At $9.00 PER HOUR gross income is $18,720 for full time employee or $1,560 per month.
TULSA MSA RATES
1 BEDROOM $587
2 BEDROOM $779
Source: http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=8560#axzz2KtopX0hC (http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=8560#axzz2KtopX0hC)
Public Transit
10 RIDE PASS (1 WEEK) $12.00
Source: http://tulsatransit.org/fares-passes/cash-fare/ (http://tulsatransit.org/fares-passes/cash-fare/)
Day Care
$140 per week
Source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=694&articleid=20120824_11_A1_CUTLIN918706 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=694&articleid=20120824_11_A1_CUTLIN918706)
Single Mother with one child, no car
$1,560
- $779 RENT
- $48 TRANSPORTATION (TO/FROM WORK ONLY)
- $120 UTILITIES
-$300 GROCERIES
- $560 DAY CARE
OT required, no money left for self education, clothes, insurance or anything other than subsisting.
So would you call this situation. Americas middle class?
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 01:04:58 PM
At $9.00 PER HOUR gross income is $18,720 for full time employee or $1,560 per month.
TULSA MSA RATES
1 BEDROOM $587
2 BEDROOM $779
Source: http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=8560#axzz2KtopX0hC (http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate?a=MSAAvgRentalPrice&msa=8560#axzz2KtopX0hC)
Public Transit
10 RIDE PASS (1 WEEK) $12.00
Source: http://tulsatransit.org/fares-passes/cash-fare/ (http://tulsatransit.org/fares-passes/cash-fare/)
Day Care
$140 per week
Source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=694&articleid=20120824_11_A1_CUTLIN918706 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=694&articleid=20120824_11_A1_CUTLIN918706)
Single Mother with one child, no car
$1,560
- $779 RENT
- $48 TRANSPORTATION (TO/FROM WORK ONLY)
- $120 UTILITIES
-$300 GROCERIES
- $560 DAY CARE
OT required, no money left for self education, clothes, insurance or anything other than subsisting.
That is true. Minimum wage is not meant to be a "permanent wage" for anyone. It is the starting point to encourage income mobility and growth.
If the employeer has several such "single mothers with one child, and no car," and the state mandates that he pay them more than he currently can afford in either wages or benefits, his only choices are to reduce his workforce or increase his prices (if the market will bare it).
If he reduces his workforce, many "single mothers" that accept minimum wage as a "permanent wage" will likely have no job. If businesses choose to increase prices to make up for the increase in labor expense, then your "single mother" will make more money, but she will also pay significantly more money for the RENT, TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, GROCERIES, and DAYCARE.
Of course what typically happens is a blend of both economic reactions. A reduction in overall workforce, and an increase in consumer prices. Eventually, of course it all evens out for workers moving through the workforce, but for those at the entry level, such as the young, or the very unskilled are typically the ones to suffer the most as this acts as a barrier for employment.
Now if you really look at what your "single mother" making $18,720 gets, you have a different story.
(http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/071212welfare.jpg)
Lets just round up to $19,000.
She gets a tax refund exceeding what she pays, bringing her income up to about $23,000.
With SNAP she gets much of her food assistance bringing her income up to bout $29,000.
She gets housing assistance taking her past $35,000.
She also gets childcare and access to other assistance putting her between $50,000 and $55,000.
Now, here's the strange part, if you were to bring minimum wage up to $14.45 an hour, your "single mother" would lose $5,000 a year.
If she were to earn $21.65 an hour, her income would drop by over $10,000.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 02:22:45 PM
That is true. Minimum wage is not meant to be a "permanent wage" for anyone. It is the starting point to encourage income mobility and growth.
Now, here's the strange part, if you were to bring minimum wage up to $14.45 an hour, your "single mother" would lose $5,000 a year.
If she were to earn $21.65 an hour, her income would drop by over $10,000.
All that means is that we need to take more money from the top 1% to give to working, single, uneducated mothers.
I just saw these last posts on a show about Walmart.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2013, 02:27:07 PM
All that means is that we need to take more money from the top 1% to give to working, single, uneducated mothers.
We could do that, or we could focus on educating young people to make better life choices.
Poverty is more of a state of mind, than a state of being.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 02:38:17 PM
We could do that, or we could focus on educating young people to make better life choices.
Like "just say no to drugs" and "abstinence is the most effective birth control." "Kids, make better choices."
What do you think would be even more effective?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 02:38:17 PM
We could do that, or we could focus on educating young people to make better life choices.
No motivation for education. We might as well get used to the idea that everyone is entitled to a lifestyle to which they would like to become accustomed.
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2013, 02:42:07 PM
Like "just say no to drugs" and "abstinence is the most effective birth control." "Kids, make better choices."
What do you think would be even more effective?
I don't know of anything more successful in promoting opportunity than education, positive roll models, and awareness of the rewards & consequences of individual choice.
I suppose their may be other options, I am simply unaware of them.
What would you suggest?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 02:48:19 PM
I don't know of anything more successful in promoting opportunity than education, positive roll models, and awareness of the rewards & consequences of individual choice.
Those sound great. Let's see if we have any political leaders with stroke actively promoting them.
Let's see...
Looking some more...
I'm coming up empty.
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2013, 02:49:48 PM
Those sound great. Let's see if we have any political leaders with stroke actively promoting them.
Let's see...
Looking some more...
I'm coming up empty.
Good politicians are hard to spot. Here's a hint: Look for the person who promises the least.
We seem to favor various types of government guaranteed and compulsory security. We say that we want personal freedom, but we demand government housing, government price controls, government-guaranteed jobs and wages. We want to be responsible persons, but we vote for candidates who promise us the most. As long as we do that our problems will continue to multiply, because they are being subsidized, and we are becoming too weak to acknowledge, and too stupid to understand the loss of freedom that represents.
When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. – Albert Camus
We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work. – Milton Friedman
The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly. – Thomas Sowell
Past studies by and large confirm the prediction that higher minimum wages reduce employment opportunities and raise unemployment, particularly among teenagers, minorities and other low-skilled workers. – Masanori Hashimoto
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2013, 02:49:48 PM
Those sound great. Let's see if we have any political leaders with stroke actively promoting them.
Let's see...
Looking some more...
I'm coming up empty.
http://www.triadeye.com/new-patient-form/
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Good politicians are hard to spot. Here's a hint: Look for the person who promises the least.
The loser?
