The poor don't work because it doesn't make economic sense to hold a job

[yllus]

Sure, there are those that don't do much for us. Most of them reside in places like, oh, the NBA, the NFL, Music artists.... consumerists with no social conscience. (And oddly enough, because our culture idolizes them, many of our kids are turning out just like them. /shock)

TV/movie stars, musical artists and athletes fulfill what's quite provably the most pressing need of all in modern society: They entertain us. That we reward our entertainers with incredible riches is not a fluke or a mistake - it's a conscious choice, and the market at work.

 

[EXman]

No, that's why people shouldn't lose welfare as they earn money on a 1:1 basis. Raising the minimum wage will just make employers hire less people and demand more from those that they do hire.

I'm an employer and this is correct. I have a labor line on a P&L. If I do not watch it I'm not making money.

I'm not the government I cannot print money. They do not have the money but the artists still draw checks.

 

[Chaotic42]

People who live in the suburbs typically don't fall into the welfare category

The US still has a large population which does not live in the city, and even for those who do, the city limit definition doesn't guarantee bus service nor does it guarantee any employment anyway.

I have a good job, i own a car, but i still bus to work. The only people who cant are rich fucks in the suburbs or guys making 80k per year at some chemical plant or refinery outside of town.

This doesn't have much basis in reality in most parts of the US.

 

[KlokWyze]

I'm sorry, but I'm over here laughing my ass off.

Your overgeneralization and demonization of 'rich' people is ridiculous (as are most of your poorly thought through posts).

Sure, there are those that don't do much for us. Most of them reside in places like, oh, the NBA, the NFL, Music artists.... consumerists with no social conscience. (And oddly enough, because our culture idolizes them, many of our kids are turning out just like them. /shock)

On the flip side, you have people like Bill Gates. Dean Kamen. Amir Bose. Bill Ford. Alan Mulally. Warren Buffet. Gordon Moore. Alfred Man. Sidney Frank. Stephen Ross. Michael Dell. Cheryl Saban. Just to name a few.

Grow up and lose your stereotyping.

Whether rich, poor or those in the middle, large %'s of each game the system. Every "sect" or portion of humanity is always going to have corrupt people or people that take advantage, especially when the system is designed to work a certain way. Why would a person not do it? To claim moral superiority? That must feel so rewarding, especially when society itself has no moral conscience.... or really, outright rewards corruption in plain sight.

And please don't tell me you actually believe that musicians, artists, athletes, etc., etc. don't provide anything of value. Some of them have no values, just like any other slice of the pie, but your overgeneralization and demonetization of them is.............. what's the word? Ironic?

 

[Jhhnn]

Socialized economies /DO/NOT/WORK.

Mixed economies *do* work, many of them as well as/ better than our own, because they're more mixed, because they have more socialist elements blended in with capitalism. Union and community representatives sit on the boards of German corporations, for example, and the notion that the mixed economies of France and the Nordic States DO/NOT/WORK is pure Right Wing FUD.

There's less of a spread between the bottom and the top than in this country, that's all, and the people at the bottom have it better.

 

[0roo0roo]

Of course people have to do those jobs. It makes sense for them to be paid less than a living wage because it is totally 100% UNSKILLED.

If I can plug a high-school drop-out with the IQ of a moron into a job and get him to ask "Do you want fries with that", there isn't a chance in hell that job should pay a living wage.

You completely sidestepped the reality of the situation: just like any commodity, there is a job MARKET. Educated, high skilled individuals in a certain profession make a certain amout: that amout is what the market can support. Uneducated unskilled individuals make far less, because to make a crappy cheeseburger that costs $1.00, you can't pay your workers all that much money.

It's simple market economics. Our disagreement goes far far deeper here. You believe socialism works. Most rational people understand that it doesn't.

Up the minimum wages, and the price of a Cheeseburger goes up. If the price of a cheesburger goes up, then the prices of the higher-quality products will go up (or NO one will buy cheeseburgers). This is simply supply and demand economics. It's pretty much a natural law.

Screwing around with the lower payscales, in the end, simply creates inflation. Pay inflation and product cost inflation. It's a never ending cycle. Unless of course you go that step further that all socialist countries do and start putting price limits on everything. Then no one ends up being able to make a living wage, and you create artificial shortages, bread lines, and disaster.

