|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11279 Posts
On May 22 2015 23:57 Simberto wrote:
It'll just lead to big companies finding some way to make it legally look like they are actually a lot of small companies. Kinda like McDonalds and co already do.
Well, I would think you count their employee number provincially (or state-wide)- that is stating it simplistically, but essentially I mean the law should include franchises as big company employers- or make a separate clause for franchises to specifically preclude grouping franchises in with small businesses.
|
On May 23 2015 00:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:On May 23 2015 00:13 farvacola wrote:
Increasing the minimum wage is indeed nothing more than moving the goal posts, but at least it's a move that helps those least able to help themselves. The alternatives, either do nothing as we wait for systematic progress or instead privy private interests, are far less satisfying in the eyes of anyone who sees poverty in the U.S. as a problem worth affirmatively addressing. but isn't the biggest issue that very few are for affirmatively addressing and instead prefer fairy dust addressing? I suppose that depends on what exactly you mean; there are two general groups relevant to this discussion, with one of those groups having a number of subdivisions. On one hand, you have the people who simply think that poverty in the U.S. is not a problem worth systematically addressing; we'll let those folks speak for themselves, but this perspective generally hinges on an anti-government stance or a "look at poor people in Bangladesh, shit's great here" perspective. On the other, you have people who agree with the notion that poverty is a problem but then cannot agree on how we are to go about solving it. Some think private charity is enough (lol) whereas others, such as myself, are for affirmative government action like widening the social safety net, increasing minimum wage, and decreasing the costs of education. So, the question is, what definitions of "affirmative address" and "fair dust address" are you using?
Woot I'm in group 3 even though I dislike poor people. Hell, here the minimum wage is basically 11.75-15 bucks already looking at all the now hiring signs going up. They even don't have to worry about health insurance. I guess that's privilege and geographic lottery(lol) though.
|
On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example.
I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity.
|
On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity.
A secondary reason to oppose the minimum wage (other than the standard arguments moral and economic) is that they are a political blame-shifting device. Unlike a simple tax and spend scheme, where the costs are easy to see, and people can determine if the 2% of their paycheck is worth a stipend to people earning under $XX minimum wage laws hide their costs quite expertly from the majority of the populace, the myriad of studies done to try (and mostly fail) to quantify the effects testify to this. Thus politicians are essentially given a free lunch, which I think we can all say is a bad thing.
|
On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity.
The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies.
Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins?
|
On May 22 2015 23:35 Falling wrote:
The strange thing about the X, Y, Z jobs 'are supposed to be for high school students' argument is how does one know what job is supposed to be for anything? Because in the last 40 years or so a whole lot of jobs have been downgraded to 'high school jobs' whereas the population of high school students have plummeted after the Baby Boom. For instance, grocery stores and parks used to be a for life job. Once they got deunionized, they suddenly become 'high school jobs. So high school jobs have massively increased at the same time as the number of actual high school students have plummeted.
The vast majority of grocery stores in California remain union jobs. Contract negotiations shafting new hires did hurt long-term prospects for a career, but they remain union jobs. I just wanted to point out that whatever made you think they were deunionized, that's not a nationally-applicable phenomenon (nor state parks in my area). Dare I say, they remain great part time jobs for young high school students in my area.
|
On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies.
Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins?
Oh I'd agree... but the solution isn't to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and force small business to shut down. I'm certainly all for tax reform and ending corporate welfare subsidies however.
|
On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins?
I've basically already responded to this.
On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life.
On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy.
But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall.
|
Why exactly this would hurt especially small business is beyond me.
+if you cant pay your employes decently your business is probably not built to last anyway.
|
On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall.
The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values.
Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay.
Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all.
|
On May 23 2015 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall. The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values. Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay. Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all.