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
The loser?
Unfortunately today that is probably the case. :D
Gaspar - RE: "permanent wage"
If these companies cared about their workers then we wouldn't need to enforce a minimum wage. The companies would pay per performance and would reward hard work with advancement. These things no longer exist.
I'm fairly sure that you understand that minimum wage jobs also rarely have any benefits package.
How does a single mother working 60+ hours a week to make ends meet find a way to care for her child and pay for an education?
Do we consider that she and her child are victims of their circumstances and not worthy or capable of more?
RED ARROW - Requesting fair compensation is not reallocation of wealth. These people are working for the money they are paid, they should be paid fairly for it.
Gaspar: When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson
Working a full time job is a symbol of failure? Paying the worker for their hours worked is subsidizing poverty?
I guess you've never sacked groceries or payed your way through college slinging whiskey.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 03:36:14 PM
RED ARROW - Requesting fair compensation is not reallocation of wealth. These people are working for the money they are paid, they should be paid fairly for it.
Please define fair compensation. Seriously, what level of lifestyle should be the minimum for someone working 40 hrs/week regardless of any skills they bring to the workplace. Some jobs are worth more than others. The money has to come from somewhere.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
Gaspar: When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson
Working a full time job is a symbol of failure? Paying the worker for their hours worked is subsidizing poverty?
I guess you've never sacked groceries or payed your way through college slinging whiskey.
There's a difference though. When I worked minimum wage jobs through HS and college, I was careful about other life choices to keep from getting bound into menial labor for a good portion of my life or ending up having to work several jobs to support a child and keep going to school. I didn't knock anyone up before I was prepared to be a responsible parent and could support a family and never did anything to end up with a felony on my record.
A lot of things people call a personal "misfortune" are the result of poor choices. Sounds cold and callous, but any one of us might be living a different life right now had we made a poor choice along the way. I'm certainly not being critical of choices others have made, nor that there are vehicles to help them if they do have an "ooops".
That said, I do have friends who overcame unplanned pregnancies and had a child in college or before who have gone on to become very successful professionals by bucking up, working a couple of jobs, and studying their butt off to reach their life goals.
Lets break this down. . .
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 03:36:14 PM
Gaspar - RE: "permanent wage"
If these companies cared about their workers then we wouldn't need to enforce a minimum wage. The companies would pay per performance and would reward hard work with advancement. These things no longer exist.
If companies want to keep workers, they care about them. If they want to attract workers, they compete for them.
I'm fairly sure that you understand that minimum wage jobs also rarely have any benefits package.
Would you suggest we mandate benefits too? Why not free housing for workers, or groceries?
How does a single mother working 60+ hours a week to make ends meet find a way to care for her child and pay for an education?
Not by working a minimum wage job. Again, someone willing to work extra hours to advance, will advance. If she has that ambition to better herself, she will better herself.
Do we consider that she and her child are victims of their circumstances and not worthy or capable of more?
Absolutely not! That is why you don't victimize them by building further dependence.
RED ARROW - Requesting fair compensation is not reallocation of wealth. These people are working for the money they are paid, they should be paid fairly for it.
I'll take this. . .Who decides what is "fair compensation?" $32/hr seems even more "fair" don't you think? If I am an employeer and I want someone to greet my customers at the door, perhaps I feel that $8.50 an hour is a fair wage for that person. The employee establishes what is "fair," and if the employee disagrees he or she moves on. Employers compete for good workers, and if the wages they pay cannot attract those willing to work for those wages, the employeer will be forced to increase them.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2013, 03:47:25 PM
There's a difference though. When I worked minimum wage jobs through HS and college, I was careful about other life choices to keep from getting bound into menial labor for a good portion of my life or ending up having to work several jobs to support a child and keep going to school. I didn't knock anyone up before I was prepared to be a responsible parent and could support a family and never did anything to end up with a felony on my record.
A lot of things people call a personal "misfortune" are the result of poor choices. Sounds cold and callous, but any one of us might be living a different life right now had we made a poor choice along the way. I'm certainly not being critical of choices others have made, nor that there are vehicles to help them if they do have an "ooops".
That said, I do have friends who overcame unplanned pregnancies and had a child in college or before who have gone on to become very successful professionals by bucking up, working a couple of jobs, and studying their butt off to reach their life goals.
My 7yo daughter has become a real whizz at math. I help her with her homework and am amazed at how quickly she has picked up creative ways to solve complex problems.
We were driving to Best Buy after dinner the other night and she was working on her homework in the car. As we pulled off at the 71st and 169 exit, I told her I was so proud of her for taking the initiative every night and doing her homework without anyone asking her. Her response was priceless. "Well, I don't want to be like that guy," pointing to the obese pan-handler just outside the car window. She's only 7 and she understands the basics of life. I'm sure she will face many adversities before she is an adult, but hopefully she too learns the importance and power of her choices.
So, the panhandler lesson was only half told?
Innocent little girls don't need to be taught about the poor...they just need to know to avoid the situation.
Does she attend early childhood development classes?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 03:59:24 PM
Lets break this down. . .
If these companies cared about their workers then we wouldn't need to enforce a minimum wage. The companies would pay per performance and would reward hard work with advancement. These things no longer exist.
If companies want to keep workers, they care about them. If they want to attract workers, they compete for them.
I'm fairly sure that you understand that minimum wage jobs also rarely have any benefits package.
Would you suggest we mandate benefits too? Why not free housing for workers, or groceries? I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the minimum wage should be raised.
How does a single mother working 60+ hours a week to make ends meet find a way to care for her child and pay for an education?
Not by working a minimum wage job. Again, someone willing to work extra hours to advance, will advance. If she has that ambition to better herself, she will better herself. Oh, I see; the people that work a job for 40 hours and more a week are not to be considered ambitious when that job pays minimum wage.
Do we consider that she and her child are victims of their circumstances and not worthy or capable of more?
Absolutely not! That is why you don't victimize them by building further dependence. Paying a fair wage is not creating dependence.
RED ARROW - Requesting fair compensation is not reallocation of wealth. These people are working for the money they are paid, they should be paid fairly for it.
