AOC- Amazon Pays their Employees in Starvation Wages.

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
You won't find one but you will see a post talking about paying people to raise a child. To me those two things are not the same.

Paying to raise a child can have limitations or standards put on it while simply paying to have kids cannot. Both could have limitations with how many children one gets credit for but as it currently stands, having more kids typically means getting more credit.

It was implied that it was about parenting and cash, so I can see why Impulse had this train of thought, since this deviates strongly from aid that's contingent on use (e.g. subsidize childcare). What limitations do you think would be reasonable to curb the perverse incentive?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
You won't find one but you will see a post talking about paying people to raise a child. To me those two things are not the same.

Paying to raise a child can have limitations or standards put on it while simply paying to have kids cannot. Both could have limitations with how many children one gets credit for but as it currently stands, having more kids typically means getting more credit.

Right, we should give people money to defray the costs of raising children, not pay them money for birthing children. I mean if the logic is that any money given to parents is paying people for having kids then we already do that and have for a very long time. I doubt many people would argue we should remove tax deductions for dependent children, but what is that other than paying people to have kids if that's the definition?

Simply put, having children has become extremely expensive in the US and so the people who are doing it are either the poor, who don't face the same opportunity costs, or the rich who can afford nannies.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
You could be right in that regards as I'm sure we're talking about the same post. (https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...es-in-starvation-wages.2566600/post-398543530)

This can be considered incentivizing people having children. We can probably argue back and forth about if it really is or not, but if we consider lowest common denominator, and how does this work say if that person couldn't get a job it is basically paying people to have kids. I think the issue I take with it is the 'salary' terminology which leaves a lot open for discussion what exactly that means.

We know this already happens to a degree with the child tax credits, even though while needed to a degree - and hardly cover costs of raising kids, many people use that as a justification to have more children (maybe you've not seen this where you are, but I have).

Anecdotally, I've never seen or heard of someone saying they are having a child for tax purposes, in fact I've never heard of anyone ever say something to the effect, now that I have a child I can get in on those tax credits.

Polling shows one of the top reasons for a declining birth rate is because of finances. Considering that having and raising a child is way more costly than any tax credit one could earn, I have serious doubts as to your claim that tax credits incentivizes people to have children. Then again maybe you hang out with some really dumb people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Anecdotally, I've never seen or heard of someone saying they are having a child for tax purposes, in fact I've never heard of anyone ever say something to the effect, now that I have a child I can get in on those tax credits.

Polling shows one of the top reasons for a declining birth rate is because of finances. Considering that having and raising a child is way more costly than any tax credit one could earn, I have serious doubts as to your claim that tax credits incentivizes people to have children. Then again maybe you hang out with some really dumb people.

Think about who's having all those children. At the risk of insulting the outliers, it isn't the top earners or smartest in the bunch. We're not even talking about those who have 1.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
Anecdotally, I've never seen or heard of someone saying they are having a child for tax purposes, in fact I've never heard of anyone ever say something to the effect, now that I have a child I can get in on those tax credits.

Polling shows one of the top reasons for a declining birth rate is because of finances. Considering that having and raising a child is way more costly than any tax credit one could earn, I have serious doubts as to your claim that tax credits incentivizes people to have children. Then again maybe you hang out with some really dumb people.

There is a modest increase, but that's not the only reason to look for an alternative.

I doubt many people would argue we should remove tax deductions for dependent children, but what is that other than paying people to have kids if that's the definition?

Well yeah. If you get something, most people will want to keep it. It's also the only thing Democrats and Republicans are really offering as a choice.

You could shore up the bottom half of society without giving the parents direct access to more cash simply for having a child (of which there's a large benefit to once they grow old). I bet a lot of the child credits and EITC isn't even invested into the child. That's just the hope. You have parent households with $60-100k+ incomes, yet they don't even have a dime for them after high school for education. The college then tells the kid their parents were suppose to pitch in, which of course didn't happen.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/tax-credits-social-policy-in-bad-disguise/

To the extent that they are intended to benefit children, credits are a particularly inappropriate policy tool. Kids do not file tax returns, so the credit has to go to the parents, with the hope that parents spend the added resources on their children.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Anecdotally, I've never seen or heard of someone saying they are having a child for tax purposes, in fact I've never heard of anyone ever say something to the effect, now that I have a child I can get in on those tax credits.

Polling shows one of the top reasons for a declining birth rate is because of finances. Considering that having and raising a child is way more costly than any tax credit one could earn, I have serious doubts as to your claim that tax credits incentivizes people to have children. Then again maybe you hang out with some really dumb people.

