Does not seem to be up for discussion here.
When the subject is difficult for many here to recognize, there would be ten posters already by now if the rate were going down....
What are the reasons for this situation?
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663
Better yet, what are your suggestions for dealing with it?
Wow, that really is a rather large increase. From 13.2 to 15.4%. Oklahoma and other rural based states will always have higher poverty rates than larger states, simply because of the way the statistic is generated ($$$ goes a lot farther in rural Oklahoma). However, to see that number rise is the real indicator that things are off.
I'm afraid I do not know what could account for this. Oklahoma has one of the lowest unemployment rates, a booming oil and industrial sector, and the cities have seen solid white collar job growth in the last couple years. The only thing that I can think of is that farm income was down last year when the drought battered rural Oklahoma.
Keep in mind that government subsidies are not counted when calculating poverty. Food stamps, section 8, welfare, WIC, free child care, title 19, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, tax credits (handouts) and FARM SUBSIDIES do not count as income (meaning that while XYZ % of the population's earnings is below the poverty line, they are likely living off of a higher actual income). I know last year was bad enough that farm subsidies kicked in for most Oklahoma farmers. I wonder if that was high enough to account for the shift?
That's my only thought. The article does not really attempt to explain why and the state does seem to have a good records database on the subject. I could go to the Employment Statistics database from the fed... but that's a ton of work.
Nationwide poverty was down to 12.3% while uninsured went up. In Oklahoma, poverty went up and the number of insured went up. Strange deal.
and just for Shadow's, remember the good old days in the late 50's and early 1960's when everything was awesome and happy and no one went without? Turns out poverty levels were twice what they are today. I need a pair of those rose glasses.
Pretty graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poverty_59_to_05.png
Actual Data:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf (has the same graph in it, but a 3.4mg pdf)
Some folks just flat refuse to get off there donkey and go to work......Although I will consider the source of information.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Some folks just flat refuse to get off there donkey and go to work......Although I will consider the source of information.....
Yes, TulsaWhirled does a half donkey job.....
Why not make suggestions Burned instead of your usual smart alleck immature comments?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Does not seem to be up for discussion here.
When the subject is difficult for many here to recognize, there would be ten posters already by now if the rate were going down....
What are the reasons for this situation?
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663
Better yet, what are your suggestions for dealing with it?
This data is statewide, not Tulsa specific, but it goes to something I was posting on this thread.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7389&whichpage=2
quote:
Originally posted by swake
My guess would be that the upper third of the earners in Tulsa do very well compared to national numbers, and that the middle third does just about average and that the bottom third does well worse than average, mostly due to a lack a union presence here and our "by your own bootstraps" culture where society looks down on the poor and doesn't really seem to want to help their situation. I think you would find that the divorce rate also hits that bottom third hard as well. Our crime rate is at least partially an outgrowth of that underlying weakness.
Even in Tulsa, people in the bottom tier of earners are struggling, despite our improving economy. This problem is more pronounced statewide than it is in Tulsa, thus the article you are quoting. Oklahoma is no longer in the bottom ten poorest states, but we still have a problem with poverty.
Much of the problem is due to the fact that poverty is not purely an economics driven issue. Our high rates of divorce, unwed mothers, increasing new immigrant population (legal and not) and our high percentage (as a state) of people in rural areas all impact these numbers. These areas are poor and aging.
These factors are all going to impact our poverty rates, and none of them have to do with the state's economy.
There are solutions, some that we are working on and others that Oklahoma should be working on:
Lower the divorce and unwed mother rate
Improve education at the elementary and secondary levels, especially in rural areas
Increase job opportunities in rural areas
Raise the minimum wage
Do something about illegal immigrants that work outside of labor laws (get rid of them or legalize them, I'm not advocating a decision here one way or another, but something should be done).
quote:
Lower the divorce and unwed mother rate
This is interesting. What do you actually think can be done about this one? This seems like a tall order.
quote:
Raise the minimum wage
Raising the minimum wage has never had an effect on poverty levels. It simply bumps everything up a notch and knocks off some jobs at the bottom. Since poverty is based on relative earnings, raising the min. wage would not necessarily raise increase real wages as everything goes up in price and other pay scales are adjusted accordingly.
Not to mention, not even Wal-Mart or McDonald's pays the minimum wage. Its effect on full time employees would be pretty close to zero. Unless, of course, you meant generally raising the bar on the lower wages... which would be nice and SHOULD be happening as demand for employees outstrips supply. At least at the companies that want the best.
But certainly the other factors you mentioned would be of infinite value. How to accomplish them, I do not know.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Lower the divorce and unwed mother rate
This is interesting. What do you actually think can be done about this one? This seems like a tall order.
Education Education...so nice I said it twice
What type of education would lower these two stats?
I did a cursory scan of the report, if you want to read all 78 pages of it:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
Poverty level being defined as $20,614 for a family of four means equates to roughly a $10.25 an hour.
Seems that the majority jobs our CoC has been working on bringing to Tulsa are for non-skilled call center jobs which pay $9 to $11 per hour to start.
Perhaps we don't set our goals high enough for what types of jobs we attract, or perhaps Oklahoma is seen as having a great pool of un-skilled labor and it's a perception issue.
Maybe more emphasis on higher education wouldn't hurt.
quote:
Better yet, what are your suggestions for dealing with it?
AOX, the answer is right in front of you--Blame Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Better yet, what are your suggestions for dealing with it?
AOX, the answer is right in front of you--Blame Bush.
I must not be the only one that thinks the Idiot in Charge has contributed to this mess....
You don't understand mild personal attack removed[/red[?
THE AXMAN!
Editorial
A Sobering Census Report: Americans' Meager Income Gains
Published: August 29, 2007 NYT
The economic party is winding down and most working Americans never even got near the punch bowl.
The Census Bureau reported yesterday that median household income rose 0.7 percent last year — it's second annual increase in a row— to $48,201. The share of households living in poverty fell to 12.3 percent from 12.6 percent in 2005. This seems like welcome news, but a deeper look at the belated improvement in these numbers — more than five years after the end of the last recession — underscores how the gains from economic growth have failed to benefit most of the population.
The median household income last year was still about $1,000 less than in 2000, before the onset of the last recession. In 2006, 36.5 million Americans were living in poverty — 5 million more than six years before, when the poverty rate fell to 11.3 percent.
And what is perhaps most disturbing is that it appears this is as good as it's going to get.
Sputtering under the weight of the credit crisis and the associated drop in the housing market, the economic expansion that started in 2001 looks like it might enter history books with the dubious distinction of being the only sustained expansion on record in which the incomes of typical American households never reached the peak of the previous cycle. It seems that ordinary working families are going to have to wait — at the very minimum — until the next cycle to make up the losses they suffered in this one. There's no guarantee they will.
The gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow. The poverty rate declined among the elderly, but it remained unchanged for people under 65. Analyzed by race, only Hispanics saw poverty decline on average while other groups experienced no gains.
The fortunes of middle-class, working Americans also appear less upbeat on closer consideration of the data. Indeed, earnings of men and women working full time actually fell more than 1 percent last year.
This suggests that when household incomes rose, it was because more members of the household went to work, not because anybody got a bigger paycheck. The median income of working-age households, those headed by somebody younger than 65, remained more than 2 percent lower than in 2001, the year of the recession.
Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation's economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.
Standard measures of inequality did not increase last year, according to the new census data. But over a longer period, the trend becomes crystal clear: the only group for which earnings in 2006 exceeded those of 2000 were the households in the top five percent of the earnings distribution. For everybody else, they were lower.
This stilted distribution of rewards underscores how economic growth alone has been insufficient to provide better living standards for most American families. What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly — be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care.
Unfortunately, these policies are unlikely to come from the current White House. This administration prefers tax cuts for the lucky ones in the top five percent.
AOX, that article is rife with problems. This is seriously one of the weakest editorials I have ever read. There are plenty of holes in the economy that could be punched, this guy chose the wrong battles and constructed them poorly.
1) Dis proves its own premise.
The premise was: recovery is not good for lower income Americans. But in the very first paragraph we learn that the poverty level fell. The poverty level is, by definition, a measure of the lower income.
2) It changes between statistical comparisons and numbers.
5 Million more in poverty! Gasp. Or to compare apples to apples, 1% more.
3) 2000 was the peak of the bubble.
This same editorial board was blabbing about how it wasnt "real wealth" when the dotcom boom was going on, now they compare numbers to the dotcom boom to show how bad things are now. You can not have it both ways. Either the numbers then were exaggerated and thus not a good comparison, or the numbers then were valid and the editorial board has somehow changed history.
4) Median Household Income
Last week, during the article about median income being up, you argued that it was not a good measurement of over all wealth. Somehow it has become so again, when comparing current numbers with the fictional wealth of the dotcom - which, by all accounts, created a greater disparity than any other economic boom in history (and under a democrat no less... gasp!).
Is it a valid measurement or not? Is disparity of wealth more important than it was during the dotcom years when the haves really ran the bank? What has changed to make it so?
5) See, the rich get richer!
"Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation's economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else."
No support. No backing. Not even an argument, just a blanket statement left to stand in contrast to the point of the article - THAT POVERTY RATES FELL. Again, poverty rates are a measure of wealth at the lower level...
6) and the punchline:
quote:
What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly — be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care.
The government sucks, what we need is MORE government. "More progressive taxation" are you kidding me? Currently the bottom 50% don't pay anything at all. What more could you want?
Not that I am surprised. You could just skip the NYT and AOX editorials and replace them with "what we need is socialism." More government: usually the answer because it has done so well thus far!