I'll take this. . .Who decides what is "fair compensation?" $32/hr seems even more "fair" don't you think? If I am an employeer and I want someone to greet my customers at the door, perhaps I feel that $8.50 an hour is a fair wage for that person. The employee establishes what is "fair," and if the employee disagrees he or she moves on. Employers compete for good workers, and if the wages they pay cannot attract those willing to work for those wages, the employeer will be forced to increase them. I'll play this game. Maybe $3.50 an hour is your idea of fair compensation for the following minimum wage jobs: Certified Nursing Assistant, Child Care Provider, EMT, Auto Service Tech...not all of these jobs are in the fast food window.
I'm curious as to how this hypothetical single mother working full time is expected to pay for education on top of the costs of living? And when shall she go to school? I guess if you start off life with parents in the wrong income bracket, you gotta be a superstar or we'll write you off as a taker, even if you are working full time.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 04:20:29 PM
Ok Carltonplace, lets complete the equation.
QuoteI'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the minimum wage should be raised.
You are suggesting that the government mandate employers to pay a higher wage for entry level labor. The proven consequence of this is a decrease in jobs, and an increase in the prices of goods and services. Therefore, you are suggesting that we increase unemployment for low wage workers, and the cost of the goods and services they buy.
QuoteOh, I see; the people that work a job for 40 hours and more a week are not to be considered ambitious when that job pays minimum wage.
People that work full time in any job (minimum wage or otherwise) will advance if they desire to. If their employeer does not provide them with the opportunity for advancement, the desire will motivate them to seek other employment options. In turn this encourages employers to be competitive for quality employees.
QuotePaying a fair wage is not creating dependence.
The employee establishes what is "fair" not the government. As an unintended consequence, the mandate for higher wages reduces opportunity and shrinks the size of the entry level work force. The natural result is more of these workers finding themselves completely dependent on government assistance.
QuoteI'll play this game. Maybe $3.50 an hour is your idea of fair compensation for the following minimum wage jobs: Certified Nursing Assistant, Child Care Provider, EMT, Auto Service Tech...not all of these jobs are in the fast food window.
If an employeer can advertise a $3.50 an hour position for a Certified Nursing Assistant, Child Care Provider, EMT, Auto Service Tech, and a worker is willing to accept that, then the wage is obviously fair, because the exchange of service for wage is voluntary. I however doubt that you would find such a worker. Again, the fairness of the wage is not determined by the employeer, but by the employee.
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2013, 04:29:56 PM
I'm curious as to how this hypothetical single mother working full time is expected to pay for education on top of the costs of living? And when shall she go to school? I guess if you start off life with parents in the wrong income bracket, you gotta be a superstar or we'll write you off as a taker, even if you are working full time.
Look through here. Maybe you can find something to help.
http://www.tulsacc.edu/finaid
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2013, 04:39:17 PM
Look through here. Maybe you can find something to help.
http://www.tulsacc.edu/finaid
You're assuming that they are eligible for financial aid, which may not be the case. Perhaps, as several people I have known have, they are under 26 and have parents who have substantial financial resources. Or perhaps they have a past drug conviction. Besides, who's going to pay for more child care?
There are many roadblocks that might not be apparent from a distance.
there's a learning lesson here.....
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2013, 03:11:25 PM
Good politicians are hard to spot. Here's a hint: Look for the person who promises the least.
[/color]
Well, Jim Inhofe is the least promising...does that count?
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2013, 04:58:18 PM
You're assuming that they are eligible for financial aid, which may not be the case. Perhaps, as several people I have known have, they are under 26 and have parents who have substantial financial resources.
I have heard of young adults with non-helping parents getting financial aid. It may have taken some kind of legal "separation". I never dug into the details.
QuoteOr perhaps they have a past drug conviction.
I don't know where to draw the line on criminal convictions regarding financial aid. Drug laws in particular are a mess in my opinion. I'm sure there will always be a case where someone won't be eligible for financial aid. I am curious of the percentage that would use it if only they hadn't had "that conviction".
QuoteBesides, who's going to pay for more child care?
Legitimate question. It certainly won't be answered without looking.
QuoteThere are many roadblocks that might not be apparent from a distance.
Also a legitimate statement. Sometimes we erect roadblocks for ourselves rather than trying to solve them.
I know this is a children's book but it's an attitude that seems to be missing in modern USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could
Quote from: carltonplace on February 14, 2013, 04:20:29 PM
the following minimum wage jobs: Certified Nursing Assistant, Child Care Provider, EMT, Auto Service Tech...not all of these jobs are in the fast food window.
Certified Nursing Assistant, Child Care Provider, EMT, Auto Service Tech:
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Certified-Nursing-Assistant.html
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/childcare-workers.htm
http://www1.salary.com/Emergency-Medical-Technician-Salary.html
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/installation-maintenance-and-repair/automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm
You can always tell when he starts parsing things up line by line he knows that he is making an argument that has been proven false for decades or longer. It is the old familiar syndrome of "if you can't blind them with brilliance (or at least some truth), then baffle them with BS." Every single point regarding all the "bad" things that happen when you raise the minimum wage are not only false, but actually the opposite of the reality!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 14, 2013, 06:57:41 PM
You can always tell when he starts parsing things up line by line he knows that he is making an argument that has been proven false for decades or longer. It is the old familiar syndrome of "if you can't blind them with brilliance (or at least some truth), then baffle them with BS." Every single point regarding all the "bad" things that happen when you raise the minimum wage are not only false, but actually the opposite of the reality!
That's interesting, because there are decades of evidence to the contrary, presented by economists. There however is no evidence to the contrary that government mandated wage increases correlate with increased opportunity for entry level or unskilled workers.
Typically when we need to break apart your, or Carlton's remarks and address them line by line, it is because each line contains some claim or fallacy that requires debunking. This is typical with emotional responses to logical dilemmas.
The market dictates the levels for wages, that is a fact. More precisely, the worker dictates the wage level that he or she is willing to accept. This is not rocket science, it's the most basic of economics. If an employeer advertises five $7.25 an hour window cleaning jobs, and gets 5 applicants who want to work for $7.25 an hour, they enter into a mutual agreement that $7.25 is a good wage for that job. If he gets no applicants for the job, he may choose to advertise those jobs at $8.25 an hour. The workers have just communicated that $7.25 is an inadequate wage for window washing, and the employer has agreed. If the government steps in and says "you must pay $9.00 an hour," and the employeer either cannot bare that level or raise his prices to compensate for it, he will likely find other ways to accomplish the task, or perhaps simply expand the responsibilities of his existing staff to cover the regular cleaning of the windows.
