Cimarron29414

Derwood,

I am not going to cite any references to these questions because I want you to feel comfortable with the sources of the answers, so I would ask you to do your own research on these two questions:

1) What are the average numbers of hours worked per week for someone at or below the poverty line (about $11K/year)?
2) What percentage of minimum wage workers are primary wage earners in their households?

I think if you find the answers from sources you trust, you will come to the conclusion that poverty can not be solved by raising the minimum wage. It can only be solved by getting people working more. The natural conclusion is that raising the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available and, therefore, hurts those at the lowest income levels. Secondly, an overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are high school / college kids trying to pay for their cell phones and Jay Z cds. One could question the need to improve their wage at the expense of jobs for people who ~really~ need them. Yes, I know that some high school / college kids really need their jobs. I also know that most of them are above minimum wage because of merit - which should be the basis of all wage levels (in my unpopular opinion).

Finally, all Presidents and Congresses raise the minimum wage. It's a popular thing to do around election cycles. They are all to blame, er in your case, they are all to be thanked.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

This source suggests 40% of minimum wage earners as the sole source of income for their households.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

First, in general, I find it kind of sick that for some it is o.k. to work hard to get ahead, and then for them to make excuses for others and discourage them from doing the same thing.

Second, the concept of a centralized government imposed "livable wage" is a joke. Real wages are based on productivity or "adding value". The best way to help people earn "livable wages" is to make sure they have marketable skills being demanded in the market place. If all we needed was for government to lay down an edict so that everyone makes a "livable wage", why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hr., $30/hr., hell let's make everyone millionaires, and pay 'em $1 million per hour? Do you know why that doesn't work? It is simply inflationary, no value is being added, there is not a comparable increase in productivity.

This is why I ask the basic question, do liberals or "do gooders" actually think this stuff through?

Another example is Wal-Mart in inner city neighborhoods. I am talking about neighborhoods with high unemployment, and limited shopping choices. In some Chicago neighborhoods for example, it is difficult for people to even buy fresh fruit and vegetables, but the liberals running the city won't let Wal-Mart build. We are talking jobs, low costs for the consumer, taxes, urban renewal, etc. Is it all because of unions?

Wal-Mart Figures Time Is Ripe for Chicago Push - WSJ.com

With MCD and Wal-Mart we have two very clear examples of how liberals in government are hurting poor urban people and government could very easily work with business rather than against business to create jobs and opportunity, in addition to giving consumers choice, increasing the tax base, promoting urban renewal, and neighborhood pride.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

I apologize in advance for the people who are going to be upset because I dare ask a question regarding a study that supports their belief.

How does the study define "household"?

What happens to these percentages right after an increase, compared to one year later, two years later? For example, if we raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, overnight you will have a large percentage of those who made $7.26 or more now making the new minimum. Couldn't that skew the point of the study?

The study pointed out Texas, but Texas has no state income tax and uses the federal minimum wage. For example California uses a higher minimum than the Federal and has high state income tax and other tax rates. How does the study account for that?


I don't expect any answers, just thinking out loud, so to speak. Thinking and asking questions is a habit with me, again I apologize to those offended by that.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

I'm not a "do gooder". I just don't think people should go to work for 8 hours and walk home with less than $50 (after taxes). Crazy, I know

Cimarron29414

You did choose one of the most liberal think tanks in America.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

also, if you build a Wal Mart in Chicago, how many small businesses will close their doors due to the competition? In other words, what is the net gain for the neighborhood when you consider all the people losing their jobs/businesses ?

roachboy

i don't think econ 101 "thinking" lets you consider questions like that derwood.
just saying.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

wait, thinking? I thought we were "feeling" in this thread?

ratbastid

Indeed, it turns inconvenient "facts" into "personal attacks". How dare you tell me my feelings are wrong? They're my feelings! You're hurting them!

Also of note: reductio ad absurdum and slippery-slope argumentation are now "thinking it through".

Baraka_Guru

As invalid as the data I posted above may be, the bottom line on minimum wage is whether it is a livable wage. Sure most minimum-wage earners are teenagers and students, but not all of them are. The data here suggests that nearly a third (29%) of minimum-wage earners in Canada are between the ages of 25 and 54. (This is StatsCan data.)

Many of those are not the primary earners, but some of them are. One reason why minimum wages came about was to protect those who had no advocates otherwise: many of these earners are women, some are supporting families (or are at least trying to). The idea today is that a minimum wage should have the potential--at least--to earn a livable wage. One should be able to make a living on minimum wage. Not all minimum wage jobs are transitional jobs.

I know raising minimum wages puts pressure on job creation, but wages that are too low (i.e. on the other side of the coin) puts pressure on the economy in other ways. It's about achieving a balance. It's about social improvement.