7) Tax cuts for lucky 5%.
Odds are, if you are in the top 5% of wage earners you are not there by luck. The entire notion that rich people are lucky is usually a joke. The wealthiest people I know have work way harder that I am willing to in order to get where they are. A person starts a company, goes to law or medical school, or creates a life changing invention and you write him off as lucky?
I guess that's the entire problem, the outlook. I see successful people and say "what do I have to do to get there." You see them and say "stupid lucky jerk, I wish the government would take what he has." I deplore that attitude.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What type of education would lower these two stats?
Education systems that succeed in educating people? The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.
*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*
It would be interesting to see the change in poverty rates by county.
But, didnt I see a statistic a while back that said Tulsas high school drop out rate was about 30%! I dont care how much better the economy gets, if your a high school drop out, your likely to be poor.
Not to mention if the drop out rate is so high one has to wonder about these kids parents. They aren't likely to be all that competent or successful. Don't know what other words to use. Large percentage of drop out kids is more likely the result of a large number of, well, not too competent adults. High obesity rates, high rates of bad health, high divorce, etc. etc.
All of these thing point to a large underclass that make bad choices, has a poor set of "tools", attitudes, thought processes, belief systems, etc. with which to navigate life.
One of the best things we could do to remedy that situation is to improve our quality and intensity of educational services. May not be able to help the adults because you cant force them to learn and grow. But you may be able to break the cycle with better education for their children. This would require more teachers per student, especially those students who are the poorest. More mentoring. Whatever it takes to get these kids in contact with competent adults and institutions that can impart important life lessons, attitudes, etc.
However when our state spends less than even the local median on such things, I cant see how we are going to be willing to pay more than the median, which is what it would take to have the intensity of effort it would take to make a real difference.
Thats the only thing I can think of anyway. Other than a massive volunteering effort.
Poverty level is defined by income. Yes?
Let's say that some guy works in a machine shop out in Woodward and has a family of four. He earns $20K per year but lives in a house left to him by a grand parent and has hand-me-down vehicles. Since his expenses are lower than someone paying rent and a car payment, does that mean he's living at the same level of poverty as someone who doesn't have those economic advantages? He's got more disposable income. Even if he did pay rent, generally housing costs less in rural areas than it does in Tulsa or OKC.
College grads generally are going to earn more than high school grads. So are people who have completed tech programs. Though tech programs tend to be pushed more in rural areas and I would assume that's where you see more of a poverty-level existence.
I think TCC's commitment to free tuition was a step in the right direction. An example of how that can help was in the Tulsa World either today or yesterday. They are having to staff up to compensate for the increase in enrollment.
Perhaps even better in-state tuition rates at other state-run universities would help as well. It seems to have spurred interest at TCC. Let's hope that will translate to the image of a better-educated talent pool which will attract more high paying jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What type of education would lower these two stats?
Education systems that succeed in educating people? The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.
*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*
What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother? Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me. I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...
^churchianity....it got us this far.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
^churchianity....it got us this far.
What the heck does that mean. Are you claiming that churches and christians do not care about those in need or moral development?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Raising the minimum wage has never had an effect on poverty levels.
Gee CF, do you get valuable shopping discounts with that
Midtown Elite Card you carry? [:D]
I worked in jobs at or near minimum wage throughout the 80s because I couldn't work full time and still go to college... I PROMISE you, a hike in the minimum wage woulda made a difference... a rather big difference. $3.35 per hour for almost 10 years?... and this crap is happening again... so, as a reaction to the minimum-wage freeze over the last 10 years, many states and cities have passed "livable wage" laws, because minimum wage is no longer "livable" in areas with higher rents and costs of living...
You can come up with all the intellectual psuedo-statistics you want supporting the values of
the NRA (National Restaurant Assoc). [xx(] But please don't ignore the personal experiences of the "lower classes" and the views of the huge majority of the working poor who support a higher minimum wage, even if it may not affect they themselves positively. Per usual, your rich-by-merit arguments completely ignore issues of social class, race, and inherited wealth that nobody in this country wants to recognize anymore... and those who recognize it and speak out are inevitably accused of engaging in "class warfare."
"No, there are no class issues here in the great U. S. of A.... no sir-eee, bob".... so welcome to the Great State of Denial, enjoy your naive stay... [8D]
I understand life ain't fair. I understand that there will be that top 5% of wage-earners whose money makes more money in interest than I do working each week...
...and I do share hard-working values described by former British PM
Maggie Thatcher as "Victorian values"...
quote:
"I was brought up by a Victorian Grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself; we were taught self reliance; we were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to Godliness. You were taught self respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values. You don't hear so much about these things these days, but they were good values and they led to tremendous improvements in the standard of living."
I tried to find something more recent than the link below, but this article reflects my views and concerns pretty accurately... we need to understand the difference between wealth and wages...
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewsbernstein.html
quote:
If you go back to 1979, prior to the period when the growth in inequality really took off in the United States, the top 5 percent on average had 11 times the average income of the bottom 20 percent. If you fast forward to the year 2000, the most recent economic peak, you find that that ratio increased to 19 times. So over the course of those two decades, the gap between the wealthiest and the lowest income families grew from 11 times to 19 times.
------------------------------------------------
If you divide the work force into quintiles, or fifths, based on their wages, in the bottom fifth, 18 percent of the workforce has pension coverage and one-third has health coverage. If you then look at the top fifth, you'll find that 73 percent has pension coverage, and 81 percent has healthcare coverage.
Practically any variable that has to do with how economic growth is distributed — compensation, benefits, pensions, health insurance, quality of education, quality of housing, exposure to crime — will yield this kind of highly skewed result. Wealth disparity is far more concentrated than income disparity.
------------------------------------------------
If you're talking about wealth, the gap between white wealth and black wealth is very extreme because wealth is a more historical variable than income. African Americans by dint of their history in this country have had much less opportunity to accumulate wealth over time.
------------------------------------------------
When unemployment is very low and when we're near full employment, employers typically have to bid up wages to maintain the workforce they need in order to meet high levels of demand. That is what characterizes a tight labor market. There is enough demand out there such that there is competition for workers. In the presence of such competition, employers tend to pay workers a higher wage than they do if unemployment is higher and there is less competition and firms can keep more of their income as profits.
------------------------------------------------
But although the level of pay is somewhat constrained, there is a fairly broad range within which low-wage labor can be paid. Low-wage workers are paid much less now than they used to be. The idea is that a janitor in 1965 was paid a lot more than a janitor in 2000, despite the fact that that person was at least as productive and as well educated in 2000 as he or she was in 1965.
So, what to do locally? Well, we live in a state where there are many more jobs that pay either at or closer to the federal minimum wage than say, Illinois or Minnesota. Even AMP admitted that a big problem for local temp companies with the increase in the minimum wage to $5.85 this summer was the many jobs that paid higher than minimum wage with wage earners who'd require higher wages themselves... provide a minimum wage "floor" and watch a tight labor market take care of the rest...
If Tulsa County taxpayers are being asked to spend hundreds of millions of regressive sales-tax dollars to beautify the city with islands in the middle of the Arkansas River or a more modest plan that still costs hundreds of millions of dollars......
make basic groceries and necessities of life sales-tax exempt or as close to tax exempt as possible...
I know that a lot of the working poor will probably use the savings to buy lottery tickets or go to the casino (
simple luxury means more to you when you're on a tight budget)........
.....but some will find that the extra few dollars ($$$ the rest of us would hardly notice) is going to make their tight budget stretch a little further... tp in bulk instead of by the roll, a box of spaghetti instead of ramen noodles... and maybe even one less predatory payday loan to pay off...
It was alarming to move back here and see so many casinos (one or two? okay, fine. but this is a little extreme, no?).
The lottery is its own regressive tax and those Casinos are even worse.... (see above comment on "simple luxury"). Not sure what you do about that short of education... not a big fan of legislating morality...
Instead of scape-goating illegal workers crossing the border from Mexico, issue work permits so we can figure out the scale of the problem, issue photo id social security cards with the same security features as drivers' licenses, and take the employers and businessmen who have needlessly hired and taken advantage of illlegal workers......
drumroll please......
and deport those employers to their tax-shelter country of origin... (I hear the Cayman Islands are really nice this time of year)... [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What type of education would lower these two stats?
Education systems that succeed in educating people? The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.
*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*
What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother? Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me. I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...
I guess I misinterpreted your post as referring to poverty which is the main thing I think better education can combat.
What Artist was saying about people just being bad decision makers in general can be linked in part to their education and in part to their upbrining (sometimes an overwhelming part). Even something totally unrelated like unwed mother rates would be effected by a more educated population even if you didn't TEACH them morals in school. There are some very LOGICAL atheists and agnostics out there that, while not being taught religion, can make up their own minds on things that are often referred to as moral issues. More highly educated people tend to aspire to do more than live in a trailer and collect welfare, and make life choices to steer themselves away from that kind of existance.
And why are we argueing minimum wage here? It IS going up, the laws are already passed. It just went up from 5.15 to 5.85, will be 6.55 next year, and 7.25 in 2009. It is already a done deal.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What type of education would lower these two stats?
Education systems that succeed in educating people? The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.
*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*
What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother? Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me. I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...
Every class, every teacher, every tutor and mentor, has an influence on a young person morally and otherwise. "Lessons" shouldn't be just about facts and figures. A teacher doesnt have to be of any faith to set a good example. Tell stories, stress the importance of an education, inspire and expect a student to grow and learn, stress the importance of college, demand good manners, ask questions that teach students how to ask the right questions, teach a student how to reason, how to learn, how to think for themselves, etc. etc.