The emotional response is to look at the employeer and conclude that because he makes a profit from his labor force, the worker has a right to part of that profit above what workers and the employeer have mutually agreed to. They view it as the duty of government to determine what is "fare." Unfortunately for the workers, the government cannot mandate that the employeer maintain any specific number of workers or that he limit the prices he charges for his goods or services. Therefore, when government expands the employers labor expenses, his prices will need to expand or his labor force will need to contract.
It's not that those who demand government mandated wage controls don't understand the mechanism, they do. It's that those who promote government mandated wage controls do so for the very powerful political advantage it affords them. Low wage workers, are typically unexperienced, young, or in many cases of lower educational levels, that this makes them prone to vote for largess from government without understanding or caring how that act will reduce their ability to progress and grow economically or how it may threaten the very jobs they rely on.
It is a simple case of the politically ambitious using the emotional to take advantage of the irrational.
OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/14/1596051/blackburn-minimum-wage-oops/
Quote from: nathanm on February 14, 2013, 04:58:18 PM
You're assuming that they are eligible for financial aid, which may not be the case. Perhaps, as several people I have known have, they are under 26 and have parents who have substantial financial resources. Or perhaps they have a past drug conviction. Besides, who's going to pay for more child care?
There are many roadblocks that might not be apparent from a distance.
A strong survival instinct and a real desire to succeed is all it takes.
You can either be controlled by your circumstances or choose to control your circumstances. If I had chosen to allow my circumstances to control me, I'd probably still be earning minimum wage collecting on payday loans.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2013, 08:37:34 AM
That's interesting, because there are decades of evidence to the contrary, presented by economists. There however is no evidence to the contrary that government mandated wage increases correlate with increased opportunity for entry level or unskilled workers.
Decades of Faux News is the only contrary evidence. And even they admit they are not serious news - they are only "entertainment".
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2013, 09:05:30 AM
A strong survival instinct and a real desire to succeed is all it takes.
You can either be controlled by your circumstances or choose to control your circumstances. If I had chosen to allow my circumstances to control me, I'd probably still be earning minimum wage collecting on payday loans.
In other words, if you're born to the wrong people, you'd better be a superstar or we'll blame you for your circumstances and call you a deadbeat even if you're working full time.
Quote from: nathanm on February 15, 2013, 05:13:51 PM
In other words, if you're born to the wrong people, you'd better be a superstar or we'll blame you for your circumstances and call you a deadbeat even if you're working full time.
your life is predetermined and hopeless. There is nothing you can do about it. Accept that you will remain uneducated, poor, and living in public housing or a slum with several kids looking for a handout forever. Be sure to teach this to your kids so they won't attempt to better themselves.
FIFY
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2013, 09:05:30 AM
If I had chosen to allow my circumstances to control me, I'd probably still be earning minimum wage collecting on payday loans.
I think you would have been happier driving the gas truck at RVS (or was that Hoss?).
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2013, 05:45:29 PM
your life is predetermined and hopeless. There is nothing you can do about it. Accept that you will remain uneducated, poor, and living in public housing or a slum with several kids looking for a handout forever. Be sure to teach this to your kids so they won't attempt to better themselves.
FIFY
If you think increasing poverty and a middle class slowly falling behind is caused by lazy parents telling their kids they won't amount to anything, I don't know what to tell you. This isn't only happening among a small part of our society. There is clearly a systemic problem here.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2013, 05:45:29 PM
your life is predetermined and hopeless. There is nothing you can do about it. Accept that you will remain uneducated, poor, and living in public housing or a slum with several kids looking for a handout forever. Be sure to teach this to your kids so they won't attempt to better themselves.
FIFY
I couldn't have FIFY'd better myself.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2013, 06:07:58 PM
If you think increasing poverty and a middle class slowly falling behind is caused by lazy parents telling their kids they won't amount to anything, I don't know what to tell you. This isn't only happening among a small part of our society. There is clearly a systemic problem here.
Poverty pimps, politicians, and community activists (or organizers) telling people their place in life is hopeless because "the man" has his foot on their head does not help. People somehow keep believing the government is going to come in like a big genie and level the playing field. Sounds great to someone who thinks wrongly they cannot change their circumstances. I'd still be waiting if I had believed someone else was responsible for my success or lack thereof.
I know too many people who have nutted up and done whatever it took to get ahead to believe success exists only as some form of spontaneous combustion or that you have to be born into it. All it takes is a belief in yourself.
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2013, 06:07:58 PM
If you think increasing poverty and a middle class slowly falling behind is caused by lazy parents telling their kids they won't amount to anything, I don't know what to tell you. This isn't only happening among a small part of our society. There is clearly a systemic problem here.
I am more optimistic than that. I don't believe it takes a superperson to overcome a bad start. I "fixed it" that way because the message you send is one of hopelessness and despair. You can say roadblocks and other obstacles all you want but the message I get from your posts is that no one can change their position in life.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2013, 07:33:40 PM
People somehow keep believing the government is going to come in like a big genie and level the playing field.
All it takes is a belief in yourself.
and big breaks, luck, and an education (yes, government run....)
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 16, 2013, 08:56:00 PM
and big breaks, luck, and an education (yes, government run....)
Got it....
The government waves its magic wand and everyone gets ahead. No personal initiative involved. No work or effort required. Abbra Kadrabra.. You are a WINNER.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 16, 2013, 08:18:14 PM
You can say roadblocks and other obstacles all you want but the message I get from your posts is that no one can change their position in life.
Sorry, the message I intend to send is that many people cannot or will not (despite significant effort) change their position in life. Many people can, although fewer here manage it here than in France, Spain, and Canada, among other places. More than places like Mexico and Brazil, though. Those people are still people. You can't make policy based on the exceptions. What do we do about the people who do indeed attempt to improve their circumstances but find it impossible for them?
Part of the problem is that getting an associate's degree typically does not increase earning power as much as the student loan debt costs, and dropout rates are very high among nontraditional students in four year programs (but are quite respectable in two year programs). Clearly, figuring out what it is that keeps people from finishing their education and helping them with that is an important component of any solution. Otherwise they just get themselves a bunch of debt they can't get rid of with nothing to show for it except more people calling about unpaid bills.
Quote from: nathanm on February 17, 2013, 12:37:51 AM
Sorry, the message I intend to send is that many people cannot or will not (despite significant effort) change their position in life. Many people can, although fewer here manage it here than in France, Spain, and Canada, among other places. More than places like Mexico and Brazil, though. Those people are still people. You can't make policy based on the exceptions. What do we do about the people who do indeed attempt to improve their circumstances but find it impossible for them?
Part of the problem is that getting an associate's degree typically does not increase earning power as much as the student loan debt costs, and dropout rates are very high among nontraditional students in four year programs (but are quite respectable in two year programs). Clearly, figuring out what it is that keeps people from finishing their education and helping them with that is an important component of any solution. Otherwise they just get themselves a bunch of debt they can't get rid of with nothing to show for it except more people calling about unpaid bills.
The job of a free society is to protect the opportunity, not to guarantee success. Humans innovate and elevate themselves through example. When free people see others doing the necessary work and enjoying the rewards, they are driven to do the same. When people see reward without sacrifice they are reluctant to exert any unnecessary effort.
Use of the term "position in life" is debilitating and destructive. If you do not like your "position in life" then commit to move!
I am confident that your answer will be "Well it's not that easy!"
If it were easy, it would not be worth it. Success without sacrifice is typically squandered. That's why lottery winners don't last very long.
Thank you for your post, "Standard Libertarian forum post #22". It was quite informative.
Edited to add: Feeling slightly less glib, I'd like to point out that you simply can't seem to comprehend the concept that millions of your fellow countrymen are in fact putting forth lots of effort and still find themselves stuck in minimum wage jobs. When you just ignore anything that doesn't fit in your worldview, it's hard to have a rational one.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2013, 03:13:40 PM
Thank you for your post, "Standard Libertarian forum post #22". It was quite informative.
Edited to add: Feeling slightly less glib, I'd like to point out that you simply can't seem to comprehend the concept that millions of your fellow countrymen are in fact putting forth lots of effort and still find themselves stuck in minimum wage jobs. When you just ignore anything that doesn't fit in your worldview, it's hard to have a rational one.
And when the minimum wage is raised, they are
still stuck in a minimum wage job. Funny how that works! ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2013, 03:41:19 PM
And when the minimum wage is raised, they are still stuck in a minimum wage job. Funny how that works! ;D
Nobody said they wouldn't be. Seems to me that one ought to be able to feed and house oneself on full time work, though.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2013, 03:41:19 PM
And when the minimum wage is raised, they are still stuck in a minimum wage job. Funny how that works! ;D
Funny, huh? Well, ok, I guess from a certain perspective it would be funny.
And then the reality - the NEW minimum wage now provides that much incremental more economic activity and opportunity. Which is what really happens in an economy...they have more, spend more, money moves more, etc, etc. Only this actually works as opposed to the whole Reaganomics (Voodoo Economics) fantasy espoused lo, these many years....
Or do you subscribe to the standard Republican school of thought that says "Low wages are the solution....?"
As opposed to the opposite that says "Low wages are the problem."
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2013, 04:08:35 PM
Nobody said they wouldn't be. Seems to me that one ought to be able to feed and house oneself on full time work, though.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
What do you think the minimum wage should be? For a family of 4, $11/hr would still have them at the poverty level.
I used 2080 hrs/yr, 52 weeks at 40 hr/wk.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2013, 10:06:40 PM
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
What do you think the minimum wage should be? For a family of 4, $11/hr would still have them at the poverty level.
I used 2080 hrs/yr, 52 weeks at 40 hr/wk.
No less than the 1968 inflation adjusted equivalent.
Even though that was really warped by Reagan the week after the inauguration...going from 15% to 6% in a matter of "days"....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 18, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
Funny, huh? Well, ok, I guess from a certain perspective it would be funny.
And then the reality - the NEW minimum wage now provides that much incremental more economic activity and opportunity. Which is what really happens in an economy...they have more, spend more, money moves more, etc, etc. Only this actually works as opposed to the whole Reaganomics (Voodoo Economics) fantasy espoused lo, these many years....
Or do you subscribe to the standard Republican school of thought that says "Low wages are the solution....?"
As opposed to the opposite that says "Low wages are the problem."
You forget, cost of living for everyone else tracks with minimum wage. Everything you purchase from bacon to gasoline has had someone making minimum wage in the development or raising of the natural resource, manufacture or processing, delivery, or retail end of it.
Let's say Congress says minimum wage must go up 25%. If a person gets a 25% pay increase like every other minimum wage job holder, the company he works for must necessarily raise their prices by a commensurate amount to remain profitable. Granted, not every job in the company is a minimum wage job, so the increase may not be a full 25% but it will go up. Retail, grocery, food processing, and menial manufacturing are filled with minimum wage jobs. But every place that person does business with must raise their costs as well because they had a sudden increase in payroll costs, not to mention increased payroll costs related to the clusterfark of Obamacare.
Perhaps this is what the sudden push is all about: try to dilute the real cost of Obamacare on employees by suddenly mandating a pay increase which, when government does it, is absolutely indistinguishable from a new tax in the eyes of the employee. It's yet one more government-mandated cost. Whether the employer must pay it as a tax or additional payroll cost or extortion fee to the Teamsters, it's got the same net affect on the bottom line and on the cost to the end user.
The purpose of increasing minimum wage in the minds of people who think they benefit from it is increased purchasing power. Now they can have an occasional ribeye instead of sirloin seeming like a luxury. Maybe they can finally afford a newer more fuel efficient car, maybe they can occasionally splurge on name brand goods instead of generic (which is an overblown concept for the most part) or perhaps they can afford locally grown foods- oh wait, that local producer had to raise their prices to cover their sudden labor cost increases!!! Wait, what?!
Imagine the chagrin of the person who thought Congress stepped in on their behalf and increased their spending power only to realize the cost of everything they use from de-oderant to a Big Mac has just gone up roughly the same rate as their pay went up.
Raise minimum wage all you want. It never takes into account the other side of the equation: spending power. A minimum wage does NOT better the lifestyle of people working 40 hours in bottom rung jobs. The only thing which is guaranteed to better their lifestyle is getting out of the range of work which is only worth a minimum wage. You can make minimum wage $25 per hour and the people making $25 per hour will still live in squalor, eat pure crap for a diet, and can only still afford to shop at Goodwill and buy generic cigarettes instead of Marlboros.
Simple economics, something you've apparently learned to grasp because you have some potty training issue related to Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch. That's why things like "1968 inflation adjusted equivalent" you read somewhere never jibes when minimum wage is raised.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2013, 10:38:47 PM
You forget, cost of living for everyone else tracks with minimum wage. Everything you purchase from bacon to gasoline has had someone making minimum wage in the development or raising of the natural resource, manufacture or processing, delivery, or retail end of it.
Let's say Congress says minimum wage must go up 25%. If a person gets a 25% pay increase like every other minimum wage job holder, the company he works for must necessarily raise their prices by a commensurate amount to remain profitable. Granted, not every job in the company is a minimum wage job, so the increase may not be a full 25% but it will go up. Retail, grocery, food processing, and menial manufacturing are filled with minimum wage jobs. But every place that person does business with must raise their costs as well because they had a sudden increase in payroll costs, not to mention increased payroll costs related to the clusterfark of Obamacare.
Perhaps this is what the sudden push is all about: try to dilute the real cost of Obamacare on employees by suddenly mandating a pay increase which, when government does it, is absolutely indistinguishable from a new tax in the eyes of the employee. It's yet one more government-mandated cost. Whether the employer must pay it as a tax or additional payroll cost or extortion fee to the Teamsters, it's got the same net affect on the bottom line and on the cost to the end user.
The purpose of increasing minimum wage in the minds of people who think they benefit from it is increased purchasing power. Now they can have an occasional ribeye instead of sirloin seeming like a luxury. Maybe they can finally afford a newer more fuel efficient car, maybe they can occasionally splurge on name brand goods instead of generic (which is an overblown concept for the most part) or perhaps they can afford locally grown foods- oh wait, that local producer had to raise their prices to cover their sudden labor cost increases!!! Wait, what?!
Imagine the chagrin of the person who thought Congress stepped in on their behalf and increased their spending power only to realize the cost of everything they use from de-oderant to a Big Mac has just gone up roughly the same rate as their pay went up.
Raise minimum wage all you want. It never takes into account the other side of the equation: spending power. A minimum wage does NOT better the lifestyle of people working 40 hours in bottom rung jobs. The only thing which is guaranteed to better their lifestyle is getting out of the range of work which is only worth a minimum wage. You can make minimum wage $25 per hour and the people making $25 per hour will still live in squalor, eat pure crap for a diet, and can only still afford to shop at Goodwill and buy generic cigarettes instead of Marlboros.
Simple economics, something you've apparently learned to grasp because you have some potty training issue related to Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch. That's why things like "1968 inflation adjusted equivalent" you read somewhere never jibes when minimum wage is raised.
Your analogy is correct, except that the market consequence is actually more profound. You cannot simply raise minimum wage. Doing so causes an increase in total wage structure to preserve advancement incentive. For instance. If you raise minimum wage to $9.00 an hour for the entry level worker, the shift manager who was making $8.75 will need to be bumped up closer to the $10/hr level, and the assistant manager who was making $10/hr will need to be shifted to $13. In compact labor division environments this may continue all the way to upper management.
Even in companies with broad divisions of labor such as healthcare, if the laundry personell who were making $7.75/hr are suddenly paid the same as the housekeeping staff, the advancement and incentive structure will need to be shifted to preserve hierarchy. Basically, the result is not simply an increase in labor cost for entry level labor, it is an increase in cost throughout all divisions of labor, and results in price adjustments to at least compensate, and in many cases increase overall profit as a hedge.
That is why government mandated wage laws do not improve poverty, and in most cases increase overall poverty and unemployment among the young, uneducated, and unskilled workers.
Minimum wage debates are wholly political, and designed to appeal to the economically ignorant only.
Past studies by and large confirm the prediction that higher minimum wages reduce employment opportunities and raise unemployment, particularly among teenagers, minorities and other low-skilled workers. – Masanori Hashimoto
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2013, 10:38:47 PM
You forget, cost of living for everyone else tracks with minimum wage. Everything you purchase from bacon to gasoline has had someone making minimum wage in the development or raising of the natural resource, manufacture or processing, delivery, or retail end of it.
And you (and Gaspar) forget...or more likely just ignore the facts of the total economic equation regarding inflation, productivity, and wage gains. Kind of surprising since you both are "in" business...but maybe not so surprising, since those realities have in very real terms put massive increases in additional profit into the hands of top management in this country over the last 40+ years at the direct expense of working people.
Here's how it really works - inflation runs 2.5% (If you believe the government...). Productivity increases at 3 - 5% annually for the last 40 years. Real wage decreases about -2% annually for the last 40 years. So, the cost of inflation is born almost totally by working people. Productivity increases drop straight to the bottom line, into the pockets of CEO's. Net real gain to 1%ers - in excess of 4 to 5% (and more) annually
just on the backs of the American workers - those 47% that Romney was so dismissive of...you remember them, don't ya??
And all those so-called "bad" effects of raising a minimum wage, whether here or Japan...just fantasy talk between upper management.
But you guys know this....
Quote from: Gaspar on February 19, 2013, 07:45:59 AM
Your analogy is correct, except that the market consequence is actually more profound.
I didn't even want to go there. Way too much effort to end up with the expected reply that Heir eventually left.
Bottom rung jobs will always be bottom rung jobs regardless how much you pay someone to do them. All other costs escalate and their spending power does not improve.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2013, 10:15:40 AM
I didn't even want to go there. Way too much effort to end up with the expected reply that Heir eventually left.
Bottom rung jobs will always be bottom rung jobs regardless how much you pay someone to do them. All other costs escalate and their spending power does not improve.
Literally what you are saying with that is since costs are going to go up, they should just be left alone - just like they have been for decades, comparatively - and it is no big deal that the reality is that the real spending power - meaning the real spending power of all those people - has declined by over 25%! Just as long as the 1%ers continue to advance at 20% a year, it's not really a problem...
The Republican solution hard at work; low wages are the solution!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 19, 2013, 12:59:32 PM
Literally what you are saying with that is since costs are going to go up, they should just be left alone - just like they have been for decades, comparatively - and it is no big deal that the reality is that the real spending power - meaning the real spending power of all those people - has declined by over 25%! Just as long as the 1%ers continue to advance at 20% a year, it's not really a problem...
The Republican solution hard at work; low wages are the solution!
No one knows where your ambiguous numbers come from, but either way, you purposefully disregard a significant amount of data. There is no such thing as a Poor Person or a "1%er" over time. Those are static snapshots, that do not reflect the dynamics of income mobility.
I don't expect for you to accept this or even acknowledge it for that matter.
Who needs minimum wage? this girl has it all figured out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LWlkXRZ3CA
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 19, 2013, 12:59:32 PM
Literally what you are saying with that is since costs are going to go up, they should just be left alone - just like they have been for decades, comparatively - and it is no big deal that the reality is that the real spending power - meaning the real spending power of all those people - has declined by over 25%! Just as long as the 1%ers continue to advance at 20% a year, it's not really a problem...
The Republican solution hard at work; low wages are the solution!
Bzzzzzt!!! WRONG ANSWER!
Minimum wage jobs pay minimum wage because they are considered to be entry level work suitable for students, a secondary household income, or a training position leading to something better. They are not typically jobs people keep for a lifetime. Someone who bounces from one minimum wage job to another for 30 years has done so because they have not sought to better themself or they don't bring a set of skills to the job that makes them worth more in the job market.
What would you be worth in the job market without an engineering degree or prior experience for what you now do?
The best thing you can do to improve someone's overall income and purchasing power is to improve their education level so that they can leave the bottom rung of the job market. Simply mandating minimally skilled jobs are now worth x-amount more does absolutely no long term favors to those who do nothing to improve their job skills or marketability to employers looking for employees who are worth more money to them.
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 19, 2013, 01:47:28 PM
Who needs minimum wage? this girl has it all figured out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LWlkXRZ3CA
I can get my EBT on at Dominos and Subway?
Damn, I'm quittin' my job and gettin' an EBT!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2013, 01:58:02 PM
Bzzzzzt!!! WRONG
Someone who bounces from one minimum wage job to another for 30 years has done so because they have not sought to better themself or they don't bring a set of skills to the job that makes them worth more in the job market. (BESIDES A BAD GRAMMAR REMARK, THIS IS NOT TRUE)
What would you be worth in the job market without an engineering degree or prior experience for what you now do? (DUH)
The best thing you can do to improve someone's overall income and purchasing power is to improve their education level so that they can leave the bottom rung of the job market. Simply mandating minimally skilled jobs are now worth x-amount more does absolutely no long term favors to those who do nothing to improve their job skills or marketability to employers looking for employees who are worth more money to them.
Coco, you almost come across as believing in education...just not public education.
A huge part of our economy works part time not because they need training to do other jobs, but out of personal situations.
I've read your posts and must come to the conclusion your inflexible mindset regarding "takers" and "gubmint" and economics prohibits you from supporting the poor and unfortunate cause.
I have heard the whiners for years every time we raised the floor on wages and it has never seemed to adversely affect our over all economy. Quite the opposite...
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2013, 10:06:40 PM
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
What do you think the minimum wage should be? For a family of 4, $11/hr would still have them at the poverty level.
I used 2080 hrs/yr, 52 weeks at 40 hr/wk.
I'm not sure exactly. In terms of buying power, the minimum wage is presently near the low end of the scale. In 1956 the minimum wage went up from $0.75/hr to $1/hr. That dollar bought more than the $7.25 a person making minimum wage gets paid today. In terms of 1996 dollars, about 80 cents more. In 1963 it went up to $1.25/hr for $1.15. That's $6.41 in 1996 dollars. Presently, we're at $4.97. I guess it could be worse, it was down to $4.04 in 2006.
Seems like $9 would be a good place to start. I don't feel like a single person making minimum wage should be able to support three other people, assuming no assistance. That hasn't been possible (for most) even among the middle class in many years now. Two workers working full time at minimum wage should absolutely be able to support a family of four at slightly above the poverty line, IMO. Anything less is just exploitative.
Conan, your spiel about education is all well and good, but ignores today's realities, where the job market is not robust enough to absorb all the existing college graduates, much less a bunch more working their way up. There are some exceptions, of course, but in the main, college degrees aren't actually getting new graduates jobs. That said, trade school probably is a reasonable goal for a lot of these people.
Gaspar, your position is consistent with economic theory, but as you often like to tell me, that theory is not borne out in practice. We don't have a great explanation of why, but minimum wage increases don't actually increase inflation commensurately, nor do non-minimum wage workers typically see a general increase or decrease in wages.
Maybe this time will be different?
Quote from: nathanm on February 19, 2013, 03:28:09 PM
Conan, your spiel about education is all well and good, but ignores today's realities, where the job market is not robust enough to absorb all the existing college graduates, much less a bunch more working their way up. There are some exceptions, of course, but in the main, college degrees aren't actually getting new graduates jobs. That said, trade school probably is a reasonable goal for a lot of these people.
Gaspar, your position is consistent with economic theory, but as you often like to tell me, that theory is not borne out in practice. We don't have a great explanation of why, but minimum wage increases don't actually increase inflation commensurately, nor do non-minimum wage workers typically see a general increase or decrease in wages.
Maybe this time will be different?
Instead of your message of hopelessness, what do you propose would increase the buying power of those working the bottom rung jobs?
Simply sitting by and saying it's not worth trying to improve one's self because other people are failing with better educations is lame. You have to make yourself exceptional to a potential employer, over all other candidates. Either that or take a risk and strike out on your own and build your own business. It's been done time and time again.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 19, 2013, 02:41:44 PM
Coco, you almost come across as believing in education...just not public education.
A huge part of our economy works part time not because they need training to do other jobs, but out of personal situations.
I've read your posts and must come to the conclusion your inflexible mindset regarding "takers" and "gubmint" and economics prohibits you from supporting the poor and unfortunate cause.
I have heard the whiners for years every time we raised the floor on wages and it has never seemed to adversely affect our over all economy. Quite the opposite...
And they work jobs which are worthy of part time minimal pay. What's your point?
You have no fresh ideas. You only exist to lampoon those you don't agree with in general without really considering what their real values and positions are. I happen to believe and have stated repeatedly education is the best investment government can make. I think full ride college or technical school should be available for anyone who needs or wants it and perhaps we wouldn't require as much room in the prison industry.
My very simple point, and I'm typing slow because I know you are a slow reader, is that raising the minimum wage accomplishes little in helping to increase the comfort level or purchasing power of those mired in low wage jobs. Sure there might be a temporary gain in spending power but once the economy has to absorb the necessary inflation which comes with a mass rise in payroll, it's still a wash. Raising the minimum wage is not an example of income mobility nor class mobility which is really what we want to accomplish, right?
The economy is still quite fragile, with rising fuel prices, employers threatening to cut hours of part-timers to avoid the Obamacare penalty (it was in the news this morning some Oklahoma food retailers will be cutting back hours), etc. raising the minimum wage right now could be a serious blow due to the inflation which would result. If the economy was singing along like it was in the late 1990's I could agree that the impact on the overall economy would be minimal, but it's a long long way from those halcyon days.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
Instead of your message of hopelessness, what do you propose would increase the buying power of those working the bottom rung jobs?
Simply sitting by and saying it's not worth trying to improve one's self because other people are failing with better educations is lame. You have to make yourself exceptional to a potential employer, over all other candidates. Either that or take a risk and strike out on your own and build your own business. It's been done time and time again.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do what they can, I'm saying that the paths that we as a society push people towards are not viable at the moment. That may change. I sure hope so. Until then, what would you have them do? It's pretty hard, for example, to start your own business if you're already living paycheck to paycheck. It's a laudable goal, but not realistic for most. I don't claim to have the answers. These are hard problems. All I can really say is that the solutions of the past are not solutions that will work today.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2013, 04:02:19 PM
And they work jobs which are worthy of part time minimal pay. What's your point?
You have no fresh ideas. You only exist to lampoon those you don't agree with in general without really considering what their real values and positions are. I happen to believe and have stated repeatedly education is the best investment government can make. I think full ride college or technical school should be available for anyone who needs or wants it and perhaps we wouldn't require as much room in the prison industry.
My very simple point, and I'm typing slow because I know you are a slow reader, is that raising the minimum wage accomplishes little in helping to increase the comfort level or purchasing power of those mired in low wage jobs. Sure there might be a temporary gain in spending power but once the economy has to absorb the necessary inflation which comes with a mass rise in payroll, it's still a wash. Raising the minimum wage is not an example of income mobility nor class mobility which is really what we want to accomplish, right?
The economy is still quite fragile, with rising fuel prices, employers threatening to cut hours of part-timers to avoid the Obamacare penalty (it was in the news this morning some Oklahoma food retailers will be cutting back hours), etc. raising the minimum wage right now could be a serious blow due to the inflation which would result. If the economy was singing along like it was in the late 1990's I could agree that the impact on the overall economy would be minimal, but it's a long long way from those halcyon days.
I have plenty of ideas. What do you mean by fresh? Lampoon? Why not? I'm surrounded in this state by idiots, religious nuts, unhealthy, dangerous and mean people. I am a fortunate outsider.
The economy wouldn't be fragile if confidence were restored in our tax code and our ability to become efficient. Minimum wage will be an excuse and not a contributor to inflation. You think wages moved gasoline up this month? Get real. The 1990's were based on bubbles. We are on much firmer ground today despite what the fear mongers would want you to think.
Don't look back.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 19, 2013, 04:14:29 PM
I have plenty of ideas. What do you mean by fresh? Lampoon? Why not? I'm surrounded in this state by idiots, religious nuts, unhealthy, dangerous and mean people. I am a fortunate outsider.
The economy wouldn't be fragile if confidence were restored in our tax code and our ability to become efficient. Minimum wage will be an excuse and not a contributor to inflation. You think wages moved gasoline up this month? Get real. The 1990's were based on bubbles. We are on much firmer ground today despite what the fear mongers would want you to think.
Don't look back.
We must look back or else we risk making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 19, 2013, 04:26:14 PM
We must look back or else we risk making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Now that's some serious irony right there.
The history of liberty is the history of limitations on the power of government, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the processes of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties. – President Woodrow Wilson
Quote from: Gaspar on February 19, 2013, 04:26:14 PM
We must look back or else we risk making the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Now see....THAT'S a fundamental difference in our way of looking at things. I believe looking back will serve little to help unless we are headed into The Great Depression II which we aren't because of the bank bailout and strong action to re-inflate the economy by the Fed.
I think Krugman has been correct all along. Few of us who have witnessed the tax code back when rates were much higher than today would have a problem going back to that tax code format to encourage investment, but why bother?
Kinda like how so many think our Economic policies and our Economic choices should be made much on the same basis as our family budget.
Looking back we would have to paint the same backdrops of history. That's why bother.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 19, 2013, 01:40:45 PM
No one knows where your ambiguous numbers come from, but either way, you purposefully disregard a significant amount of data. There is no such thing as a Poor Person or a "1%er" over time. Those are static snapshots, that do not reflect the dynamics of income mobility.
I don't expect for you to accept this or even acknowledge it for that matter.
I acknowledge it. And accept the fact that Horwitz is a talking head for some truly fringe economic fantasies. Are you an Austrian, too?? Would explain some things.... And being an adherent of elimination of central banks and fractional-reserve banking. Oh, yeah...and giving people the choice of either being on the gold standard** (100% reserve, no less), OR that each individual be allowed to choose what to accept as money.... this week, I will accept AK-47's. Next week, maybe some ice cream sandwiches, since I'm running low - only 3 left!
Yeah, that guy's got it going, if he really believes all that stuff!
I'm thinking I will go with Oregon State university when they say that the equivalent value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at an adjusted value of about $10.25 in today's dollars, versus today's 25% LESS $7.25. Nothing at all ambiguous or derived from a fantasy world outlook about "going back in time" to the "good old days" of the gold standard!
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html
**Might be interesting to try the gold standard again sometime...estimates are that the sum total of all the gold mined/found in the history of human infatuation with the stuff is somewhere in the $ 5 - 6 trillion at today's crazy prices!! Now, that would bring about a truly exciting time of economic dislocation, amazing grief, hardship, privation, and probably plenty of death and destruction to spice the mixture! And likely a big old dose of deflation, to boot! Maybe THAT is the secret motivation of the gold standard freaks...they are adrenaline junkies of the highest order! We have seen what we will do in the middle east for a little oil (Iraq, if a reminder is needed)....what would we do to get our share of gold - we don't currently have anywhere near the few trillions we would be need to be satisfied?
I bet this is a big hit in some quarters, too. He uses oil as an example, but completely ignores fresh water. Tantalum. Uranium - fuel grade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y
Quote from: Gaspar on February 19, 2013, 01:40:45 PM
There is no such thing as a Poor Person or a "1%er" over time.
That's half true. There is a reasonable amount of income mobility between say, the top 5% and top 1% (although not the top 0.1%). There is much lower income mobility among those lower in the income distribution. Among developed nations, our income mobility is presently very close to the lowest and has been for some time.