Jump to content
chasfh

The Best Argument Why Minimum Wage Needs To Be Raised To A Minimum Living Standard

Recommended Posts

I think that movies, books, poetry, even religion has contributed to this idea that if you wait and search, there is this perfect "soul mate," out there waiting to be found. So when conflicts come up, one or both partners convince themselves that this is evidence that the person is not their intended, "soul mate."... .

x1000. This is so so so absolutely true. You aren't born soul mates - you turn each other into them. A marraige is something you have to make a million active decisions to keep before you are done. The good part is that when its working each one tends to get easier.....:wink:

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

Sounds like a stretch. There's plenty of young lawyers out there that could be making a lot more money working as a bartender. Most of them don't, though, because they're looking to build a career. I doubt people would take a less prestigious job over a more prestigious one if the pay was the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It Is Expensive to Be Poor - Barbara Ehrenreich - The Atlantic

Fifty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson made a move that was unprecedented at the time and remains unmatched by succeeding administrations. He announced a War on Poverty, saying that its “chief weapons” would be “better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities.”

So starting in 1964 and for almost a decade, the federal government poured at least some of its resources in the direction they should have been going all along: toward those who were most in need. Longstanding programs like Head Start, Legal Services, and the Job Corps were created. Medicaid was established. Poverty among seniors was significantly reduced by improvements in Social Security.

Johnson seemed to have established the principle that it is the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of the disadvantaged and deprived. But there was never enough money for the fight against poverty, and Johnson found himself increasingly distracted by another and deadlier war—the one in Vietnam. Although underfunded, the War on Poverty still managed to provoke an intense backlash from conservative intellectuals and politicians.

In their view, government programs could do nothing to help the poor because poverty arises from the twisted psychology of the poor themselves. By the Reagan era, it had become a cornerstone of conservative ideology that poverty is caused not by low wages or a lack of jobs and education, but by the bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles of the poor.

Picking up on this theory, pundits and politicians have bemoaned the character failings and bad habits of the poor for at least the past 50 years. In their view, the poor are shiftless, irresponsible, and prone to addiction. They have too many children and fail to get married. So if they suffer from grievous material deprivation, if they run out of money between paychecks, if they do not always have food on their tables—then they have no one to blame but themselves.

In the 1990s, with a bipartisan attack on welfare, this kind of prejudice against the poor took a drastically misogynistic turn. Poor single mothers were identified as a key link in what was called “the cycle of poverty.” By staying at home and collecting welfare, they set a toxic example for their children, who—important policymakers came to believe—would be better off being cared for by paid child care workers or even, as Newt Gingrich proposed, in orphanages.

Welfare “reform” was the answer, and it was intended not only to end financial support for imperiled families, but also to cure the self-induced “culture of poverty” that was supposedly at the root of their misery. The original welfare reform bill—a bill, it should be recalled, which was signed by President Bill Clinton—included an allocation of $100 million for “chastity training” for low-income women.

The Great Recession should have put the victim-blaming theory of poverty to rest. In the space of only a few months, millions of people entered the ranks of the officially poor—not only laid-off blue-collar workers, but also downsized tech workers, managers, lawyers, and other once-comfortable professionals. No one could accuse these “nouveau poor” Americans of having made bad choices or bad lifestyle decisions. They were educated, hardworking, and ambitious, and now they were also poor—applying for food stamps, showing up in shelters, lining up for entry-level jobs in retail. This would have been the moment for the pundits to finally admit the truth: Poverty is not a character failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.

For most women in poverty, in both good times and bad, the shortage of money arises largely from inadequate wages. When I worked on my book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, I took jobs as a waitress, nursing-home aide, hotel housekeeper, Wal-Mart associate, and a maid with a house-cleaning service. I did not choose these jobs because they were low-paying. I chose them because these are the entry-level jobs most readily available to women.

What I discovered is that in many ways, these jobs are a trap: They pay so little that you cannot accumulate even a couple of hundred dollars to help you make the transition to a better-paying job. They often give you no control over your work schedule, making it impossible to arrange for child care or take a second job. And in many of these jobs, even young women soon begin to experience the physical deterioration—especially knee and back problems—that can bring a painful end to their work life.

I was also dismayed to find that in some ways, it is actually more expensive to be poor than not poor. If you can’t afford the first month’s rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment, you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you don’t have a kitchen or even a refrigerator and microwave, you will find yourself falling back on convenience store food, which—in addition to its nutritional deficits—is also alarmingly overpriced. If you need a loan, as most poor people eventually do, you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. To be poor—especially with children to support and care for—is a perpetual high-wire act.

Most private-sector employers offer no sick days, and many will fire a person who misses a day of work, even to stay home with a sick child. A nonfunctioning car can also mean lost pay and sudden expenses. A broken headlight invites a ticket, plus a fine greater than the cost of a new headlight, and possible court costs. If a creditor decides to get nasty, a court summons may be issued, often leading to an arrest warrant. No amount of training in financial literacy can prepare someone for such exigencies—or make up for an income that is impossibly low to start with. Instead of treating low-wage mothers as the struggling heroines they are, our political culture still tends to view them as miscreants and contributors to the “cycle of poverty.”