Socialized economies /DO/NOT/WORK.

Ever worse is the 'why should I get an education effect'. See what the high pay rates that the unions managed to negotiate have done. We have a chunk of the population that dropped out of school and went work. They are now largely uneducated, almost totally unskilled, and most are on unemployement now as those high-paying unskilled jobs disappear (welcome to the free market at work).

You are socializing the economy, you subsidize cheap labor by shifting the costs of the social impact of such poverty onto everyone else. You think prisons and broken homes are free? You pay in the end for your false economy. This is only made worse with illegal labor.

 

[gingermeggs]

So we can lose more jobs overseas?


Why can't all the liberals just stick to ruining CA and IL.....why the need to branch out?

Yes....great idea, lets all compete at the level China does and make a slave class.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054387/
How about the opposite- we make exploitative governments in countries adhere to an international standard for human rights, workers rights and environmental obligations to have the right to trade internationally- boycott trade with those that don't comply!
If principles and ethics were a commodity, what would be it's value on wall street????

 

[Jhhnn]

The US still has a large population which does not live in the city, and even for those who do, the city limit definition doesn't guarantee bus service nor does it guarantee any employment anyway.


This doesn't have much basis in reality in most parts of the US.

More than you might expect when properly implemented, particularly in hybrid scenarios, like Park and Ride service. Here in metro Denver, it's highly popular.

 

[Chaotic42]

More than you might expect when properly implemented, particularly in hybrid scenarios, like Park and Ride service. Here in metro Denver, it's highly popular.

Well, they were talking about people not using vehicles. Even so, while that may exist in Denver, it's not really widespread and his comment about the only people not being able to ride being rich still doesn't stand.

 

[peonyu]

Gas is very rough, and yet it is so essential. For the folks making 8$ a hour and have no busing option, they really do feel the pinch. Of course gas is expensive for us all but even more so for minimum wage people..

I have alot of respect for people who work for minimum wage instead of giving up though. The opposite are the sponges, people who do their BEST to not work a job but instead spend time plotting how to maximize the amount of welfare and other freebies they can get...I really detest them. Those folks also tend to have 7 kids to further exploit the system [the kids will also likely growup to become leaches], and the people paying for it [minimum wage folks included] is the taxpayer.

But as far as welfare itself goes and minimum wage people getting it, minimum wage pays only $7.25 in most states, welfare has to be a option since that is chump change. If MW was increased to something more reasonable like 14$ a hour then welfare could have a more solid argument against it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, they were talking about people not using vehicles. Even so, while that may exist in Denver, it's not really widespread and his comment about the only people not being able to ride being rich still doesn't stand.

True. OTOH, part of the reason transit isn't better deployed in this country is because of raving anti-tax sentiment, and because of lack of imagination by local and regional leadership.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but transit is one of the things that helps people work, not hinder it.

 

[peonyu]

Well, they were talking about people not using vehicles. Even so, while that may exist in Denver, it's not really widespread and his comment about the only people not being able to ride being rich still doesn't stand.

Last I checked, in Florida it is $2.00 to take a bus.

So 4$ back and forth a day, x 10 days if the person is being paid bi-weekly and works 40 hours a week, 5 days a week = $80 every 2 weeks to use the bus.

80x8 = 640

Minus taxes and you might be looking at $550, perhaps less.

-$80 and that check is down to $470.

The bus is still a huge hit for a person working $8 a hour.

-edit, double or triple the $4 amount if the person is not using the bus to get to work. So for gas, it might end up being $160 every 2 weeks or $240 every 2 weeks to get to work. In the latter case a MW worker spends close to half their check on gas to get to work. Pretty fucked up when the numbers are crunched.

 

[Jhhnn]

Transit turns into an even better deal for low wage workers when monthly discount passes are available. It's also quite valuable for middle class families with teens, and for seniors. Here in Denver, we run regular shopper specials from senior housing complexes to the supermarket, for example... Not to mention Broncos and Rockies games...

 

[peonyu]

Transit turns into an even better deal for low wage workers when monthly discount passes are available. It's also quite valuable for middle class families with teens, and for seniors. Here in Denver, we run regular shopper specials from senior housing complexes to the supermarket, for example... Not to mention Broncos and Rockies games...