I remember a few teachers who imparted very important lessons that had nothing to do with the class itself. From the earliest days of, sit up straight, the teacher who put a book on your head and made you walk and keep good posture, taught manners, stay in line, dont hit lol. To teachers in high school that demanded propriety, who very importantly EXPECTED you to go to college and be something.
I remember this one little old english teacher who, out of the corner of her eye, saw an army recruiter walking past our classroom door one day. That little old woman got up, practically chased him down and made him, "remove himself from the premises". Then she came back in the classroom and made it known that she did not approve and that HER students, the students of THIS school, were going to college. Not into the army. (I did end up going into the army, however the main reason was so that I could better afford college lol") Teachers should create an environment of high expectations and even peer pressure to succeed and do the right thing.
I remember another high school teacher, who the first day of class, hobbled in with a cane. Then proceeded to give us all a stern looking over. He peered at each and every one of us over the top of his spectacles while the class sat in silence wondering what on earth this guy was about. Then he proceeded to tell us that even if we didn't learn a thing, he was going to teach us how to think, how to reason. He did. Best class I ever had.
I believe that teacher was actually "stolen away" to another school district who wanted him and offered to pay him more.
I could go into many examples of wonderful teachers who often set aside the books and taught us so much that we couldn't have learned in any school text book.
Sad thing is most of those teachers are probably spending more time teaching to the federally mandated tests these days.
Quality teachers cost more. The poorer the student or the more difficult the environment they are from, the more teachers per student and attention they will need. Yet we do just the opposite most of the time.
Good people can teach others how to be good, by interacting with them, by talking and listening to them. Having a young person, who lives in a bad environment, go to school in a good environment with good teachers is about the only way we can "make" another human being become better. You can't make an adult do a lot of things. You cant force them to go here and there even if its for their own good. But we do insist that children go to school. There, is probably the one best chance we have to make a difference, to influence the direction of peoples lives.
^ Wow, great post.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
And why are we argueing minimum wage here? It IS going up, the laws are already passed. It just went up from 5.15 to 5.85, will be 6.55 next year, and 7.25 in 2009. It is already a done deal.
... these statistics from the Tulsa World article are from 2005 and 2006, when min wage was still at 5.15 per hour... and the last 10 years, 1997-2007, is the longest period minimum wage has stayed the same level since min wage law was first set in 1938.
After a republican congress froze the federal minimum wage for 10 years, a dem congress will put in a 41% raise in the minimum wage in the next 2 years...
This doesn't affect most states because minimum wage for the last 5+ years was a running joke...
But it
will affect Oklahoma...
Education? One factor, but not the determining factor as to what's going on here. I think education needs to be more career oriented in the higher grades... in my opinion, too many Tulsa high school grads know more about Geometry and Algebra than about what is expected of them at a job interview... the TCC program is definitely a step in the right direction...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The government sucks, what we need is MORE government. "More progressive taxation" are you kidding me? Currently the bottom 50% don't pay anything at all. What more could you want?
Not that I am surprised. You could just skip the NYT and AOX editorials and replace them with "what we need is socialism." More government: usually the answer because it has done so well thus far!
More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.
After WWI, the top tax bracket paid 77% to finance that war.
The current top tax bracket is 35%... hey, I know, let's just pass the expenses of this Iraq war off onto our children...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
quote:
The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.
***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"??? Wow. I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???
Get off your donkey...Get to work....Poverty is a choice not a condition........
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.
Quote
You could convince me to raise taxes to fund the war. A "war tax" if you will. It would send home the message that this is expensive.
My fear, understanding, and historical belief is that as soon as the government gets its hands on more money... it will keep taking it. The "federal surcharge" on your phone bill was started as a telegram tax to pay for the Mexican American war and they just never took it off the books. Less spending would be very welcomed by me, I would support a balanced budget UNLESS rule with the Unless being a 6 month spending spree without a declaration of war or overt act of congress or some such thing.
Not to mention, this is a burden for the entire country, not just the top 5%. During WWII the lower income earners paid income taxes into the system as well as donating their pots and pans. If you want to make people pay for the war effort, do not just force a small group to do so.
But thank you for the statistics, I did not realize it got so very high during the war. Very understandable and necessary. Then again, it was a struggle for national survival, a different cause to be sure. Liberty was surrender as surely as cash, wait, sounds a little familiar (hyperbole alarm). Anyone, thanks.
Quote
***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"??? Wow. I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???
Look closer at your paycheck. An average household earning 45,000 will pay 8,000 in income taxes. Take your standard deduction of 8,400 and the effective income tax rate for average drops from 13.5% (10% of X + 15% over that... stupid schedules) to something like 7%.
The effective rate decreases from there. With many people earning less than a certain amount actually drawing from the federal government from that long list of handouts. So I am guilty of exaggeration, a better figure is probably that the bottom 35% end up not paying into the system.
Unless we are talking about Social Security/Medicaid. Which, of course, is WAY MORE money than income tax and just gets handed out to other people (I meant put into a "trust" for your future). Or if we are talking about payroll tax contributions by your employer, which match your tax dollars - do not be fooled, this is till YOUR MONEY going to the federal government. Or unemployment taxes. Sales taxes. Property taxes. Use taxes. Licensing fees. Registration fees. Fuel taxes. Excise taxes.
God I hate the current tax system.
I apologies for my exaggeration, my point still stands. The government should not take money from people simply because they can afford it, nor should they spend money just because they can. Nor should they be incompetent. But they do, and they are.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The government sucks, what we need is MORE government. "More progressive taxation" are you kidding me? Currently the bottom 50% don't pay anything at all. What more could you want?
Not that I am surprised. You could just skip the NYT and AOX editorials and replace them with "what we need is socialism." More government: usually the answer because it has done so well thus far!
More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.
After WWI, the top tax bracket paid 77% to finance that war.
The current top tax bracket is 35%... hey, I know, let's just pass the expenses of this Iraq war off onto our children...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
quote:
The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.
***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"??? Wow. I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???
Tell me you didn't just cite Wiki. [xx(]
Raising the tax rate does nothing for the sake of lowering the poverty rate, which is what this discussion is about, not the Iraq war. If you want to talk about progressive taxation and Iraq, then start the millionth thread on Iraq.
Raising the minimum wage is no solution for poverty either. Even at $7.25, the minimum wage would still fall $3.00 below the presently defined poverty level for a family of four, assuming that only one person is working in the household. Raising the minimum wage will also have an effect of raising consumer prices. The people at the bottom of the income heap will generally not see a great improvement in their spending power.
CF, I believe, is referring to the earned income credit and head-of-household breaks for low-income families. Those people do have taxes taken out of their check too just like you. They wind up refunded when they settle up on April 15th.
You couldn't possibly raise the tax rate on the highest earners enough to come up with enough entitlements to pull the rest above the poverty level- that is absolutely no solution.
More entitlements mostly lead to more entitlements. Granted, there are some programs which help people pull themselves up "by their bootstraps" but many just get addicted to the entitlements and don't have any aspirations for a life beyond total government dependence.
Encouraging personal productivity is the only way to get people up out of poverty.
Yeah, the working poor are making out like bandits these days... [xx(]
Does it EVER end for you guys? Does the constant drumbeat of rich-getting-richer EVER BOTHER YOU? Do the rewards of hard work and ever increasing productivity and effeciency in our economy apply to the working poor? If so, why have their wages slipped so badly in the last 3 decades. Our so-called "fair and balanced media" never seem to identify the TRUE PROBLEM... busy telling us the evils of the "liberal elite" while the know-nothing conservative elitists in this country like John Stossel tell us how "greed" should be a celebrated family value... yet our conservative elite are never held accountable for anything... so, if the working poor get a 41% raise in minimum wage in the next couple of years after a decade of stagnation, it has a zero effect on poverty???.... if it were up to conservative elitists like Conan and CF there would never ever be a minimum wage increase... let them eat cake... let's go back to feudalism and indentured servitude... one reason I try to stay away from the politics forum...
So, you hate wiki... do you, Conan, have any reaction to this at all???
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0730/p15s02-wmgn.html?page=1
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewsbernstein.html
Minimum wage has stayed the same for TEN YEARS and you don't even care... you don't have a clue... you pretend to know economics but you don't know people... good people who struggle... bad people who have some really good kids who struggle and get into trouble because both parents work in jobs attached to minimum wage... people who are in vulnerable positions... but hey, screw 'em... there but for the grace of God go I... and no, I'm not naive enough to be a communist...
...or a libertarian... [:O]
I have little patience for stupidity... but should the working poor constantly get BEAT OVER THE HEAD by credit card companies, payday lenders and the like? Every once in a while, when some of those companies know I have a decent job and bad credit, I get remarkably craptastic credit card offers with 150.00 per year annual fees... all sorts of hidden fine print...
Why do you constantly blame the working poor and lower middle class for wanting "entitlements" like the basic living standards provided by social security and a healthcare system that doesn't involve playing Russian Roulette with your life-savings in an emergency room...
Compare those lazy working poor who think they're entitled to everything to my bar room conversation with one of Tulsa's infamous trust fund babies....
"MY dad and grand-dad built half of downtown Tulsa..."
"mkay... guess my dad and grand-dad only fought in 'nam and WWII... sorry."
"I'M moving to Miami."
"Really, I hear it's very convenient to downtown Joplin."
"You're funny. You sound like my grand-dad. But I bet if you had lines of coke on a silver platter in front of you, you'd be face down in it..."