Poor people disproportionately have more children than the middle and upper middle class. What does that tell you?

They do it for fun? We can speculate all you want - they probably aren't working 60 hour weeks, which is in part why the middle class and upper middle class hasn't been having as many children is an over-abundance of work hours.

Having more children will hands down increase your government benefits ten-fold the more you have. It's literally that simple. If I apply for EBT, there is an income threshold - if I fall outside of that threshold I can't get any of the benefits. BUT - the more children you have, the more than threshold increases. That goes for every single government program that has a threshold.

But hey - let's keep making Idiocracy into a documentary. I'm sure it will serve the human race well.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
and that's kind of my point in response to his comment. He's not wrong, even if he meant it as an insult towards me(it's like he learned his conversation skills from Trump). Maybe he's not around it, but I live in a poor area. I see it daily. I know it first hand from family members that disgust me in their lack of responsibility and 'need more kids' mentality when they can't afford the ones they have and flat out refuse to better themselves for the sake of them and their family. They constantly try to game the system because that's easier for them than working an honest living. This is a very real issue in poor areas. It by no means everyone is like this.

I dont' know if some of these people never actually see what their ideas actually spawn or not living in their gated communities(?). Do they live in a bubble of perfection? This is also why I say, if you want to give them more money, you can give them more money. Have fun with it. The end result is most people will piss it away because they feel entitled and those kids get no better care than they had before. More handouts tends to strengthen that belief. For some reason though, when you say this, you get people like shane who take that to mean you don't care about others. That isn't the case, but you can't pretend that people don't abuse the system.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
For some reason though, when you say this, you get people like shane who take that to mean you don't care about others. That isn't the case, but you can't pretend that people don't abuse the system.

It's really that simple.

We want people to have the ability to dig themselves out of a hole. People like shane want you to hand them some table scraps while they are in the hole.

One is a short term solution. The other is a long term solution that addresses the ultimate problem.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
and that's kind of my point in response to his comment. He's not wrong, even if he meant it as an insult towards me(it's like he learned his conversation skills from Trump). Maybe he's not around it, but I live in a poor area. I see it daily. I know it first hand from family members that disgust me in their lack of responsibility and 'need more kids' mentality when they can't afford the ones they have and flat out refuse to better themselves for the sake of them and their family. They constantly try to game the system because that's easier for them than working an honest living. This is a very real issue in poor areas. It by no means everyone is like this.

I dont' know if some of these people never actually see what their ideas actually spawn or not living in their gated communities(?). Do they live in a bubble of perfection? This is also why I say, if you want to give them more money, you can give them more money. Have fun with it. The end result is most people will piss it away because they feel entitled and those kids get no better care than they had before. More handouts tends to strengthen that belief. For some reason though, when you say this, you get people like shane who take that to mean you don't care about others. That isn't the case, but you can't pretend that people don't abuse the system.

The idea that increasing aid to the poor will simply cause them to waste the money has very little empirical support. If anything research shows the opposite. I think people fall into this trap due to a combination of anecdotal evidence (because some people really do waste the money!) and a tendency in America to view poverty as a moral failing or the result of bad decisions and irresponsibility.

I lived in one of the poorer areas of NYC for years and as far as my experience goes the vast majority of poor people were far more responsible with their money than I am.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
The idea that increasing aid to the poor will simply cause them to waste the money has very little empirical support. If anything research shows the opposite. I think people fall into this trap due to a combination of anecdotal evidence (because some people really do waste the money!) and a tendency in America to view poverty as a moral failing or the result of bad decisions and irresponsibility.

I lived in one of the poorer areas of NYC for years and as far as my experience goes the vast majority of poor people were far more responsible with their money than I am.

I'd question comparing NY or CA to the rest of the country, but I do agree with there is most likely a skew based on what you are around. From my perspective the ones who are responsible are the exceptions. In many cases the ones who aren't looking for handouts are the proud ones who are trying to better themselves. That isn't to say everyone is. I know well off people with 6 kids and I know poor people with 6 kids. I can't say having 6 kids is smart in either scenario, but that's just me.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
The idea that increasing aid to the poor will simply cause them to waste the money has very little empirical support. If anything research shows the opposite. I think people fall into this trap due to a combination of anecdotal evidence (because some people really do waste the money!) and a tendency in America to view poverty as a moral failing or the result of bad decisions and irresponsibility.

I lived in one of the poorer areas of NYC for years and as far as my experience goes the vast majority of poor people were far more responsible with their money than I am.