If anything, the criminalization of poverty has accelerated since the recession, with growing numbers of states drug testing applicants for temporary assistance, imposing steep fines for school truancy, and imprisoning people for debt. Such measures constitute a cruel inversion of the Johnson-era principle that it is the responsibility of government to extend a helping hand to the poor. Sadly, this has become the means by which the wealthiest country in the world manages to remain complacent in the face of alarmingly high levels of poverty: by continuing to blame poverty not on the economy or inadequate social supports, but on the poor themselves.

It’s time to revive the notion of a collective national responsibility to the poorest among us, who are disproportionately women and especially women of color. Until that happens, we need to wake up to the fact that the underpaid women who clean our homes and offices, prepare and serve our meals, and care for our elderly—earning wages that do not provide enough to live on—are the true philanthropists of our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Egypt the poor kids try to sell bags of sand to tourists despite the fact that there is a desert full of sand in front of them. We don't know what poor means in the US with our cellphones and satellite dishes and $600 in monthly food stamps handed out like candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newsflash: we are not Egypt.

I still don't know why you want your tax dollars to subsidize minimum wage employers' wage bills, instead of having the employers pick up the entire tab themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newsflash: we are not Egypt.

I still don't know why you want your tax dollars to subsidize minimum wage employers' wage bills, instead of having the employers pick up the entire tab themselves.

Can you explain your plan to squeeze those funds out of the 1%er's without hiking up consumer prices to pay for your quest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Egypt the poor kids try to sell bags of sand to tourists despite the fact that there is a desert full of sand in front of them. We don't know what poor means in the US with our cellphones and satellite dishes and $600 in monthly food stamps handed out like candy.

This x1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain your plan to squeeze those funds out of the 1%er's without hiking up consumer prices to pay for your quest?

The 1%ers do not pay enough!

The top 1% of US taxpayers pay almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 95%, and half of that bottom group paid no taxes at all in 2010 | AEIdeas

taxes.jpg

According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year. In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid. In other words, the top 1 percent (1.35 million) of American taxpayers paid almost as much federal income tax in 2010 ($354.8 billion) as the entire bottom 95% of American tax filers ($388.4 billion), see chart above. And it’s that group of top income earners (with income above $221,000 in 2010 to be in the top one percent), that Obama and the Democrats want to tax even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious watching people defend get tricked on economics. Class warfare lives on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newsflash: we are not Egypt.

I still don't know why you want your tax dollars to subsidize minimum wage employers' wage bills, instead of having the employers pick up the entire tab themselves.

Tell it to Micky D's.

McDonald’s Fighting To Be ‘Relevant’ To Customers, CEO Concedes « CBS Chicago

NEW YORK (AP) — McDonald’s is losing customers, as the world’s biggest hamburger chain struggles to attract diners with its higher-priced sandwiches and new offerings like Mighty Wings.

“We’ve lost some of our customer relevance,” CEO Don Thompson conceded Thursday on a call with analysts.

The Oak Brook, Ill.-based company reported disappointing sales for its fourth quarter, as fewer customers visited its established restaurants. Guest counts at those locations fell nearly 2 percent globally and 1.6 percent in the U.S. in 2013, according to a regulatory filing. And McDonald’s expects some challenges to persist this year.

To win back traffic, Thompson said the chain will focus on speedier service, better value offerings and raising “awareness around McDonald’s as a kitchen and a restaurant” that prepares high-quality food. It’s expanding prep tables and plans to beef up staff during peak hours for better execution. It is also bringing in a new U.S. marketing chief, Deborah Wahl, formerly with homebuilder PulteGroup and automakers Chrysler and Ford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah Chas, make sure you tell McDonalds that you think it sucks that the taxpayers are subsidizing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also tell them that conservatives like greeni love that taxpayers subsidize them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Obama needs to sick the IRS on the CBO to get those guys with the program?

In the aftermath of the crushing humiliation from two weeks ago when the bipartisan (if perpetually wrong) Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare would result in an additional 2.5 million job losses over the next decade, all else equal, one would think that the administration would, and should, do everything to make sure that the CBO is sufficiently incentivized, monetarily if need be (wink wink) to avoid such embarrassing incidents of truthiness in the future. One would not think that Obama would turn the other cheek and eagerly anticipate yet another roundhouse punch to the face just days later. Yet that is precisely what happened.

Minutes ago, the CBO issued another stunner of a report, looking at the impact of the minimum wage boost proposal from $7.25 to $10.10 (which at least when it comes to Federal workers is nothing more than a populist gimmick since as we showed previously the average Federal worker makes nearly twice as much as the average American). The punchline: while income would be boosted for about 16.5 million workers or a grand amount of about $31 billion, "the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly." And the cherry on top: as much as an additional 1 million jobs would be lost by the end of 2016.