"No. If I were face down in a silver platter filled with lines of coke, I wouldn't be able to work in the morning, wouldn't be able to spend time with people I care about, and ultimately wouldn't have a pot to piss in..."
"You're a loser."
"Pot to kettle, come in kettle... tell me something about yourself that didn't involve entitlements provided by your family."
"Well, I'm moving to Miami, away from this boring hell-hole of a city."
"I guess I lived in Chicago for too many years and had forgotten until reminded by you how obnoxious Tulsa's little clique of entitled, insulated, incestuously self-absorbed trust-fund brats could be... have fun in Miami, I'm sure they'll just love you there... until you run out of money..."
Poor getting poorer, rich getting richer. In a global economy when we have a 30% drop out rate on the one hand and others getting higher learning and starting their own businesses and selling to ever more people. Why shouldnt we expect the drop outs to make less and the others to make more?
That working hard bs isnt going to do anyone any good. Working smart will. Working hard and smart is practically a guarantee.
Working hard in a global economy means your on the level of some rice farmer in China. Not gonna make you a fortune there.
With a 30% drop out rate, those people are not going up no matter how good the economy gets. And frankly I dont think they should. Thats not how the world should work. Why would anyone pay them more? You dont just pay people more for no reason. Especially in a global economy where those people have put themselves on a par with some rice farmer in China.
Education + Effort = Earnings
Working hard and stupid you might as well be an ox pulling a cart, and earn about as much. If that ox could program a computer it might make some money. If it created a new computer product and sold it to hundreds of millions on a world market. It would indeed be very very rich. No matter how rich the programmer gets or the entrepreneur gets, that ox is still going to make the same amount or less as he becomes more and more redundant.
Education + Effort = Earnings
Plug in the initial amounts and see what the results are.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
With a 30% drop out rate, those people are not going up no matter how good the economy gets. And frankly I dont think they should. Thats not how the world should work. Why would anyone pay them more? You dont just pay people more for no reason.
We are talking about the bottom rung of the wage ladder... and we are talking about the working poor who have family... they have children... there used to be this odd, old fashioned concept... I think it was a goal called "equal opportunity."
Getting paid flat, stagnant wages is a WAGE CUT over time. Plain and simple. It doesn't keep up with inflation. When I get a "cost of living increase" at work, it isn't because I did a good job. It's because we all recognize that the price of groceries goes up, your rent goes up... and the price of gas... the price of fast food items goes up.... etc, etc...
Nobody who ever spent their life getting cost of living adjustments ever made themselves wealthy...
Please don't underestimate the power of insisting that the bottom rung and most vulnerable of our workers make wages that don't shrivel in the face of inflation... think about how much gas cost?... and how much food cost ten years ago... how much was rent 10 years ago?... then tell me how people could be expected to work for stagnant wages at or near $5.15 per hour for an entire 10 years...
The average CEO makes 347 times what the average employee makes and the ranks of the working poor are growing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are getting poorer.
There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.
I get what you're talking about the "regional culture," swake, but I think it's a lot more pervasive than that.
I think a huge number of Americans think that poverty is self-inflicted. I encountered this mind-set in Illinois as well as Oklahoma. It's everywhere. They think it's a bunch of people who made bad decisions that prove to have lifetime repercussions.
It could be any number of things: getting yourself pregnant, knocking up a girl, dropping out of high school, drinking too much, drugging too much, running up credit cards, running up big medical bills, etc. Any one of those things can set you back financially in a big way.
Yes, you do have a certain number of people in poverty because of plain bad luck. I suspect it's a relatively small number, although I have no data on this.
I used to be one of those "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" guys when I was younger. But as I get older, I remember times in which I made decisions that put me on the precipice of poverty. Maybe I kept my head. Maybe I took enough precautions. Maybe I simply got lucky.
Regardless, I'm not nearly as inclined to slough off poor people as I used to. I could have been one of them.
I still say education is the best antidote to poverty. A college education may cost tens of thousands of dollars, but most graduates will get all that money back and then some in a relatively short time. A college education is a really good investment.
But I think one thing that needs to be taught more in high schools are home economics classics -- emphasis on economics. Learn how to balance a checkbook. Learn that off-brand food is nearly as good as name brands. Learn to budget. Learn to read the fine print on a credit-card contract, home mortgage or car payment schedule. Start small when buying a home. It staggers me to know how many young people are oblivious about finances such as this.
quote:
I still say education is the best antidote to poverty. A college education may cost tens of thousands of dollars, but most graduates will get all that money back and then some in a relatively short time. A college education is a really good investment.
But I think one thing that needs to be taught more in high schools are home economics classics -- emphasis on economics. Learn how to balance a checkbook. Learn that off-brand food is nearly as good as name brands. Learn to budget. Learn to read the fine print on a credit-card contract, home mortgage or car payment schedule. Start small when buying a home. It staggers me to know how many young people are oblivious about finances such as this.
I agree 100%, but isn't this just a variation of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" argument. It takes effort and tenacity to get an education. Even then, all the education in the world won't be of any benefit to you if you choose not to implement what you've learned. Even with two advanced degrees I could have decided not to act on my education and I could be dirt poor right now.
IOW, even education can't obviate the need for each of us to get up every day and take deliberate and calculated actions that help create success.
There is no other place on the planet like the U S and A that offers you the ability to make something of yourself...even without an education. Hard work and dedication are two things that are RARELY unrewarded in this society. Look at the guy in the Pursuit of Happyness for example.
Iplaw, I guess what I've driving at (which I didn't convey very well) is that I'm still a "pull up bootstraps" type of guy. But I also realize I'm quite lucky and that just because you espouse self-reliance doesn't mean you should throw away your compassion and empathy. I've been too close to the other side to simply not care.
I'm in agreement with ya then...
I guess it also depends on what we mean by compassion and empathy. I can feel bad for the poor all day long and it won't help them, and I can have compassion on them and temporarily help in a time of need, but that again really won't solve anything in the long term (except make me feel good about myself for what a nice guy I am)...which incidentally is why I enjoy serving the community from time to time (probably should more often).
The only long term solution to poverty is hard work and education.
I can't imagine looking down on someone for having less than me, but I do often wonder why I chose early in life to make decisions that enabled me to be successful now...
The following is long because many issues were raised. I tried to be very clear in my response and organized. I am happy to respond and discuss so long as you attempt to be equally clear and civil - my guess is that in the end, we are not that far from the same position.
1) I am not an elitist.
I am firmly middle class. I drive a 1999 Nissan Altima, my wife a 2000 Taurus. We live in a 1350 Sq foot house we bought for $84,600 in 2003. I have $77,000.00 in student loans. My son goes to public schools. Of the extra money that I do have; I donate to several schools and scholarship programs, the Tulsa Zoo, and various other charities.
That's square in the middle of the road and my only proximity to the upper class is that they are a mile down the road from me. I plan on working hard, saving some money, and moving there myself someday. Then I may be an elitist, but I do not think I'm there yet...
2) Minimum Wage increases will not improve the poverty rate.
If government dictation of wages had a real effect on the economy I would be in favor of dictating $50,000 for everyone. Poof, everyone is middle class and all is well in the world. The same reasons that will not work, are the same reasons attempting to effect poverty with a minimum wage will not work.
3) I have no sympathy for consumers who live beyond their means and rack up CC debt, payday loans, or mortgages they can not afford.
The people and companies that make money off of them are clearly an enabling force but you discredit "the poor" when you pretend they are so dumb as to not understand that credit card companies charge high rates. The people who rack up these debts can struggle to pay them off as I struggle to pay off my debts. If you take a $300,000 mortgage out on $50,000 in income you have fooled yourself and will probably lose your house. Likewise, the companies that make these loans get no sympathy when they go bad and are uncollectable.
The alternative situation would be for the government to tell everyone what kind of house they are allowed to live in and how much money that can barrow. Not only is that an affront to the capitalist foundations of our country, but our notions of free enterprise, property, choice, and personal responsibility. The more involved the government is in your life, the less free you are -PERIOD.
There are people worthy of sympathy that are forced to rack of CC debt or default due to serious problems. However, from my experience in bankruptcy those people are the extreme minority.
4) Entitlement programs really do not help anyone in the long run. People get used to suckling from the government and study after study have shown a pattern of addiction to government entitlement. I think that money could be spent number better attempting to FIX THE PROBLEM than just handed out. Hand a man a fish...
Not to mention, everyone knows we can not really afford to fund our entitlement programs going into the future. They are unfunded promises waiting to default. Not a good policy.
A social safety net is an extremely powerful tool to help keep members of society productive and happy. A government teet to be sucked upon for life degrades the quality of life and sentences large sectors of society into poverty.
5) If the poor get poorer, why is their nearly half the poverty today that there was in the 1950's and 1960's?
The truth is the rich ARE getting richer, and the poor are getting richer too. In a historical sense our rich are not nearly as rich as the Robber Barrons of yore, nor are our poor as squallered as the immigrant ghetto's of the same age. The anecdotes are not supported by the actual data.
Such cliche's are great for bumper stickers, but serve no useful purpose beyond that and remain detached from reality. I agree that all is not well, but that statement is patently false.
6) If you are in a job in which your wages are flat, do something!
You act like the poor lowly worker must cower before industry and can't do anything for themselves. How pathetic, how rude. Most of the great industries in this nation were created by workers who got fed up with their employers and struck out on their own. Look at the Fortune 500 and do a check on many of those companies... TONS of them are headed by self made men.