Yes. Parents would never indulge on the money they have control over. Social policy could have had 100% going to who it was targeted to.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
Poor people disproportionately have more children than the middle and upper middle class. What does that tell you?

They do it for fun? We can speculate all you want - they probably aren't working 60 hour weeks, which is in part why the middle class and upper middle class hasn't been having as many children is an over-abundance of work hours.

Having more children will hands down increase your government benefits ten-fold the more you have. It's literally that simple. If I apply for EBT, there is an income threshold - if I fall outside of that threshold I can't get any of the benefits. BUT - the more children you have, the more than threshold increases. That goes for every single government program that has a threshold.

But hey - let's keep making Idiocracy into a documentary. I'm sure it will serve the human race well.

You should probably just keep out of the conversation as we are discussing tax credits and not EBT.

As to why the poor have more children there are many factors and I highly doubt tax credits are the reason. Things like teenage pregnancies, no or limited access to birth control, more unprotected sex, low access to abortion, etc all contribute to higher pregnancy rates.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,987
23,782
136
You should probably just keep out of the conversation as we are discussing tax credits and not EBT.

As to why the poor have more children there are many factors and I highly doubt tax credits are the reason. Things like teenage pregnancies, no or limited access to birth control, more unprotected sex, low access to abortion, etc all contribute to higher pregnancy rates.
Noooooo it’s because they want to mooch off the good taxpayers. They are all welfare kings and queens.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
You should probably just keep out of the conversation as we are discussing tax credits and not EBT.

As to why the poor have more children there are many factors and I highly doubt tax credits are the reason. Things like teenage pregnancies, no or limited access to birth control, more unprotected sex, low access to abortion, etc all contribute to higher pregnancy rates.

But apparently not high enough pregnancy rates. We should probably take their birth control and sex ed away so we can get those rates higher. For the good of the country.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
So your "point" is that salaries should be completely independent of a worker's skill level?

Look, I get that you and most progressives want "liveable" wages for workers. No shame in that. However it would be nice if you would acknowledge the disadvantages to enacting a policy to enforce such a living wage. Such as that employment for those getting "living wages" will go down in a simple supply/demand reaction to the increased costs of staffing. Businesses might exit entire lines of business as unprofitable. A non-zero amount of workers with low skills will be completely unemployable since the value produced by their labor can't recoup the costs of their compensation. Et cetera.

I know you and fellow progressives tend to think of business owners as rich plutocrats swimming in vaults of gold like Scrooge McDuck. And think "of course they could pay their workers more, the CEO can just buy one less yacht." However that's not typically the case - just like you businesses have plenty of costs to pay and make plans based on expected revenues and income. Just like you they probably could "afford" to hire more workers and/or pay them more, but it typically means something else gets sacrificed. For example, if I forced your household to employ a cleaning service and pay them $15/hour you could probably afford it. But it also means you'd have to give up other spending to do so - for example, you might have wanted to send your kid to a summer camp or two and no longer can. Or pay for math tutoring to bring her grades up from 'meh' to As. Those objectives are just as valid and just as valuable as hiring the cleaning service and paying them "living wage." Expand that $15/hour principle to every service you consume, from daycare to dry cleaning and soon you'd be out of money to pay people. You'd wind up deciding "I guess I really don't need dry cleaning so I'll iron my clothes myself since I can't do without daycare." Businesses are the same way. They might want to spend more on customer service, or R&D, or any number of things but if you made all their staff artificially expensive because you wanted them to have "living wages" then the business may cut back on everything but core operations and those people don't get hired or get let go. Just like your dry cleaner would.

tl;dr businesses aren't all run by guys like this and raising costs of workers via "liveable wage" laws means less workers, there is no free lunch.

Monopoly.jpg

Start your own thread about "skill levels" as that isn't the point that this thread was started for. Go hate the poors somewhere else.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
But apparently not high enough pregnancy rates. We should probably take their birth control and sex ed away so we can get those rates higher. For the good of the country.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making but you just made my point.

When people are more stable, economically, they have less children. Therefore it makes sense to support policies that bring economic stability to families, the poor being the biggest benefactor. Its also why I support trade policies that raise people up out of poverty and its why I'm not opposed or scared of immigration as I'd prefer to be the destination country for people who seek opportunity.

Thanks for playing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I'm not sure what point you think you are making but you just made my point.

When people are more stable, economically, they have less children. Therefore it makes sense to support policies that bring economic stability to families, the poor being the biggest benefactor. Its also why I support trade policies that raise people up out of poverty and its why I'm not opposed or scared of immigration as I'd prefer to be the destination country for people who seek opportunity.