Still have to add in rent, food, and all that. Guess my point is that the minimum wage hasn't scaled with the economy at all, atleast in Florida. Could be far different in Denver though.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still have to add in rent, food, and all that. Guess my point is that the minimum wage hasn't scaled with the economy at all, atleast in Florida. Could be far different in Denver though.

We have no argument. Minimum wage hasn't scaled well anywhere. If wages had scaled with the cost of living, we wouldn't need nearly as much assistance for families towards the lower end, and we'd have a wider federal tax base because those same people would actually be able to afford to pay federal income taxes. It's a consequence of income shifting radically to the top 1% over the last 30 years, of what Righties believe in and have voted for- the deception of trickledown economics.

I'm just pointing out that transit is an asset for people who have access to it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Our economy is just not sustainable like this. The cost of living is too high for everyone to be "comfortable" as we define it. Something is going to have to give.

 

[Patranus]

Two things are at play.

1) Illegal immigrants taking low skill/no skill jobs
2) A social welfare system with essentially unlimited benefits no matter how much you put in.
3) Social welfare programs no longer only provide the bare necessities rather they give access to luxury items.

Now, I know that some "progressive" is going to say that these are jobs Americans don't want, but if the government isn't giving you a handout, when you get hungry, you are going to be running to a low paying job real quick.

 

[Jhhnn]

Our economy is just not sustainable like this. The cost of living is too high for everyone to be "comfortable" as we define it. Something is going to have to give.

That's not true at all. If income distribution were the same as in 1980, pre-Reagan, the bottom 50% of tax filers would be making ~50% more money, with similar outcomes for anybody not in the top few %-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

 

[child of wonder]

This isn't a sign that minimum wage needs to change -- it's a sign that our welfare system is broken.

If it's more profitable to live on government assistance than to work then is it any surprise the system is abused?

 

[ShawnD1]

Our economy is just not sustainable like this. The cost of living is too high for everyone to be "comfortable" as we define it. Something is going to have to give.

All you really need to do is expand medicaid then pretty much any wage is a "living" wage since medical care is the only thing you can't skimp on. There's always a way to cheap out on food or rent but medical stuff is a black or white thing.

Anecdote: my gf lives in a house with 2 room mates. 2 of them have minimum wage retail jobs and one of them works a good job but only part time (and is a part time student). They don't own cars or anything fancy like that, but they still live pretty damn good. They rent a fairly ok bungalow, it's a 10 minute walk to the biggest mall in the world, bus service is excellent, all of them have cell phones, they have 3 dogs, nice TV, each has a computer, movies, cable TV and internet, netflix, and maybe some other stuff.

Minimum wage goes pretty far if you don't have a car to pay for. If you live in an area that requires a car, maybe move to an area that doesn't require a car. Of course that depends a lot on where you are. Moving into the middle of new york city or vancouver just to avoid owning a car would mess up the budget even worse than a car would.


edit:
this post only relates to having a job. If you need to rely on welfare and don't qualify, you're in big trouble. That's a different issue.

 

[Chaotic42]

That's not true at all. If income distribution were the same as in 1980, pre-Reagan, the bottom 50% of tax filers would be making ~50% more money, with similar outcomes for anybody not in the top few %-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

I would count changing the income distribution to levels from 30 years ago as something giving.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would count changing the income distribution to levels from 30 years ago as something giving.

Indeed. I'm more accustomed to seeing that sort of language used to promote "austerity" for the non-Rich- by the Rich, of course, and their hangers-on.

 

[Chaotic42]

All you really need to do is expand medicaid then pretty much any wage is a "living" wage since medical care is the only thing you can't skimp on. There's always a way to cheap out on food or rent but medical stuff is a black or white thing.

Anecdote: my gf lives in a house with 2 room mates. 2 of them have minimum wage retail jobs and one of them works a good job but only part time (and is a part time student). They don't own cars or anything fancy like that, but they still live pretty damn good. They rent a fairly ok bungalow, it's a 10 minute walk to the biggest mall in the world, bus service is excellent, all of them have cell phones, they have 3 dogs, nice TV, each has a computer, movies, cable TV and internet, netflix, and maybe some other stuff.