Instead of looking at them and lamenting, even loathing their success - why not mimic it? If your employment terms are not fair and you are worth more, go forth and get it. Often you will find you are not worth more in the market place, in which case MAKE YOURSELF WORTH MORE. Go get some free government loans and get an education or job training. Sell your new skills.
If you still believe your skills are worth more than the market will pay, prove it. Start your own company, build the better mouse trap, and the world will pay you what you're really worth. Complaining about the man keeping you down garners no sympathy from me when you remain firmly seated in the company break room.
7) If one is not expected to help himself, then who is expected to help him?
Of course I expect people to lift themselves up "by their bootsraps." I am happy to have the government provide a shoehorn in the form of social security, medicaid, section 8, title 19, food stamps, wic, small business loans and development, and the litany of other government programs. But in the end, if that person can not help themselves the government can do nothing more than sustain them. There is NO WAY a government can do more than sustain a population - it can not give away enough money to make every prosperous.
- - - -
I agree there are actual issues that should be addressed. I do not disagree that governmental aid is essential to a functioning society, but I believe that aid should be geared towards empowering people to support themselves. The answer is not to punish the successful, to beg the government for scraps, nor to discourage industry.
At the end of the day the government can attempt to create opportunity but it cannot make success come to fruition no matter how hard it tries. Without a labored effort by the individual, government sustained poverty is all that can be expected... and that is not acceptable to most. Reroute handouts to initiatives to create better jobs, educated the workforce, and encourage entrepreneurship.
At the end of the day, I want exactly the same thing you want. I want to see a prosperous America with a strong and growing middle class. We just differ on what we think the best way of getting there is.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.
Are you serious? That makes absolutely ZERO sense. "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit? Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.
One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."
USR-
You obviously are suffering from class envy.
Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous. They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.
I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty). Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace. Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.
I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.
There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves. Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man. He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.
People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands. That's just the way it is. No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer. No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes. That's just the way free-enterprise works. No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees. Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.
Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town. All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.
Each of them made a choice. Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy. Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.
I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs. I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere. I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls. I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales. Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.
I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty. That's the way it works. My job helps provide the payroll for others. I'm rewarded for it. Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them. If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.
I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions. I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face. However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.
Artist says:
5) If the poor get poorer, why is their nearly half the poverty today that there was in the 1950's and 1960's?
<end clip>
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm betting it's largely because of Social Security.
Before SS, you had a great number of people who, when they got old, lived in poverty or had to move in with younger family members. Social Security pulled a great many old people out of poverty and more independence.
1) Social Security Income is not enough to raise a single non-working adult out of poverty.
2)
a)Social Security taxes are higher than social security payouts (more goes in than out).
b) No one is exempt for social security taxes.
c) Thus, they are more likely than not to drive low income person INTO poverty than lift people out of it.
3) Income from Governmental Programs IS NOT COUNTED in the poverty statistics. Section 8, Title 19, Food stamps, welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security or other entitlements are not counted as income.
Therefor, Social Security has NO POSITIVE EFFECT, whatsoever, on the poverty official level. It may have an effect on actual quality of life, but not the statistics - which are based on household earnings.
QED
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.
Are you serious? That makes absolutely ZERO sense. "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit? Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.
One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."
USR-
You obviously are suffering from class envy.
Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous. They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.
I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty). Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace. Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.
I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.
There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves. Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man. He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.
People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands. That's just the way it is. No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer. No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes. That's just the way free-enterprise works. No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees. Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.
Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town. All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.
Each of them made a choice. Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy. Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.
I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs. I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere. I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls. I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales. Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.
I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty. That's the way it works. My job helps provide the payroll for others. I'm rewarded for it. Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them. If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.
I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions. I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face. However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.
Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.
Class envy? No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.
We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare. It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.
An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only. Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.
We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse. What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.
I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office. We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
There is a general lack of compassion for human beings that are not monetarily successful in this part of the country. It's "by your own bootstraps" mentality that I mentioned before.
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes. And these places have lower rates of welfare, divorce and less unwed mothers and often have less crime. Is this all related? I think certainly think so.
Are you serious? That makes absolutely ZERO sense. "...better governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged..." I suppose you are talking of such utopian places like New Orleans, LA, and Detroit? Plenty of social programs to go around in those nice low-crime havens.
One of my favorite proverbs is: "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life."
USR-
You obviously are suffering from class envy.
Demonizing and penalizing the wealthiest segment of our society who provide the bulk of private sector jobs either through direct involvement or re-investment of their millions and billions is ludicrous. They also provide the bulk of personal income tax dollars of which comes social programs which are supposed to help the down-trodden.
I'm hardly an elitest, I don't have a problem with raising minimum wage (I have a problem believing that is a panacea for the average worker, and am convinced it is not the remedy for poverty). Minimum wage is for entry-level jobs in the marketplace. Anyone who choses to stay on that rung of the ladder isn't trying real hard to better themselves.
I was against bankruptcy reform which favored higher profits for abusive credit card companies over working stiffs who are constantly de-frauded over variable and fluid fine print in their lending agreements.
There are plenty of people who graduated from the same high school you did and came from similar circumstances as yourself growing up who are now doing quite well for themselves. Speaking to choice, one of your fellow alumni a few years older than you started out at tech learning to be a body man. He worked in a body shop for a year, realized he'd never get anywhere, and went back to school, eventually became a chiropractor and aside from that practice, he also now owns quite a bit of retail space around town and employs people at good (above poverty-level) wages in his practice and other business interests.
People who work with their brains are typically paid more than those who work with their backs and hands. That's just the way it is. No one holds a gun to someone's head and tells them to be a concrete finisher instead of becoming a construction manager or structural engineer. No one says that concrete finisher can't start his own business and hire people for less than he makes while he sits behind a desk or goes from site to site handing out quotes. That's just the way free-enterprise works. No one starts a business to wind up making less than their employees. Some jobs pay more than others either due to skill or educational requirements.
Three of my four grandparents all grew up on farms in the first couple of decades in the last century, the other grew up in a nasty west Texas cattle town. All four were among the first generation in their families to go to college.
Each of them made a choice. Stay at poverty level with small family farms in a dust bowl during an evolving economy, or decide to get better educated as the midwest and south transitioned out of an agrarian economy. Both my grandmothers were teachers, one grandfather wound up in financial services, the other an engineer focusing on the oil patch.
I made a choice 20-some years ago to get out of dead-end minimum wage-paying jobs. I could have stayed in that realm, or gone off on drugs and eventually been institutionalized at tax-payer expense, or I could educate myself and put forth my best effort to get somewhere. I didn't have a parent depositing money in my bank account every week to account for my own financial short-falls. I dropped out of college and worked in a several pud jobs along the way until I wound up in sales. Either my timing is impeccable with economic up-swings or I must be good at what I do as I've brought growth to every company I've worked for.
I get rewarded commensurate with my contribution to the company kitty. That's the way it works. My job helps provide the payroll for others. I'm rewarded for it. Sorry there are people who think it sucks I'm paid more than the people who are the beneficiary of my own hard work which provides a paycheck for them. If it paid better for me to weld or fit pipe, then I'd do that, and the company would have a hard time finding someone to sell at a crappy wage because they could make more money as a worker bee.
I'm quite compassionate toward the poor, and do what I can via private contributions. I know how lives can change irrevocably in a second and people can wind up in circumstances they'd never believe they would face. However, I just don't believe confiscatory taxes on the biggest producers and government intervention are the cure for poverty.
Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.
Class envy? No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.
We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare. It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.
An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only. Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.
We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse. What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.
I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office. We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.
Re-read. "Class envy" was attributed to USR, not you.
quote:
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes.
You aren't making sense or I grabbed my obtuse glasses off the nightstand this morning. If those areas have less poverty and higher incomes, then why do they need better social programs? Better social and governmental support networks are generally there because their is greater poverty, greater instances of unwed pregnancy, and greater instances of crime. Just what am I missing here?
If you are implying Tulsa doesn't have good support networks from faith, other private, and government sources- you really aren't in touch with what all our region offers the less fortunate.
quote:
No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.
We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare. It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.
Everyone does have "basic" food, shelter, and healthcare. Quit pretending it doesn't exist.
Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8, Medicaid.
quote:
An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only. Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.
Wait. We don't pay for it. No we pay a high price when we don't pay for it. No, wait, we pay $100K per year for homeless healthcare. Which is it?
quote:
We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse. What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.
I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office.
We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.
My arguments are no more or less pointless or off-base than yours. My opinion is, you can't spend someone out of bad habits or poor choices. I've personally tried too many times with family members and friends.
It's just not possible if the individual doesn't take personal responsibility or initiative. I recognize there are people with mental and physical addictions and mental illnesses who simply cannot make good choices nor take initiative.
It's like a family trying to make a drug user clean by getting them into re-hab or 12-step. Until that person is really ready to make a change no matter what level of help comes their way, they aren't going to improve themselves until they are ready to do it for themselves. That is human nature.
Instead of acknowledging what all of us already know, what is your solution? Spend less on prisons and law enforcement and put more money into colleges? Put all poor people into $100K houses so we can feel better about our own success?
I really don't see where you are going with this.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Your argument pointless, off base and you are attrubuting positions to me that I have not taken.
Re-read. "Class envy" was attributed to USR, not you.
quote:
It is a moral failure of our regional culture, just like our high divorce rate and high unwed mother rate. Places with better social and governmental support networks for the poor and disadvantaged are places with less poverty and higher incomes.
