|
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. |
On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids.
Wait what. Only a plutocrat would say this.
Living wages are possible. Just need to actually tax people EQUALLY. not even taxing the rich more. with capital gains, loopholes and tax havens, THE RICH PAY LESS THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS IN TAXES. again, literal plutocracy.
|
On July 07 2015 11:09 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. Wait what. Only a plutocrat would say this. Living wages are possible. Just need to actually tax people EQUALLY. not even taxing the rich more. with capital gains, loopholes and tax havens, THE RICH PAY LESS THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS IN TAXES. again, literal plutocracy.
No they don't.
|
And here we go again
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
It's also not really a "living wage" so much as a wage for a certain standard of living, because it's certainly enough money to live on. It'd help if they fixed the issue with overpriced housing though. I imagine there's some other good structural fixes as well.
|
On July 07 2015 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 09:48 zlefin wrote:
While wages are very important, I sometimes think people are neglecting other avenues. To have a living wage is a combination of both what the wages are, and what the cost of living is. Finding ways to lower the cost of living is something well worth doing, and not done enough imho. Single payer healthcare could go a long way for a lot of people. What do conservatives think about Bernie Sanders suggestion that we should have primary debates between Democrats and Republicans?
It would be interesting, and I think it would generate a lot of initial interest, but it would likely be bad for the electoral process IMO. I don't really want to see someone like Michelle Bachmann or Donald Trump getting all that attention during the debate, much less a debate with Democratic candidates where they can attack even more viciously. Sadly, not all candidates in the primaries are in it to win the White House - some are there to get attention, and we shouldn't give these opportunists a platform to do so.
Having only 2 candidates - the Democratic and Republican nominees is good because it weeds out the crazies and it gives more talking time to each individual candidate to really talk about their views. You already can see this in the primary debate, where the number of candidates means that their total airtime is limited. All you get are candidates trying to shout over one another to get more attention, and the debate quality plummets.
That being said, it would be one hell of a reality TV show in terms of entertainment value. But it's one of those things you feel dirty about watching after, like Jersey Shore or Teen Mom.
|
On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires.
The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage.
Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways.
|
On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways.
I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances.
As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen.
|
On July 07 2015 11:33 zlefin wrote:
It's also not really a "living wage" so much as a wage for a certain standard of living, because it's certainly enough money to live on. It'd help if they fixed the issue with overpriced housing though. I imagine there's some other good structural fixes as well.
A "living wage" is the wage required to reproduce a modern worker. You can "live" on a couple dollars a day in Sri Lanka or Ethiopia, but you can't do a modern job in a modern economy. "Standard of living" shouldn't be conflated with things like phones/internet/highly nutritious foods/etc. that are required if you don't want to completely grind your working class into dust because they are unable to support their families, educate themselves, decompress, and remain vital.
|
On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen.
There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment.
|
Had a friend at the Maine event tonight! Sent me some snapchats... I still can't believe Bernie is seeing such support.
To answer the question posed earlier:
1. Campaign finance reform is by far the most important issue of our time. Though, as Sanders points out, there are myriad other issues our country is facing.
2. Bernie Sanders all the way. I will vote for Clinton in the general if she secures the nomination, but i'm 120% Bernie until then. Already donated $100 to his campaign over three donations. He destroyed Carson and beat Cruz (and lol Fiorina) in fundraising, is polling better than them, and is still being treated less seriously.
Interesting piece today: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/us/politics/hillary-clintons-team-is-wary-as-bernie-sanders-finds-footing-in-iowa.html?_r=0
|
On July 07 2015 11:09 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. Wait what. Only a plutocrat would say this. Living wages are possible. Just need to actually tax people EQUALLY. not even taxing the rich more. with capital gains, loopholes and tax havens, THE RICH PAY LESS THAN THE MIDDLE CLASS IN TAXES. again, literal plutocracy.
Not only not true, but less true than in any other OECD country. Atlantic Forbes Original
|
United States41995 Posts
On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment.
This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit.
The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund.
|
On July 07 2015 12:00 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 11:33 zlefin wrote:
It's also not really a "living wage" so much as a wage for a certain standard of living, because it's certainly enough money to live on. It'd help if they fixed the issue with overpriced housing though. I imagine there's some other good structural fixes as well. A "living wage" is the wage required to reproduce a modern worker. You can "live" on a couple dollars a day in Sri Lanka or Ethiopia, but you can't do a modern job in a modern economy. "Standard of living" shouldn't be conflated with things like phones/internet/highly nutritious foods/etc. that are required if you don't want to completely grind your working class into dust because they are unable to support their families, educate themselves, decompress, and remain vital.
I think we're just disagreeing about what that wage is. This doesn't seem like a misunderstanding worth fixing, as it merely concerns minor definitions on a tangential discussion.
|
On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund.
I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of.
|
United States41995 Posts
On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of.
So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators."
Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is".
|
On July 08 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:So what? With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was: Most work over most of human history hasn't paid a '1st world arbitrary living wage'. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a integral part of society Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of. So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators." Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is".
No, that's not even in the ballpark of my argument.
|
United States41995 Posts
On July 08 2015 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was:
[quote]
Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of. So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators." Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is". No, that's not even in the ballpark of my argument.
Then I'm getting lost somewhere. Right now the poor need minimum wage + benefits to have a poor lifestyle. You argue that if we increased the minimum wage then the poor lifestyle would be better but would still be poor because poor is a relative?
|
On July 08 2015 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 10:43 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
With all this wealth being produced with all of society transitioning from agrarianism, to industrialism, to consumerism, it should not be far fetched to propose that the way work is viewed and conducted should also be changed. On July 07 2015 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Your mistake was bothering to engage when his opener was:
[quote]
Some of the other things we didn't have for most of human history....Indoor plumbing, electricity, Christianity, petroleum products, etc... I'm not sure why they are suddenly an integral part of society lol. We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah! Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids. It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of. So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators." Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is". No, that's not even in the ballpark of my argument.
"That's not my argument, but no, I won't explain what it is either."
|
On July 08 2015 05:57 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 08 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah!
Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids.
It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of. So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators." Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is". No, that's not even in the ballpark of my argument. "That's not my argument, but no, I won't explain what it is either."
I'm so bad that I expect people to read my posts BibleThump
So cruel of me to not cater to the ADD generation BibleThump
User was warned for this post
|
On July 08 2015 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 08 2015 05:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2015 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 12:36 KwarK wrote:On July 07 2015 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 07 2015 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2015 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
We also didn't have industrialized mass murder. But we can now, so - huzzah!
Since you guys don't seem to be getting the point I'll try to spell it out more directly. Why should we have living wages when other options are arguably better? "Because I wants it!!!" isn't a very good argument, kids.
It's the most accessible and easiest to enforce, are a couple better reasons. For instance you mentioned the EITC. Many people don't get it because they don't even know they qualify, they don't file (because they are told they don't have to), or when they do get it they don't even get all of it because some tax preparation company takes a slice. That ~$910,000,000 in profits from H&R Block isn't primarily coming from millionaires. The EITC isn't perfect but it is currently the largest anti-poverty program in the country. It's also widely regarded as a public policy success story, and more directly effective at combating poverty than a higher minimum wage. Higher wages means you lose out on other benefits as well as the EITC. Not all households will navigate that change well. Not every employer is going to be able to support large single earner households at a 'living' level, meaning that the public will have to step in an provide assistance anyways. I don't think people making minimum wage are worried about losing the EITC. You're not getting anywhere close to losing it if you have a kid, and if you don't have a kid why would you want ~$500 at the end of the year instead of doubling your wage? If by chance you're married with or without children and file jointly and make over the current amount, then I think you make a good case for raising the limit on the credit in those circumstances. As for any alleged significant job loss from employers who can't afford a living wage, that doesn't happen. There are more benefits at stake than just the EITC though. As for any specifics on numbers, it depends on what the specfics of your proposal is. When you say something like "no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" and propose something like a higher min wage, you'll still have some people who do not earn a living wage and need benefits because they have a large household size. Or if you have a flexible min wage that becomes harder to administer and has more detrimental affects on prices and unemployment. This is nonsense. Those benefits are decided by AGI, not gross. If someone is truly better off earning less than they were earning more then it's within their power to simply open a tIRA, throw the extra money in there and not only does their income/taxes/benefits stay the same as it was before but they also get the Saver's Credit. The suggestion that the poor rely upon you not giving them too much money is absurd. If they really liked having not very much money and giving them a little extra money is going to fuck them over then they can go back to having not very much money without much effort while building a modest retirement/emergency fund. I think you misinterpreted my post somehow. I'm not claiming that you end up with more money by earning less. My argument was that a decent standard of living now may require min wage plus benefits, and that a decent standard of living under a 'living wage' system, if such a system is simply a higher min wage, may also require min wage plus benefits because not everyone will conform to the average household situation that the new, and higher, min wage is based off of. So your argument is, at it's core "If we let the poor have refrigerators they won't be happy, they'll be asking for microwaves next. And if we let them have those then they'll want televisions and maybe even cell phones. And they'll still be poor relative to the rest of us so it's probably better just to draw the line at refrigerators." Sure, most of the poor in America are not poor except when compared to everyone else in America. The "decent" standard of living increases with income. I don't deny that. But I'm not sure how we get from there to "probably best to just keep it where it is". No, that's not even in the ballpark of my argument. Then I'm getting lost somewhere. Right now the poor need minimum wage + benefits to have a poor lifestyle. You argue that if we increased the minimum wage then the poor lifestyle would be better but would still be poor because poor is a relative?
I think that don't pay enough to support a 'living' lifestyle should largely still exist and that the government should try to make up the difference with well-designed benefits. My arguments are in support of that. I'm opposed to:
"no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