Thanks for playing!

No, people have less children because they choose to. You could argue that having money results in less children, but that's a false equivalance. What it really is that people choose careers over children at that given time. My point was about @fskimospy saying the US is not producing enough children for the future and that for the good of the country we need to encourage people to have more children, and throw money at them. The reality is mostly poor are the ones making the most children. You can state all those points of 'like teenage pregnancies, no or limited access to birth control, more unprotected sex, low access to abortion, etc all contribute to higher pregnancy rates.' as a reason for the rise for it, but is it rising or is it falling? Pregnancy prevention measures (ie birth control access and education) are better now than ever in terms of all of those (except maybe abortion).

try again mr underpants.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
But apparently not high enough pregnancy rates. We should probably take their birth control and sex ed away so we can get those rates higher. For the good of the country.

Why would we want to increase the unintentional pregnancy rate and why would that be good for the country?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
No, people have less children because they choose to. You could argue that having money results in less children, but that's a false equivalance. What it really is that people choose careers over children at that given time. My point was about @fskimospy saying the US is not producing enough children for the future and that for the good of the country we need to encourage people to have more children, and throw money at them. The reality is mostly poor are the ones making the most children. You can state all those points of 'like teenage pregnancies, no or limited access to birth control, more unprotected sex, low access to abortion, etc all contribute to higher pregnancy rates.' as a reason for the rise for it, but is it rising or is it falling? Pregnancy prevention measures (ie birth control access and education) are better now than ever in terms of all of those (except maybe abortion).

try again mr underpants.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Financial reasons are the top reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html

The percent of people who want children has remained virtually unchanged.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx

So now you've gone from, "I don't want the government to pay people to have kids" (an already disingenuous argument), to we need to encourage more people to have children.

And just for good measure:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...er-babies-is-a-big-economic-problem-quicktake
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Financial reasons are the top reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html

The percent of people who want children has remained virtually unchanged.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx

So now you've gone from, "I don't want the government to pay people to have kids" (an already disingenuous argument), to we need to encourage more people to have children.

And just for good measure:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...er-babies-is-a-big-economic-problem-quicktake

dude, step the fuck back from the computer. Your reading comprehension is failing you. I did say I don't want the government to pay people to have kids. You can call it what you like because you live in a fantasy world.

I did not say we need to encourage more people to have children, that was sarcasm. Learn it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,396
136
Sarcasm meter man j/s.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. It's still a really silly point.

Also, ivwshane is right. If you look at fertility trends globally the correlation between income and fertility is strong. The wealthier a country gets, the fewer kids it has. This is not a phenomenon explained by a choice of career over children.

W8npw5PooFCj8tkWAv2SaKUfFaxclUX-FLDjNJizM2w.PNG
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
A person who makes $10 an hour has just as much chance of getting pregnant as someone who makes $50 an hour. I understand what you are getting at in terms of they are 'fulfilled' so therefore they don't think they need children, but it is way more complex than how much money they make. I would argue better education is a much better reason because that leads to all of the above in many situations. Do you deny that people in the US who are career driven are much less likely to have children than people who choose not to have a career (whether by choice or circumstances)? Do you think those people don't have more kids because they have more money or because they prefer something else to children? It's called priorities. I doubt you are ever going to get everyone to agree on those.

You have already stated that reproduction rates are too low in the US, so that must mean we are already a happy and fulfilled society right? There's way more poor people out there than rich people so then what is your chart showing us because you don't get rich by having kids when you're 18. Or do you think everyone deserves to start with 100k a year job out of highschool? You have to work at life. It baffles me that anyone here wouldn't understand that. There's a difference between helping people and helping them fail.
 
Last edited:

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,531
1,279
146
So the option is to reduce our population as opposed to reducing our environmental footprint? That seems smart. Its best to hide from the problem and let other growing countries figure out how to deal with the problem rather than come up with a solution ourselves that we can then share with the rest of the world.


I remember when Americans were visionaries, now they are just a bunch of shortsighted scared pussies.

I say fuck it we should nuke ourselves back to the stone age and be done with it already.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,200
14,873
136
dude, step the fuck back from the computer. Your reading comprehension is failing you. I did say I don't want the government to pay people to have kids. You can call it what you like because you live in a fantasy world.

I did not say we need to encourage more people to have children, that was sarcasm. Learn it.

Oh I'm sorry was I supposed to get your sarcasm from reading a post? Silly me/s

Notice how you haven't addressed a single point made?

Even when given evidence that contradicts your feelings you ignore them. I wonder why.