You aren't making sense or I grabbed my obtuse glasses off the nightstand this morning. If those areas have less poverty and higher incomes, then why do they need better social programs? Better social and governmental support networks are generally there because their is greater poverty, greater instances of unwed pregnancy, and greater instances of crime. Just what am I missing here?
If you are implying Tulsa doesn't have good support networks from faith, other private, and government sources- you really aren't in touch with what all our region offers the less fortunate.
quote:
No, but I do have a somewhat impersonal education in what I am talking about. When I was younger my father was the head psychologist a maximum security prison and my mother was the supervisor of a child abuse investigation unit. I got to hear a lot about a some of the people I'm talking about coming and going.
We are a wealthy enough nation that everyone should have basic food, shelter and healthcare. It's simple and not as costly as NOT doing that.
Everyone does have "basic" food, shelter, and healthcare. Quit pretending it doesn't exist.
Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8, Medicaid.
quote:
An example. Shelter and basic healthcare for the homeless. We don't provide this as a society. But we DO pay for not doing so. I have read that the average healthcare bill for a chronically homeless person is over $100,000 dollars a year, for healthcare only. Add in the cost of the jail time they regulary do, the cost of the charity they receive. Society pays a ton of money for these people, and to keep them in miserable condition. A lot more than we would pay to keep them in some basic form.
Wait. We don't pay for it. No we pay a high price when we don't pay for it. No, wait, we pay $100K per year for homeless healthcare. Which is it?
quote:
We all know that kids that grow up desperate with food and shelter insecurity are much less like to not complete high school and are much more likely to have kids at a young age and to become drug addicts and yes, criminals. Kids that grow up in abusive homes are off the charts with all of those problems and they in turn have lots of kids just like them. We spend nearly nothing on investigating child abuse. What is the annual healthcare bill for a street drug user? What the annual cost to keep someone in prison? What does it cost in welfare and healthcare when a 15 year old has a child? When a 20 year old has three? The nice anecdotes about kids overcoming these situations are so rare that they rate being on the nightly news.
I don't think we spend too little money, I think we spend it in the wrong way. We spend far more on a prisoners than we do on students. We all pay far more for healthcare than we should because we have a permanent uninsured underclass that uses emergency rooms as a doctors office.
We have a fair to poor education system that we love to complain about, but we pay teachers such a low wage that very few top college graduates would ever consider going into public education. But we certainly pay when they drop out and start stealing or dealing. We pay far more than we would if we just did the right thing.
My arguments are no more or less pointless or off-base than yours. My opinion is, you can't spend someone out of bad habits or poor choices. I've personally tried too many times with family members and friends.
It's just not possible if the individual doesn't take personal responsibility or initiative. I recognize there are people with mental and physical addictions and mental illnesses who simply cannot make good choices nor take initiative.
It's like a family trying to make a drug user clean by getting them into re-hab or 12-step. Until that person is really ready to make a change no matter what level of help comes their way, they aren't going to improve themselves until they are ready to do it for themselves. That is human nature.
Instead of acknowledging what all of us already know, what is your solution? Spend less on prisons and law enforcement and put more money into colleges? Put all poor people into $100K houses so we can feel better about our own success?
I really don't see where you are going with this.
I would have some form of nationalized health care. I believe that by removing insurance from the cost equation and by providing preventative healthcare to all instead of catastrophic healthcare only to all, which is the very costly alternative we trying now, we could actually cover everyone, have better health for all and actually spend less.
And, I am not for less law enforcement. I'm for more. Spend less on prisons and more on cops. I'm for less jail time and also for alternative punishments over prison in many cases. Studies have shown that the severity of punishment is a poor driver of behavior. The best deterrent to crime is the surety of punishment. If a criminal thinks they have a 10% chance of being caught for stealing a car, they are going to steal that car regardless of the length of prison term they might get. Come on, they are stupid enough to be stealing a car. But, if they think there's a 90% chance they WILL get caught, it's a whole other situation even if the punishment is only a couple of months in jail. Let's solve every crime possible and the crime rate will go down quickly, not because we've locked everyone up (we are already trying that here in Oklahoma) but because potential criminals will be scared to commit a crime.
Certainly there are really bad people that should go away forever, but, in most cases longer prison sentences do nothing but drive up cost and get politicians reelected. That and create more hardened criminals.
I'm also for paying teachers a LOT more money. Change the calculus for college students where only the altruistic or mediocre become teachers. Make teaching a career that is well compensated and in demand for students. I'm also for ending tenure, for merit pay for teachers and for a much longer school year.
Okay, Swake. I think we are back talking where we can reasonibly understand each other. I don't disagree that having a policeman nearby is a good deterrent to crime. Unfortunately, that's a municipal issue, and we have more emphasis on wanting to attract convention business, and upgrading our river than paying for more police.
To effectively police to the point of deterrence, you are talking about needing a cop for every few blocks. If you concentrate on one problem area, the criminals move to an area less patrolled. It's really still a choice issue that no one can control in the mind of the criminal instead of the criminal himself.
As far as education, I wish we had better deals on higher education for kids in our state. TCC's recent gift to our community's graduates is working to get more kids enrolled. I just wish our four-year schools could offer better in-state deals for kids with less paper-work and hassle, especially targeting rural and "at-risk" areas.
I don't know how much raising teacher pay would improve the level of education. I don't think the teachers at Jenks, where my kids are enrolled, are paid vastly higher than teachers at McLain in north Tulsa. Yet Jenks performs better every year than McLain. A lot has to do with how involved parents are, what other social distractions there are in the neighborhood, and crime. You could pay teachers $100K per year at McLain and police the hell out of that area and that still wouldn't change the poor performance at that school as long as parents aren't involved or conducive to their child's education.
I'm not entirely "anti" on universal health care. It needs a closer look and I don't like it packaged as a campaign promise. It's too in-depth to package into an eight minute sound bite on the campaign trail. In fact, I think you were the only other person who responded when I started that thread a few months ago, and I appreciate your positions on it.
Point is, we spend a ton on social programs, when someone acts like we aren't it get's my hackles up. I know from a first-hand view that there are tons of money spent on healthcare by the gov't. You would crap if I told you how much the gov't pays per day for skilled care. We already pay plenty. We need to manage it all better.
Government is too big and too layered and trying to serve too many people in too many ways to do everything more effectively than private companies. That's MO.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Re-read. "Class envy" was attributed to USR, not you.
That's a lie, Conan. I've known plenty of nice rich people. Some self-made, some who inherited their wealth. Some seem almost ashamed of their old money. And I've met some homeless people who, after I heard their stories, turned out to be far better educated than I ever could have guessed... once again, there but for the grace of God go I...
It's unfortunate that I have had multiple experiences in Tulsa with a local upper crust that... let's just say... is extra crustie... hmm... accusing me of class envy?... ah, the memories... typical Cascia mentality... [;)]
For the decades during/after WWII, the highest tax bracket paid over 90% in taxes... then there was the war on poverty in the 60s...
The propaganda of flat-tax right wing radio insists that it's only today's liberals who want progressive taxation...
Yeah, CF... you certainly tell us how government is always the problem.
You keep telling me that a rise in minimum wage does nothing to combat poverty. In most states, you'd be right, because the national minimum wage is a joke in most of the country. In Oklahoma, it
will have an effect.
You don't have to be rich to be an elitist.
All you need for that title is someone who's suburb-phobic who insists government programs like social security, medicare and minimum wage laws have never helped anyone and imply should be dismantled and scrapped...
And that nobody in the lower 50% in income pays taxes... yeah, guess we're just a buncha bums...[}:)]
Conan can argue more about how pampered the lower classes are... Then can talk about how he worked for minimum wage... you know, all I'm asking for is a minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation so it's not used as a tug of war with millions of students, single mothers, and children caught in the crossfire...
Yeah, talk about class envy... nobody seems to remember what it was like when their min wage jobs had more purchasing power and just have no sympathy for the folks who today work JUST AS HARD as you worked back in the day for less adjusted pay...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer/print
http://www.inclusionist.org/files/lowwagework.pdf
This thread has become the tower of babel....
You can no longer get off a boat and make it through hard work and innovation in America. We are no more greater than Vietnam for opportunity.
Be afraid if you have had afluenza. Tax rates on the rich need to escalate back into the %70 bracket as in the 1950's post WWII to rebuild this country. Return to the theory that govenment should give a hand up to the uneducated, unhealthy, and underclass.
The Republican mantra for too long, other than FAMILY VALUES, has been lower taxes. BS.
Look back to post WWII for a leason in what this country needs to lift up those that have missed out on Reaganomics.
What's that smell?
It's the tower of babel burning.....
**Sniff**Sniff**
Alright, lets break this down a bit.
I know the economy in this area is doing well enough that a person, even without having graduated high school, can get a job paying 8 to 10 dollars an hour, or even more. There is no reason for any capable person to have worked for 5 dollars an hour for 10 years.
I could go out right now, lie about my work history, say I didnt have an education and get a decent starter job, find a cheap place to stay, not use a car, and within a relatively short amount of time find a way to go to school, get a better job and be making well above the poverty rate.
The opportunities are there. This isnt a bad economy.
Yet we have 30% drop out rates what does that tellyou about the parents of those kids and their value of an education and probably the "stick-to-itiveness" (or however you spell that lol) of their work ethic?
How do we get those kids to stay in school if their parents dont care? If its not through having more teachers, mentors, or some sort of program where we have to spend money. How? If we dont want to spend money are we saying that we dont care that peope live in poverty and therefor we shouldnt be complaining about the poverty rate? I am talking generalities here not the special cases of mental illness etc. 30% of our kids and adults are not mentally ill or drug users. I hope.