CBO%20impact%20on%20jobs%20min%20wage.png

Obama's Minimum Wage Boost Will Result In Even More Job Losses, CBO Finds | Zero Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the "business experts" on the right got another thing wrong:

Small Business Majority Report - Small Businesses Support Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10.10

The majority of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour and adjusting it yearly to reflect the cost of living:

57% of small business owners support increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in three stages over two and a half years to $10.10, and believe that it should be adjusted annually to keep pace with the cost of living.

More than half of entrepreneurs believe increasing the minimum wage will boost consumer demand for small businesses, helping them grow and hire:

52% of small business owners agree increasing the minimum wage would be good for small businesses, and that people will have a higher percentage of their income to spend on goods and services because low-wage earners tend to spend money at local businesses—which will be able to grow and hire new workers.

Respondents lean Republican:

47% identified as Republican, 35% as Democrat and 18% as independent or other.

Just another example of how the "party of business" has their head up their *** about business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like the "business experts" on the right got another thing wrong:

Small Business Majority Report - Small Businesses Support Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10.10

Just another example of how the "party of business" has their head up their *** about business.

What this shows is a lot of employers don't mind paying their employees more, they just don't want to be at disadvantage to the guy down the street that doesn't if they do - so it's not going to happen unless the government does it.

Another example of the use for a third party referee to manage the market for socially desirable outcomes it could not achieve on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What this shows is a lot of employers don't mind paying their employees more, they just don't want to be at disadvantage to the guy down the street that doesn't if they do - so it's not going to happen unless the government does it.

Another example of the use for a third party referee to manage the market for socially desirable outcomes it could not achieve on its own.

Yeah, it's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma in game theory. The most optimal solution requires cooperation and trust, but that cooperation and trust easily breaks down when one party decides to defect and pursue only their own self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

It's a very common problem regarding economic behavior that neoclassical economics simply fails to address at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like the "business experts" on the right got another thing wrong:

Small Business Majority Report - Small Businesses Support Increasing the Minimum Wage to $10.10

Just another example of how the "party of business" has their head up their *** about business.

Another unbiased report and of course the resulting whining about the right:
Small Business Majority is a left-wing small business advocacy organization in the United States. It is based in San Francisco, California, with offices in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, New York, Cincinnati, Ohio, Denver, Colorado and St. Louis, Missouri.

Small Business Majority performs opinion polling and writes studies to highlight questions and opinions on issues affecting small businesses. It uses this information to provide small business owners with information on how laws affect their bottom line, and to educate policymakers on a diverse set of issues that they can then advocate for, such as healthcare reform, clean energy, access to credit and job creation.

Wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More than half of entrepreneurs believe increasing the minimum wage will boost consumer demand for small businesses, helping them grow and hire: 52% of small business owners agree increasing the minimum wage would be good for small businesses, and that people will have a higher percentage of their income to spend on goods and services because low-wage earners tend to spend money at local businesses—which will be able to grow and hire new workers.

This is an interesting statement. The way it's phrased isn't doesn't say that entrepreneurs feels that raising the minimum wage is needed to help the poor or that they feel their employees need more salary... rather, it's that they want more disposable cash in customers hands. Of course... this doesn't mean that those entrepreneurs doesn't also think that... but the statement specifically talks about customers, not employees.

To put it another way, Ma and Pa Jones who own a local pizza joint aren't saying so much that they want to raise minimum wage so Joey, their delivery guy, gets more money. Rather, they're saying they want Best Buy and Walmart and Home Depot to pay more for their employees so that those employees will spend more money at their pizza joint.

It's a purely economic decision... They feel a higher minimum wage will effect national chains to a greater extent than it will effect them. It will give them a business advantage. It isn't necessarily a social opinion, but rather a business opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how you know "burger flippers" are being underpaid: they make so little that they are more willing to go on strike and make nothing now for the potential of making a better wage in the future, than they are to just shut up, suck it up and take what they are given.

Fast-food worker strike about to go global

It's not just here. It's all around the world. Hard-working people of modest means are willing to sacrifice their paycheck now for the possibility of making a better wage in the future, just like our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers did in Detroit and Flint and countless other factory towns in starting in the 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just here. It's all around the world. Hard-working people of modest means are willing to sacrifice their paycheck now for the possibility of making a better wage in the future, just like our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers did in Detroit and Flint and countless other factory towns in starting in the 1930s.

And just as those strikes ultimately led to most of their fellow workers being automated and subcontracted out so will these.

Picture-1.png

Blame businesses all you want but if you own one you know in the long run machines are cheaper and easier to deal with than people. You may not like that but a fact is a fact.

Edited by TigersSlappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not in the best interest of business in general to replace all workers with machines. If very few people work because machines do everything, how is business supposed to make money when no one can afford to buy anything? There has to be a synergy between business and worker for the economy to function at a basic level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...