Minimum wage goes pretty far if you don't have a car to pay for. If you live in an area that requires a car, maybe move to an area that doesn't require a car. Of course that depends a lot on where you are. Moving into the middle of new york city or vancouver just to avoid owning a car would mess up the budget even worse than a car would.

Moving is expensive, and many people depend on a network of family support to get by. Yes, your anecote works well for 20 year-old single girls going to school. I wouldn't consider it viable for families trying to get by. An uneducated family from the Mississippi Delta with three kids and parents with no education can't take a bus to work at the plant 20 miles away for their minimum wage job. They're stuck.

To me the only hope is increasing our investment in education and our investment manufacturing while simultaneously limiting the immigration of impoverished workers, mostly from Mexico. Of course I'm not an economist, just someone watching the US struggle.

 

[Throckmorton]

Of course people have to do those jobs. It makes sense for them to be paid less than a living wage because it is totally 100% UNSKILLED.

If I can plug a high-school drop-out with the IQ of a moron into a job and get him to ask "Do you want fries with that", there isn't a chance in hell that job should pay a living wage.

You completely sidestepped the reality of the situation: just like any commodity, there is a job MARKET. Educated, high skilled individuals in a certain profession make a certain amout: that amout is what the market can support. Uneducated unskilled individuals make far less, because to make a crappy cheeseburger that costs $1.00, you can't pay your workers all that much money.

It's simple market economics. Our disagreement goes far far deeper here. You believe socialism works. Most rational people understand that it doesn't.

Up the minimum wages, and the price of a Cheeseburger goes up. If the price of a cheesburger goes up, then the prices of the higher-quality products will go up (or NO one will buy cheeseburgers). This is simply supply and demand economics. It's pretty much a natural law.

Screwing around with the lower payscales, in the end, simply creates inflation. Pay inflation and product cost inflation. It's a never ending cycle. Unless of course you go that step further that all socialist countries do and start putting price limits on everything. Then no one ends up being able to make a living wage, and you create artificial shortages, bread lines, and disaster.

Socialized economies /DO/NOT/WORK.

Ever worse is the 'why should I get an education effect'. See what the high pay rates that the unions managed to negotiate have done. We have a chunk of the population that dropped out of school and went work. They are now largely uneducated, almost totally unskilled, and most are on unemployement now as those high-paying unskilled jobs disappear (welcome to the free market at work).

In a real free market, with no welfare programs, the people making less than a living wage would not be able to live. But you know what they could do? Break down that flimsy gate at the entrance to your gated community and TAKE your assets by force, in order to live.

Thank your lucky stars socialist programs exist so that the poor can survive on wages that are less than needed to survive. And don't forget that those are government subsidies to the employers who employ workers for less than living wages.

 

[ShawnD1]

Moving is expensive

Depends where you are moving from and to. A few months ago I helped my brother move from an apartment on one side of town to a condo on the other side of town. Total moving cost was about $100 to rent a Uhaul plus insurance and fuel.

and many people depend on a network of family support to get by. Yes, your anecote works well for 20 year-old single girls going to school. I wouldn't consider it viable for families trying to get by. An uneducated family from the Mississippi Delta with three kids and parents with no education can't take a bus to work at the plant 20 miles away for their minimum wage job. They're stuck.

Jobs at plants or factories generally pay a lot better than minimum wage, but I guess that's a regional thing.

To me the only hope is increasing our investment in education and our investment manufacturing while simultaneously limiting the immigration of impoverished workers, mostly from Mexico. Of course I'm not an economist, just someone watching the US struggle.

A few years ago before the recession hit, my friend said he was voting for some socialist party I hate, and his reasoning was that the economy was growing too fast and was going to bust (that party's platform at the time was to slow the economy). I now understand what he meant. In general, the national bank and government try to keep the economy growing slowly to make it more stable, but I think they've fucked that up lately. Instead of really jacking the interest rates up and putting some kind of regulations on how borrowing works while the economy was growing fast, there just seemed to be a limitless supply of easy money. The bubble kept growing faster and faster. Before we knew it, everyone was somehow connected to it. Either you owned an investment property or your house for living was super expensive due to the bubble or you were a carpenter who now can't find work, it affected everyone. That's one thing we definitely need to work on. Slow and STEADY growth. No bubbles, no great depressions.