Under your theory, an equally valid strategy would be eliminating the welfare entirely and then Wal-Mart would raise wages rendering it unnecessary. The rest of this is really just rhetoric.
|
On May 23 2015 02:48 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall. The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values. Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay. Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all. Under your theory, an equally valid strategy would be eliminating the welfare entirely and then Wal-Mart would raise wages rendering it unnecessary. The rest of this is really just rhetoric.
Except since, as i said, their employees have no other option and their are plenty of unemployed left they could just burn through a large number of people and leave em in a ditch until they start running into a shortage. And society has decided we don't like people in ditches so we would have to take care of them still.
|
United States42009 Posts
Funny story, I'm currently over a year into a $12,000 post tax annual income experiment which works out around $6/hr post tax (and pre-tax because you don't pay tax on income that low) if you assume 40 hour work weeks. I earn more than that but I'm in the accumulate stage of my work life and am investing like crazy. Monthly expenses break down as follow
$408 rent (my share, my wife is my roommate and she pays the other half (low cost of living area, we actually live in a really nice apartment))
$70ish utilities (gas, electric, internet, phone etc (I turn off lights, turn off my computer, don't run the heating all the time, don't run the AC all the time and try and endure living with only an iphone4 rather than a 6)
$50ish petrol
$100 eating out budget
$200 regular food budget
$150 saving towards irregular expenses (possible new car at some point, 6 monthly car insurance, whatever)
Typically I end up with around $200 or so surplus income in addition to my already invested extra surplus and I live an insanely high quality of life. I have as many bedrooms as people in a great apartment with people employed to fix my shit, mow the lawns and so forth. I have a giant mechanical chariot that takes me places at insane speeds fueled by burning the remains of dinosaurs. I have what was, a few years ago, one of the most amazingly advanced technological devices in the world which gives me internet access wherever I go. And, of course, I have a very good gaming system. Oh, and food. So much food budget that I can actually pay other people to prepare me food and clean up after me from time to time, just for fun.
This comes at a price, of course. I don't have student loan payments, I don't eat out at lunch, I certainly couldn't afford Starbucks and if I'd ever taken out a payday loan I'd have been fucked forever. I spend a few minutes preparing leftovers or sandwiches for lunch. But all in all I live a life in the top 0.001% of human lives in history. Part of the issue is that those who earn the least are also those least equipped to manage their own money. When they get told that it is perfectly normal to buy lunch every day they don't realize that the people who created that narrative are the people selling the food etc. It's not just about the money amount, it's about the choices. Obviously if I had to take care of kids, if I was a single parent, if my partner were disabled etc shit would get real hard real quick. But for the average individual $6/hr affords a life of incredible luxury if you're willing to understand what luxury is and is not.
Also even though our household income is well above the median income for the area we have an effective federal tax rate of below 0% because there are a great many programs existing to help low and middle income households. The problem with the programs is not that they don't exist but that only the people least in need of them have the knowledge and planning to take advantage of them.
|
Certainly providing money management planning support for poor people may help for some of them.
Some people just don't know how to live frugally, and helping people do that would be a great value.
Sometimes the education system doesn't cover that topic well; and others in your life may not cover it well either.
|
On May 23 2015 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:48 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall. The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values. Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay. Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all. Under your theory, an equally valid strategy would be eliminating the welfare entirely and then Wal-Mart would raise wages rendering it unnecessary. The rest of this is really just rhetoric. Except since, as i said, their employees have no other option and their are plenty of unemployed left they could just burn through a large number of people and leave em in a ditch until they start running into a shortage. And society has decided we don't like people in ditches so we would have to take care of them still.
You have fallen back into using one government program to justify another...
|
United States42009 Posts
On May 23 2015 03:00 zlefin wrote:
Certainly providing money management planning support for poor people may help for some of them.
Some people just don't know how to live frugally, and helping people do that would be a great value.
Sometimes the education system doesn't cover that topic well; and others in your life may not cover it well either.
The system is rigged against the poor and stupid. It feeds them high fat, high sugar foods and tells them this is normal and that everyone eats there. It tells them they need the latest phone and that a payment plan is the way to go. It tells them that you need to buy a truck because truck. There is a huge amount of money invested in keeping an underclass locked into a cycle of payment plans, payday loans, planned obsolescence and consumerism and the solution to that is cultural change and education, not more money. If you give people more money they'll just start trading in their Spring 2015 edition cars for Autumn 2015 edition cars, now with all new features because the dealer told them that prices have never been better.
America is crazy, crazy easy to live in from an outsider's perspective but the consumer society is pretty sickening. The amount of businesses vying to have people burn their tax refunds with them a few months back was remarkable for example. There was a normalized idea that if you have money then you are required to immediately buy something to reward yourself for having that money. The fact that the refund was always your money, your withholding was just set too high, didn't seem to matter at all, they had received "free money" and it was time to "get what you deserve".
|
Canada11279 Posts
On May 23 2015 02:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:35 Falling wrote:
The strange thing about the X, Y, Z jobs 'are supposed to be for high school students' argument is how does one know what job is supposed to be for anything? Because in the last 40 years or so a whole lot of jobs have been downgraded to 'high school jobs' whereas the population of high school students have plummeted after the Baby Boom. For instance, grocery stores and parks used to be a for life job. Once they got deunionized, they suddenly become 'high school jobs. So high school jobs have massively increased at the same time as the number of actual high school students have plummeted. The vast majority of grocery stores in California remain union jobs. Contract negotiations shafting new hires did hurt long-term prospects for a career, but they remain union jobs. I just wanted to point out that whatever made you think they were deunionized, that's not a nationally-applicable phenomenon (nor state parks in my area). Dare I say, they remain great part time jobs for young high school students in my area.
Ah- I should have specified- I was using Canadian examples, specifically in BC where there is no real union in any grocery store anymore and provincial parks are handled entirely through private contracts. (Yes, technically Superstore has a union, but it is the weakest I have heard of and of the worst sort- all the negatives (territorial ism preventing cleanup on aisle four) and none of the benefits- permanent part-time work to avoid paying benefits, minimum wage and paltry 10 cent raises.) The result is knocking the jobs out of sufficiently good living wage into 'high school jobs.'
The point being how does one determine what is a real job vs a high school job when jobs can slide from one to the other with little connection to how many high school students actually exist to take said jobs.
|
On May 23 2015 03:08 KwarK wrote:
If you give people more money they'll just start trading in their Spring 2015 edition cars for Autumn 2015 edition cars, now with all new features because the dealer told them that prices have never been better.
So true! :D
|
On May 23 2015 03:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:48 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall. The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values. Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay. Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all. Under your theory, an equally valid strategy would be eliminating the welfare entirely and then Wal-Mart would raise wages rendering it unnecessary. The rest of this is really just rhetoric. Except since, as i said, their employees have no other option and their are plenty of unemployed left they could just burn through a large number of people and leave em in a ditch until they start running into a shortage. And society has decided we don't like people in ditches so we would have to take care of them still. You have fallen back into using one government program to justify another...
And you haven't understood that welfare exists not because of government but because present day society is not ok with leaving people in the gutter.
If you accept that then you must realize that welfare is a necessity.
Yet welfare without minimum wage means that society ends up paying the bill left by greedy corporations. And all corporations are at their core greedy because they are led by human beings. (tho there are ofc varies degrees)
Hence welfare and minimum wage can co-exist without being some terrible abomination.
Of course when you don't believe that the government is an institution to implement and oversee societies morals/expectations the premise falls apart. But then I would say you don't understand how our civilization works.
|
United States42009 Posts
On May 23 2015 03:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:48 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 02:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 23 2015 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2015 01:39 screamingpalm wrote:On May 23 2015 00:37 Gorsameth wrote:
Those are indeed all important things but to me are entirely separate from minimum wage.
Someone has to flip burgers and do cleaning ect and those jobs will not all be filled by high school students as was put earlier.
I believe anyone, anywhere should be able to live off of any full time job regardless of how easy it is.
Asking for such a job to sustain an entire family is probably to much but 1 full + 1 part time and some government aid could cover that situation for example. I find them all intertwined really. A universal healthcare system would ease burdens on small business and supplemental government aid makes sure a family can survive. Increased minimum wage would unfairly and disproportionately affect smaller companies. So as usual, I agree with the left on the general issue, but not the proposed solution. It is just unfortunate that these social programs are so stigmatized and a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect with automation and how employment will evolve, or is theorized to look in the future, it will become more accepted out of necessity. The problem with using social programs to support those on minimum wage is that tax payers end up footing the bill for big companies. Big Company X makes millions because they pay their employees next to nothing, These employees are then given money by the tax-payer (welfare/foodstamps ect) to buy what they need to survive. Why should the entire country have to spend a portion of their taxes on increasing Company X's profit margins? I've basically already responded to this. On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. On May 22 2015 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 11:19 wei2coolman wrote:On May 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote:On May 22 2015 10:53 wei2coolman wrote:Mcdonald's is not the perfect example, because a lot of mcdonald's are owner operators (due to franchise business model), a lot of them are "small businesses". On May 22 2015 10:52 heliusx wrote:
Don't worry guys the taxpayer will pick up the slack... yeah, this is actually the bigger problem, mcdonald, walmart, etc are essentially loading their lack of pay on the gov't, because their workers will often have to apply for gov't assistance, which puts a huge strain on the gov't, all without creating a larger tax pool because they don't pay their employee's jack shit. The sentiment that it "must" put a strain on the government is the problem. The government has chosen to take on that responsibility, blaming another entity for that choice is stupid. Moreover, this sentiment actually illustrates one of the biggest problems with the welfare state: it gives the government an excuse to expand its reach into nearly every sphere of life. You make it sound as if removing social safety net for the needy will make companies less douchey about their pay... No. What I said is that you are using the social safety net as an excuse to impose your values elsewhere in the economy. But I will elaborate. Its not a subsidy unless you can demonstrate some connection between welfare spending and the suppression of wages (We do know, for instance, the payroll tax suppresses wages, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that says the spending side does). I don't think such a connection exists, so its not actually a rationale in favor of the minimum wage, which should stand or fall on its own. I would say the evidence is muddled, but slightly in favor of it being a net negative for society, and since my personal philosophy is to default to freedom of contract over coercive interactions, I would say it should fall. The government didn't decided that minimum wage should be a thing, Society and present day morality have decided that. The government is merely the institution used by society to express and oversee its values. Is there no connection between welfare and wages? Consider the state of for example your average Wall mart employee. Without healthcare, without food stamps they could not actually sustain their lives and they sure wouldn't last very long working full shifts while malnourished so yes, welfare allows Wall mart access to healthy workers at below minimum wage pay. Freedom of contract is ignoring centuries of history in which businesses have exploited and extorted their employees when they have no other alternative. And the only alternative people working minimum wage jobs have is not working at all. Under your theory, an equally valid strategy would be eliminating the welfare entirely and then Wal-Mart would raise wages rendering it unnecessary. The rest of this is really just rhetoric. Except since, as i said, their employees have no other option and their are plenty of unemployed left they could just burn through a large number of people and leave em in a ditch until they start running into a shortage. And society has decided we don't like people in ditches so we would have to take care of them still. You have fallen back into using one government program to justify another...
Not at all. He is identifying our collective decisions as a society, we don't like allowing real hunger etc. That is not a government policy, that is something that the people got together and democratically pushed their representatives to address, it is a wish of the people. The government policy is that it is more efficient to increase the value of their labour through legislation and subsidization than to simply support them. This is not a government policy justified by trying to avoid another government policy, this is a government trying to efficiently meet the stated wishes of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
