wage hike. I'm in complete agreement with you that we can't just rip the rug out from under the poor. It's something that will likely take generations to fix if we did absolutely everything right from here on out, and we know that's not going to happen. I'm also a big fan of safety nets for the poor because stuff does happen and I do feel society has a role in caring for those that fall upon hard times. The programs that I have seen work with a lot of success are almost exclusively run at the local level with State/City funding. It seems like whenever the Feds try to "fund" a program no matter who is doing it there is so much bloat and waste in it that it doesn't help anybody in the long run. My wife and I give a lot of money and time to a charity called the Hope Center for Kids here in Omaha and they built a young adult employment center with the express purpose of teaching basic working skills to young adults in the inner city. It's amazing how many of these people grow up with lousy parents, lousy neighborhoods, lousy schools, lousy friends, lousy work ethics, and the list goes on and on. The genetics argument is stupid because we're all capable of great success, but if surrounded by nothing but failure your whole life then anyone (of any ethnicity) will have a very difficult time breaking free. There's just no one fix for any of these issues and I don't profess to have all the answers, but I feel very strongly that simply giving more money to everyone is not going to fix anything. All in all, I don't think we're that far apart on this one jmk. |
| 2014-03-13 2:53 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Looking to the Federal government solve this problem is foolish. Since the LBJ programs started in the 60's, nothing has worked to solve the problem currently being discussed. It has been a failure. Almost 50 years, trillions of dollars spent, and guess what? Nothing has changed. The problem is still with us at similar levels found in the 60's. So why do we believe more money and programs are the answer? It will never be solved at the federal level. It needs to start with people working at the local level to change the heart of a culture promoted by politicians that people cannot make it w/o the "help" of the federal/state government. The entire notion that people are "entitled" to the wages of another is the root of the problem. But as long as people get elected to power because they promise one group the fruit of another person's labor nothing will ever change. Except more money will be spent and folks like us will still be having the same discussion. |
| 2014-03-14 7:59 AM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? To inject a little humor and a whole lot of truth, here's a window into the poor mindset. This article is almost 100% of what I went through and still struggle with today. I'm a very successful guy who would be considered "rich" in almost any category, but I struggle a LOT with the "poor mindset" because of growing up so poor. I showed this to my wife last night and there were several "oh my god" moments where we match this article exactly. I even ate bowls of ketchup as a kid for meals and my wife and I both only have two pairs of jeans today. lol |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Protests for $15 an hour minimum wage Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | ||
| Prayer in School Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK