Unexpected Consequences: Min Wage Hike Fallout

[s0me0nesmind1]

So Republicans are now against working people getting off welfare?

How in ANYWAY did your statement make any sense?

If anything republicans are complaining because the workers themselves do not want to get off of welfare. Telling your boss you want to work less hours means you are CHOOSING to stay on welfare.

Previously people would ask their boss "Can i HAVE more hours?"

 

[IGBT]

it will result in more automation and IT / ET / Mechanical jobs for skilled people. The hamburger flipper jobs are entry level jobs. Not life long careers. If it were really good for economy..why not give them 50.00 an hour right now??

 

[WackyDan]

If that is a problem, that speaks more to the failure of design for those public assistance programs. If structured correctly there should NEVER be a time where earning $1 reduces your benefits by more than $1 (or even particularly close to $1), that way everyone always has an incentive to earn more money.

On a side note, this is one problem with the ACA. Subsidies end abruptly at 400% of poverty, which is a stupid way to structure things. There should always be a gradual decline.

It is a problem.

Here in Charlotte we had that same issue with some of the public housing. You live in public housing and get promoted to more hours, pay/position where you work and that extra $100 a month means you lose the roof over your head and now have to pay $400 a month for a shitty apartment. Apparently, that issue was resolved and the rules changed to allow for growth in income over time before they increased your rent or they booted you for exceeding the "poverty" level for those units... So that is good news.

So what would any reasonable person do who is at a grade school level with their math? Work less hours or turn down the promotion if it meant making more was going to cost them more.

If we are attempting to pay people in menial jobs more so that they don't collect gov't benefits (ending corp welfare via welfare) then we need to over haul the social benefits these people receive to reflect this effort. Allow them to grow into supporting themselves at the newly mandated wages and find a wage to not penalize them for the extra wage, but also still retract those benefits appropriately over time.

 

[werepossum]

All I want to know is who is supporting a family on minimum wage?

I haven't made minimum wage since I was 16 years old. And even then I had a lawn mowing job on the side that paid much more than that power hour.

People who can't hold a job and people with felony convictions and no real job skills. Some people are only worth minimum wage or slightly over; other people might be worth more but can only find a job whose market worth is minimum wage or slightly over. Most people earning minimum wage or slightly over will soon leave that behind, but there are some few who will be stuck there forever.

IMO hiking the minimum wage to $15 is more than charity with other people's money, it's an attempt to socialize the economy so that everyone not in the top echelon makes within some relatively narrow range. A classless society, except of course for the ruling class. That said, for large and expensive cities it makes sense. We as a society are going to pay what it costs these people to live either way, so there's a strong argument that it makes sense that the people who use their services pay that cost. Of course, there is another strong argument for those high earners in the city to subsidize them, but that's notoriously difficult since the wealthy (A) tend to make the laws and (B) tend to be mobile if taxes get too high. Hence city taxes tend to be less progressive than federal taxes.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It is a problem.

Here in Charlotte we had that same issue with some of the public housing. You live in public housing and get promoted to more hours, pay/position where you work and that extra $100 a month means you lose the roof over your head and now have to pay $400 a month for a shitty apartment. Apparently, that issue was resolved and the rules changed to allow for growth in income over time before they increased your rent or they booted you for exceeding the "poverty" level for those units... So that is good news.

So what would any reasonable person do who is at a grade school level with their math? Work less hours or turn down the promotion if it meant making more was going to cost them more.

If we are attempting to pay people in menial jobs more so that they don't collect gov't benefits (ending corp welfare via welfare) then we need to over haul the social benefits these people receive to reflect this effort. Allow them to grow into supporting themselves at the newly mandated wages and find a wage to not penalize them for the extra wage, but also still retract those benefits appropriately over time.

I think the answer is clear.

Put a time limit on all these benefits. From the moment you start welfare or housing you are stamped with a date on your forehead saying "This shit will be taken away from you on X Date". You won't forget that date. You will not decline a promotion. You will not turn down more offers. You will not turn down working more hours.

Because you know, regardless of how shitty of a position you are, you are totally going to be screwed if you don't try hard to help dig yourself out by X date.

If there is no ending date and it's only based on how much you CHOOSE to work...... why try? Sorry, humans simply lack motivation unless there is a mouth coming to bite them in the ass if they don't get to work.

 

[Newell Steamer]

it was about them using the Government in order to buy more "stuff".

Crack cocaine vouchers?

iPhone Obama phone stamps?

Abortion coupons?

 

[werepossum]

I think the answer is clear.

Put a time limit on all these benefits. From the moment you start welfare or housing you are stamped with a date on your forehead saying "This shit will be taken away from you on X Date". You won't forget that date. You will not decline a promotion. You will not turn down more offers. You will not turn down working more hours.

Because you know, regardless of how shitty of a position you are, you are totally going to be screwed if you don't try hard to help dig yourself out by X date.

If there is no ending date and it's only based on how much you CHOOSE to work...... why try? Sorry, humans simply lack motivation unless there is a mouth coming to bite them in the ass if they don't get to work.

Problem with that is that most of us don't wish to live in a world where other Americans starve. It's bad enough that we have so many homeless. So those who refuse to support themselves kind of have us by the short hairs.

Well, the women do. We pretty much already tell the men to pound sand, which is probably one reason crime is so high.

 

[fskimospy]

So what are you suggesting? A welfare program that works entirely based on how much you make month to month? As in, you work 15 hours, you get your welfare check. You work 17 hours @ $15/hr, your welfare check goes down $30? They would still rather be sitting around doing nothing because the check amount would be the same. At some point you have to have a cut-off. To put it bluntly... You're COMPLETELY retarded if you think they would work with your notion of losing $1 for making $1 more. They would rather keep doing what they are doing... working less and less.

Perhaps you don't understand how our government is run.... They barely have the competence to make legitimate welfare claims in the first place, let alone implementing a system that does a calculation to determine their check amount month to month.

I don't think you understand; we were saying the exact opposite.

If you make $30 more your benefits should decrease by considerably less than EDIT: $30, that way there is always an incentive to earn more.

Flat cutoff points are a terrible idea because they run contrary to this. If you get a $100 subsidy when you make $29,999 and then get nothing when you earn $30,000, you would be foolish to earn more money. If you gradually phase it out you eliminate those perverse incentives.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the answer is clear.

Put a time limit on all these benefits. From the moment you start welfare or housing you are stamped with a date on your forehead saying "This shit will be taken away from you on X Date". You won't forget that date. You will not decline a promotion. You will not turn down more offers. You will not turn down working more hours.

Because you know, regardless of how shitty of a position you are, you are totally going to be screwed if you don't try hard to help dig yourself out by X date.

If there is no ending date and it's only based on how much you CHOOSE to work...... why try? Sorry, humans simply lack motivation unless there is a mouth coming to bite them in the ass if they don't get to work.

And what do you do with those that don't or can't do so? What do you do with the Walmart workers who don't make enough to live but can't get a better job because, well, Walmart is the largest employer in the US, there simply is not enough jobs for them all elsewhere.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And what do you do with those that don't or can't do so? What do you do with the Walmart workers who don't make enough to live but can't get a better job because, well, Walmart is the largest employer in the US, there simply is not enough jobs for them all elsewhere.

If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population.
-Ebenezer Scrooge, A Christmas Carol

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And? I think those of us who support minimum wage increases are tired of paying for welfare because companies don't want to pay living wages.

Plus this. Minimum wage is like gun control why is it so hard to find a middle ground.
We all know that the current federal minimum wage is very low. We also all agree someone working full time shouldn't have their employer recommend welfare services.
Lets figure out what a fair number is and adjust for inflation in a fair manner. I'm sick and tired about all the useless garbage that follows minimum wage discussions. Its broken, lets fix it and fix it in a way that doesn't continually waste so much time.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think the answer is clear.

Put a time limit on all these benefits. From the moment you start welfare or housing you are stamped with a date on your forehead saying "This shit will be taken away from you on X Date". You won't forget that date. You will not decline a promotion. You will not turn down more offers. You will not turn down working more hours.

Because you know, regardless of how shitty of a position you are, you are totally going to be screwed if you don't try hard to help dig yourself out by X date.

If there is no ending date and it's only based on how much you CHOOSE to work...... why try? Sorry, humans simply lack motivation unless there is a mouth coming to bite them in the ass if they don't get to work.

I pretty much agree with is. Its like unemployment benefits having a time limit -- the point is to get you OFF of it.

No time limit = no incentive to find a job or go to school to obtain a skill.

Good post!

 

[Retro Rob]

And what do you do with those that don't or can't do so? What do you do with the Walmart workers who don't make enough to live but can't get a better job because, well, Walmart is the largest employer in the US, there simply is not enough jobs for them all elsewhere.

The nyou seek help from family, friends, or your church. That's why their there.

I'm personally not totally against government assistance, but I'm against using the Government to buy needless luxuries.

 

[theeedude]

How in ANYWAY did your statement make any sense?

If anything republicans are complaining because the workers themselves do not want to get off of welfare. Telling your boss you want to work less hours means you are CHOOSING to stay on welfare.

Previously people would ask their boss "Can i HAVE more hours?"

Oh really, you are telling me making less money encourages you to want to work more? It's funny how Republicans make the opposite argument when it comes to upper management and "job creators" on taxes.

 

[HomerJS]

So let me understand this...

We now have threads linking articles to Brietbart that they even say may not be true?

 

[Ichinisan]

Sure, his websites published and defended several of James O'Keefe's videos, all of which later turned out to be extremely dishonest. That's a lie in anyone's book.

How did you not know this? Are you just content to be lied to so long as they are comforting lies?

Anyone who reads breitbart media to be informed is a fool.

We're the O'Keefe / Giles ACORN videos actually dishonest? ...or did you read some left-leaning stuff that claimed they were dishonest?

 

[Ichinisan]

Hating Breitbart is on Netflix.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

When a court of law finds O'Keefes videos libellous which Breitbart was the one publishing I'd say that's pretty damning. But I'm sure that won't qualify somehow.

 

[Ichinisan]

When a court of law finds O'Keefes videos libellous which Breitbart was the one publishing I'd say that's pretty damning. But I'm sure that won't qualify somehow.

Searched for that. All I see is O'Keefe "losing" a libel case where he would have been the plaintiff, not the defendant. Didn't really "lose" either. The case was thrown-out, so he was not able to sue for libel.

I'll keep looking...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Searched for that. All I see is O'Keefe losing a libel case where he was the plaintiff, not the defendant. Didn't really "lose" either. The case was thrown-out, so he was not able to sue for libel.

I'll keep looking...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/148088292/Vera-OKeefe-ACORN-100000-Settlement-Agreement

The case of Juan Carlos Vera from ACORN. He was awarded 100,000 in damages and an apology for the misrepresentation by O'Keefe.

 

[fskimospy]

We're the O'Keefe / Giles ACORN videos actually dishonest? ...or did you read some left-leaning stuff that claimed they were dishonest?

Nope, he settled for libel. Blatant lies.

Now that you know that, will you agree that breitbart publishes lies?

 

[Ichinisan]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/148088292/Vera-OKeefe-ACORN-100000-Settlement-Agreement

The case of Juan Carlos Vera from ACORN. He was awarded 100,000 in damages and an apology for the misrepresentation by O'Keefe.

Oh. So a court didn't "find him guilty." He settled (not "awarded") and stated he was not aware that specific ACORN employee had later contacted authorities to report O'Keefe after he posed undercover as a sex trafficker.

 

[Ichinisan]

So O'Keefe basically had no story after numerous ACORN offices eagerly helped him with his fake sex trafficking business and did not try to contact authorities?

 

[UberNeuman]

So O'Keefe basically had no story after numerous ACORN offices eagerly helped him with his fake sex trafficking business and did not try to contact authorities?

Just stop now.

 

[Ichinisan]

Nope, he settled for libel. Blatant lies.

Now that you know that, will you agree that breitbart publishes lies?

If you can show that O'Keefe knew the guy had contacted police, then I'd have no problem agreeing that Breitbart published "lies." No problem at all.

Far greater lies [inaccuracies] were posted in this thread.