I contend that most of the people who live in poverty in this area are doing so because they dont have the tools, descision making skills, education, ethic, whatever you want to call it, or simply choose to... rather than it being the fault of the economy and there not being enough opportunity to progress.
Certain jobs dont require much skills and if you raise the pay for those jobs your devaluing the effort the other person took to gain the skills to be in another job.
If one person is making 5 dollars an hour at a job that requires little or no skills.
Another person is working at a job for 7 dollars an hour and they work smarter or harder at that job.
If you raise the wages of the 5 dollar job to 7 dollars an hour, you are devaluing the effort or skills of the other person. Reminds me of those communist factories where nobody was incentivised to work harder because pretty much no matter what job you did you got paid the same.
If the one worker whose work has less value, is now making as much as the worker who is working harder or smarter, would that be fair? Wouldnt it be likely that the second worker would then be paid more, because that would only be right? If you raised the rate everyone works to reflect that fairness and work value, then your essentially right back where you started with the same disparity in income and prices for commodities and goods.
If 5 dollars an hour was poverty wage, then soon 7 dollars an hour would be a poverty wage. Playing with the wages may have a temporary effect but soon it would all settle back down to... merit.
A kid working part time or a person who is single, someone who is semi retired, a second income, someone in a third world country, etc. are a few examples of the kind of people who can work at "starter", low skilled, jobs for low wages. Someone with a family of 4 should not expect that those types of jobs will enable them to raise their family. And we shouldnt try to screw with the system to artificially give more value to a job than it really has. If you need more money you need to be working at a higher value job. The opportunity exists to do so.
You may temporarily decrease the poverty rate, but in the end you may actually see the the poverty rate grow once everything settles out. By disincentivising merit, not creating a culture that values a different kind of higher value work, that is forced to evolve and change from one type of work to another, you will create forces that could hold the society back. You will run the risk of growing even more poverty in that society.
babel babel
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
babel babel
See, you don't actually post anything AOX. People don't disagree with you, no one is trying to silence your position. You have no position. You don't say anything. All your posts contain are snarky insults, and it's not even always clear who you are insulting.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Alright, lets break this down a bit.
I know the economy in this area is doing well enough that a person, even without having graduated high school, can get a job paying 8 to 10 dollars an hour, or even more. There is no reason for any capable person to have worked for 5 dollars an hour for 10 years.
I could go out right now, lie about my work history, say I didnt have an education and get a decent starter job, find a cheap place to stay, not use a car, and within a relatively short amount of time find a way to go to school, get a better job and be making well above the poverty rate.
The opportunities are there. This isnt a bad economy.
Yet we have 30% drop out rates what does that tellyou about the parents of those kids and their value of an education and probably the "stick-to-itiveness" (or however you spell that lol) of their work ethic?
How do we get those kids to stay in school if their parents dont care? If its not through having more teachers, mentors, or some sort of program where we have to spend money. How? If we dont want to spend money are we saying that we dont care that peope live in poverty and therefor we shouldnt be complaining about the poverty rate? I am talking generalities here not the special cases of mental illness etc. 30% of our kids and adults are not mentally ill or drug users. I hope.
I contend that most of the people who live in poverty in this area are doing so because they dont have the tools, descision making skills, education, ethic, whatever you want to call it, or simply choose to... rather than it being the fault of the economy and there not being enough opportunity to progress.
Certain jobs dont require much skills and if you raise the pay for those jobs your devaluing the effort the other person took to gain the skills to be in another job.
If one person is making 5 dollars an hour at a job that requires little or no skills.
Another person is working at a job for 7 dollars an hour and they work smarter or harder at that job.
If you raise the wages of the 5 dollar job to 7 dollars an hour, you are devaluing the effort or skills of the other person. Reminds me of those communist factories where nobody was incentivised to work harder because pretty much no matter what job you did you got paid the same.
If the one worker whose work has less value, is now making as much as the worker who is working harder or smarter, would that be fair? Wouldnt it be likely that the second worker would then be paid more, because that would only be right? If you raised the rate everyone works to reflect that fairness and work value, then your essentially right back where you started with the same disparity in income and prices for commodities and goods.
If 5 dollars an hour was poverty wage, then soon 7 dollars an hour would be a poverty wage. Playing with the wages may have a temporary effect but soon it would all settle back down to... merit.
A kid working part time or a person who is single, someone who is semi retired, a second income, someone in a third world country, etc. are a few examples of the kind of people who can work at "starter", low skilled, jobs for low wages. Someone with a family of 4 should not expect that those types of jobs will enable them to raise their family. And we shouldnt try to screw with the system to artificially give more value to a job than it really has. If you need more money you need to be working at a higher value job. The opportunity exists to do so.
You may temporarily decrease the poverty rate, but in the end you may actually see the the poverty rate grow once everything settles out. By disincentivising merit, not creating a culture that values a different kind of higher value work, that is forced to evolve and change from one type of work to another, you will create forces that could hold the society back. You will run the risk of growing even more poverty in that society.
Wages, especially low end wages, are very small components to overall cost of goods. A marginal increase in the minimum wage will create needed wage pressure from the bottom of the employment pool. And this is very needed as overall wages have not increased in the United States in a decade.
That $5 job becomes $7, and the $7 becomes $9 and so on. Most increases in the minimum wage have increased federal tax revenues in this way and have helped the overall economy. This is due to people at the low end of the wage scale spend every cent they have, it's a huge and immediate cash influx into the economy with only a marginal overall increase on the cost of goods.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
babel babel
See, you don't actually post anything AOX. People don't disagree with you, no one is trying to silence your position. You have no position. You don't say anything. All your posts contain are snarky insults, and it's not even always clear who you are insulting.
\
Just a difference in egos....
Posties can be so verbose.
I can do it in fewer words...
Look in a mirror....
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
babel babel
See, you don't actually post anything AOX. People don't disagree with you, no one is trying to silence your position. You have no position. You don't say anything. All your posts contain are snarky insults, and it's not even always clear who you are insulting.
\
Just a difference in egos....
Posties can be so verbose.
I can do it in fewer words...
Look in a mirror....
You are the light beer of posters, 1700 posts, no content.
Quote from ..."Wages, especially low end wages, are very small components to overall cost of goods. A marginal increase in the minimum wage will create needed wage pressure from the bottom of the employment pool. And this is very needed as overall wages have not increased in the United States in a decade.
That $5 job becomes $7, and the $7 becomes $9 and so on. Most increases in the minimum wage have increased federal tax revenues in this way and have helped the overall economy. This is due to people at the low end of the wage scale spend every cent they have, it's a huge and immediate cash influx into the economy with only a marginal overall increase on the cost of goods."
The cost of goods rising was a tiny and unimportant part of what I was trying to get at.
Why incentivise keeping so many low end jobs when we need to transition into more high end jobs? Is it really good in a global market to prop up a lot of people competing with uneducated workers in third world countries? Is that the kind of labor force we want? Or should those jobs die out here and we move up to a different level?
Why be a city or state competing with other cities and states that incentivises people to do well at low end jobs when those same people could be making much more at high end jobs?
Making the economy better or increasing tax revenues by raising wages of low end jobs just sounds fishy to me. The primary mission of jobs isnt just to raise more taxes. That cant be the goal or you will lose sight of other issues. The economy should get better for other reasons not because of artificial wage increases.
Wages should increase because of natural economic factors. Having more skilled knowlege workers, for instance, will raise wages and improve tax revenue. I would rather push the economy in that direction rather than having a city of workers that are trying to compete with some poor workers in Bangladesh or Mississippi. Who wants to enable a local economy like that?
We want more high wage jobs in this state. You dont get that by simply raising the wages of people who are doing low wage work.
While there are some correlations between minimum wages and poverty rates. The strongest correlations to wages and poverty levels is connected to education not the amount of the minimum wage. Another strong correlation is between rural, more poverty, and urban, lower poverty rates. There are of course exceptions like Detroit and St Louis, both of which are in states that have higher minimum wages than Oklahoma.
I believe Texas has about the same minimum wage that Oklahoma has. Yet within Texas you can find huge disparities between cities. Plano has one of the lowest rates of poverty in the nation and Brownsville and College Station have some of the highest rates of poverty in the nation.
Quite a few states with higher minimum wages have higher poverty rates than some with lower minimum wages. We can go round and round with statistics but suffice it to say the strongest correlations, no matter how you slice it, to poverty and wages is with the educational levels and types of jobs the people in an area have.
http://www.huliq.com/32195/household-income-rises-poverty-rate-declines-number-of-uninsured-up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.A._minimum_wages
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
babel babel
See, you don't actually post anything AOX. People don't disagree with you, no one is trying to silence your position. You have no position. You don't say anything. All your posts contain are snarky insults, and it's not even always clear who you are insulting.
\
Just a difference in egos....
Posties can be so verbose.
I can do it in fewer words...
Look in a mirror....
You are the light beer of posters, 1700 posts, no content.
well, for having no content...i can sure rankle some nerves.
very content....
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
It's unfortunate that I have had multiple experiences in Tulsa with a local upper crust that... let's just say... is extra crustie... hmm... accusing me of class envy?... ah, the memories... typical Cascia mentality... [;)]
For the decades during/after WWII, the highest tax bracket paid over 90% in taxes... then there was the war on poverty in the 60s...
The propaganda of flat-tax right wing radio insists that it's only today's liberals who want progressive taxation...
Conan can argue more about how pampered the lower classes are... Then can talk about how he worked for minimum wage... you know, all I'm asking for is a minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation so it's not used as a tug of war with millions of students, single mothers, and children caught in the crossfire...
Typical Cascia mentality...[}:)]
I don't have an issue with minimum wage increasing. It's still no panacea for moving more people out of poverty, though. Minimum wage jobs are typically entry-level for the job market and aren't intended to be a life-time career stop. People who are only working for minimum wage after being in the job market for a number of years likely haven't bothered to improve their job skills to move them on up the ladder.
Sorry for accusing you of class envy, but so many of your posts seem to have a real bitter disdain for this country's wealthy, and you have mentioned being under-employed several times in the time I've been reading this forum.
I do have an issue with brutal taxation on the class which provides the bulk of money either via direct involvement or passive investment into private enterprise which employs others. The more money you take, the less that class has to create more higher paying jobs.
Tax cuts have actually provided record net tax revenue for the IRS. It's a proven theory which works. We don't need more money in the government coffers, government needs to better manage what money it has and shift it's priorities. Soaking the rich is no solution.
It's a fallacy that all wealthy people are stepping all over the heads of a bunch of minimum wage schmucks to get wealthier. Look at how many high-paying private sector jobs there are out there.
I don't think there's anyone who is still touting a "flat tax". That's been a proven failure in other countries. According to the models which have been created, the "fair tax", which is a national sales tax, would still provide good tax relief for the lowest earners via rebates and would actually provide higher tax collections for the Fed. Gov't than more progressive taxation.
National Sales Tax +1
Ohio has alot of poverty, but Ohio also has alot of big cities to balance out the poor rural areas. The cost of living is so much lower in Oklahoma than Ohio, True Oklahoma taxes all food and Ohio does not tax any food items, but rents are higher in Ohio, home prices are higher, electric & gas bills are more expensive than Oklahoma, we even have city income taxes on top of state income taxes.The prop. taxes for a $100,000 home in Columbus, Ohio is about $2,000.00, it's alot less in Tulsa- The wages here are the same as Oklahoma $7.00 to $9.00 an hour (some jobs go up to $11.00 an hour), but in the end you have more money in your pocket living in Oklahoma than in Ohio. There's alot of web site where ya can match city by city side by side on things such as crime & cost of living and wages and things like that.
"We may not all be guilty, but we are all responsible."
Facing Down Poverty
by Katrina Vanden Heuvel
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/3634/
"Last week, President Bush cited the recent Census Report as proof "that more of our citizens are doing better in this economy, with continued rising incomes and more Americans pulling themselves out of poverty." Welcome to the latest episode of Fantasy Island with George Bush."
Quoting "Commie Dreams" now for your Bush-bashing. How nice.
Earthquakes are caused by people not being mean enough to gay people and/or not believing in the correct god and/or not worshiping said god in the correct way. Tsunami's created by such activity in Southeast Asia are the gods' way of punishing Sweden for being nice to gay people.
On a slightly unrelated note, God hates Ireland because leprechauns are gay. (I cant make this stuff up)
source:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
- - -
AOX - find better sources.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Earthquakes are caused by people not being mean enough to gay people and/or not believing in the correct god and/or not worshiping said god in the correct way. Tsunami's created by such activity in Southeast Asia are the gods' way of punishing Sweden for being nice to gay people.
On a slightly unrelated note, God hates Ireland because leprechauns are gay. (I cant make this stuff up)
source:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
- - -
AOX - find better sources.
Had to look the "iniquity" thing up
Hey CF and Conan....I thought you hacks put me on ignore. Do that. Otherwise, expletive deleted.
***Sniff Sniff***
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Hey CF and Conan....I thought you hacks put me on ignore. Do that. Otherwise, ****!
Morbid curiosity prevents me from putting you on ignore. You are usually way out there, but every now and then your nonsense makes coffee shoot out my nose.
***Sniff..Sniff***
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Hey CF and Conan....I thought you hacks put me on ignore. Do that. Otherwise, ****!
Morbid curiosity prevents me from putting you on ignore. You are usually way out there, but every now and then your nonsense makes coffee shoot out my nose.
Then put your knives away. Admit I put fun in dysfunction. And Burner, you need to see a gastro specialist. ASAP.
Do squirrels ever get struck by lightning....
Do chupacabra's suck ......
http://www.ghoststudy.com/para/pages/chupacabra.gif
leave me be burnnerd!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Do squirrels ever get struck by lightning....
No- Not if the squirrels are in a tree and the charge goes thru the tree. If the squirrel was grounded such as standing at the base of the tree with 2 front paws on the tree trunk and the two back legs on the ground- or his long bushy tail was touching the ground then he would get fryed. This is like people riding in a aircraft that gets zapped with lightning, the current just passes thru the plane. I seen a tree get zaped by lightning in mid Iowa many years ago off of I-80 at a Union 76 truck stop. The bolt hit a tree in a field about 200' away. WoW sparks flew and the tree was smoldering and it was dumping rain at the time. if it was not for the rain that tree could of burst in flames.
I've never seen a squirrel struck by lightening, but one time I saw a squirrel jumping between two wires and he hesitated and ended up with his front paws on one wire and his back paws on the junction of another. I didn't see sparks or anything, but he fell from the pole and went thump.
A neighbor lady yelled at me for throwing rocks at him and didn't believe me when I told her it just fell. Life's not fair (to squirrels).
and AOX, I never said I was going to put you on ignore. I just decided it isnt worth my time to try to engage in substantive arguments with you.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've never seen a squirrel struck by lightening, but one time I saw a squirrel jumping between two wires and he hesitated and ended up with his front paws on one wire and his back paws on the junction of another. I didn't see sparks or anything, but he fell from the pole and went thump.
A neighbor lady yelled at me for throwing rocks at him and didn't believe me when I told her it just fell. Life's not fair (to squirrels).
and AOX, I never said I was going to put you on ignore. I just decided it isnt worth my time to try to engage in substantive arguments with you.
Good.....you take too many stupid pills anyway.
Would a squirrel post if a squirrel could....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Would a squirrel post if a squirrel could....
Moderators, Administrators, leakers or whatever you call yourselves, is it not apparent you are not following your own rules AGAIN!
Burner, what follows people around that is a constant irritant?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Good.....you take too many stupid pills anyway.
You have some nerve complaining about a reference to a squirrel as you type a common acronym for Shut The F Up and call other people stupid. I do not believe reference a squirrel is against any policy anyway.
Poor poor AOX, everyone's always picking on you. Life's just not fair.
/predict this thread locked by noon tomorrow.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Good.....you take too many stupid pills anyway.
You have some nerve complaining about a reference to a squirrel as you type a common acronym for Shut The F Up and call other people stupid. I do not believe reference a squirrel is against any policy anyway.
Poor poor AOX, everyone's always picking on you. Life's just not fair.
/predict this thread locked by noon tomorrow.
Don't pity me putz.
Don't disrespect me either.
I can hold my own.
Read between the lines....
If you can hold your own, why are you always crying to the Mod to do something and throwing an "its not fair!" tantrum every other day? It was particularly amusing last week when you had a total meltdown.
I'd suggest you just go back to throwing our random comments here and there and try not to actually engage people. You seemed to do much better with guerrilla warfare than standing and facing the world... where your entire air force gets shot down daily.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If you can hold your own, why are you always crying to the Mod to do something and throwing an "its not fair!" tantrum every other day? It was particularly amusing last week when you had a total meltdown.
I'd suggest you just go back to throwing our random comments here and there and try not to actually engage people. You seemed to do much better with guerrilla warfare than standing and facing the world... where your entire air force gets shot down daily.
It was a rat out not a tantrum. It was a fire storm and not a meltdown.
Get up and stand up for your rights.
Don't be an idiot when a whistleblower tells the truth about privacy violations.
There's that martyr mentality again.
TulsaNow is clearly out to get you. The violation was so horrible no one is sure what it was and you continue to do business with them (by hanging around here). You must really fear their intentions of exposing you in order to continue posting on their website.
When my 7 year old slams his door and screams he hates me... I'll remember its a firestorm.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
There's that martyr mentality again.
TulsaNow is clearly out to get you. The violation was so horrible no one is sure what it was and you continue to do business with them (by hanging around here). You must really fear their intentions of exposing you in order to continue posting on their website.
When my 7 year old slams his door and screams he hates me... I'll remember its a firestorm.
The forum here is not sealed tight. Everyone here needs to know about your click and what goes on behind the curtain.
That is not being paranoid. Again, it speaks the truth. Beware!
I have no fear....I don't do well with liars and hypocrites. I can't stand intolerance. That's why I will face off with you.
In addition, try to stay on topic. This thread is about poverty and the way individuals put down the poor and oppressed as opposed to reaching out and giving a hand up. It is in some ways ironic that to digress from the thread certain posters here want to attack the message itself and in addition attack the supporters of the disadvantaged....
Anything you type on the internet is generally not sealed tight. Thanks for the news flash. Never give information to anyone on the internet that you are for some reason fearful of being leaked. What horrible secrets have you divulged on here that anyone would give a crap about anyway?
EVERYONE: When you click, php code translates your post into a txt file and embeds it into a database file for that thread. Gasp! And, get this, the information you type into your profile is public. AND, whats more, admins have access to what IP you post from and can delete/modify/ban and other functions. No really, they can.
Beware! But not paranoid, but beware! But even though the mods will do horribly wrong, you should stick around and complain about it.
and again, thanks for being the martyr and standing up to us evil doers.
I think I saw Aox's car when I was leaving Moe's last night. Must have been his, the license plate said: "****".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "St. Fu" the patron saint of silence?