And sometimes the only way you can get a raise is if the government does it for you by raising the minimum wage. Inflation can be a bitch. And before you jump on me by stating, "Raising minimum wages is what causes inflation!" please realize that only 5% of the Canadian workforce earns a minimum wage. And if it is as bad as requiring a raise in minimum wage to get a raise at all, then I don't think changes to minimum wages have as much as an impact as changes to the other kinds of wages...you know, wages that are twice as high or more.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

it's also worth noting that Wal Mart (and many other retailers) are notorious for employing an army of "part time" workers (sometimes defined as 38 1/2 hours per week) to avoid paying anyone benefits. Doesn't exactly help our uninsured problem

Baraka_Guru

Ah, yes, the minimum-wage full-time part-timer.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Here is one to throw you for a loop. How about some inner city kids going to work for 8 hours and walk away with $0, but with 8 hours of training. I am a small business owner, I would give a person that kind of opportunity. If I took a person with no skills, it costs me money to train them (it actually costs me money to train people with experience). But I would gladly give some of my time and resources to help someone get a start. Then what would happen is that I would gladly pay them more than minimum wage after they show they are trainable, have some skills, and can show a good work ethic. Before you go ballistic, understand that children of business owners often get started in their parent's business exactly the same way - they go in start learning from the ground up without consideration for payroll wages. Athletes do it that way, they learn their trade long before they get paid, if they ever get paid. Entertainers do it that way. It is amazing how being a "volunteer" can payoff.

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Here is a perfect example of the problem. I bet you have never spent any time in the impoverished areas of Chicago. If you had, you would know how silly your statement is. People travel for miles out of the neighborhood, shop at sub-standard stores paying inflated prices, or shop at convenient stores with limited selection.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

I lived in Chicago for 12 years, and not in a gated mansion in Lincoln Park. I traveled through bad neighborhoods every day to go to work (and had a few jobs IN bad neighborhoods.....nothing like hookers knocking on your window as you wait for someone to come unlock the warehouse).

Either way, your argument has shifted again (shocker). Do the bad neighborhoods needs the Wal Marts because of the jobs or because of the product? Is it okay for Wal Mart to shut down dozens of small businesses because you have deemed them "sub-standard"?

roachboy

so now we get the standard neo-liberal line about walmart of all things.
(a) cheap shit is good for poor folk. therefore walmart is a democratizing institution.

(b) externalizing costs by reducing the number of full-time employees as far as possible, assuming that folk can work and remain on welfare because the wages are so great and so get access to insurance--that's all good because in neo-liberal land all that matters is profits gathered by shareholders. following uncle milty, to even think about anything else is unethical. so this helps profits. so it is necessarily a social good.

(c) that wage levels are not social, that wages simply reflect the relation of abstract workin feller x to employer given in the way a rock is 1---this is too absurd to even bother attacking, once you leave the la-la land of econ 101 and its simple-minded hydraulic relations between supply and demand blah blah blah.

(d) predatory location practices, which have been heavily documented with respect to walmart, are all about profit generation and so are, like the above and everything else, a social good. no matter the consequences. profit uber alles.

(e) the actual practices used by walmart in enabling the cheap goods never seem to come up in neo-liberal land...the objects magically appear on shelves, aren't produced anywhere, aren't procured using cost-control measures that effectively force suppliers into breaking laws to do with labor & environment..no matter: those people are far away. that walmart uses an incredibly capital intensive inventory tracking system to outsource to the maximum possible extent, which represents a basic economy of scale advantage relative to the smaller business with walmart puts outta business--no matter in neo-liberal land. walmart is given, like a table or a rock.


on and on the same nonsense.
you can't even start with a social analysis using these ridiculous premises.
you can wave your hands around, but that's it.
this kind of "thinking" went a long way to pre-ordaining the implosion of neo-liberalism.

you'd think even conservatives would be by this nonsense.
apparently not.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I firmly believe that Walmart conducts unethical business practices - so I don't shop there and I encourage all those I know not to shop there. Sooner or later, enough people will see it and Walmart will change due to the demands of their customers, not the government.

Of course, consumers have to stop being so greedy with their money and be willing to pay $2.00 / roll of TP. Walmart customers are capitalist pigs! :P

EDIT: Actually, I shop there twice a year. We buy toys for orphans for Christmas and we buy school supplies/uniforms for them at the beginning of the school year. I can buy for (literally) twice as many kids by going to Walmart. I suspend my boycott on those two occasions because the "good" outweighs the "bad".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

there's no disputing that Walmart is really the worst place ever. I just switched banks because the only close branches were in Walmarts. My stress level triples on the rare occasions I have to go into one

Cimarron29414

Here's the other casualty - the businesses which shut down when Walmart leaves! Case in point, in my town there was a Walmart next to a grocery story (shared a wall even). Walmart wanted to build a Walmart WITH a grocery store. Now, if I was a Walmart VP of development, I would just buy that grocery store and integrate it. Oh no, Walmart moved down the street exactly 2.1 miles and broke ground on the new Walmart with a grocery store. Of course, the two strip malls where Walmart used to be are now barren wastelands, as well as the unfilled vacancy of the old Walmart. The entire shopping center has been empty (except for the grocery store) for eight years!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

I say let the consumer decide where they spend their money.

I apologize for bringing Wal-Mart into the discussion. But let's be clear on the issue, for example, I recently needed a headlight bulb for my motorcycle. My local dealer, small business, sells the bulb for $20, Wal-mart sells it for about $10. I bought the bulb at my dealer because I rode my bike in, shot the breeze with the parts-guy, got some advice on how to change the bulb, drank a cup of coffee, read the stuff on the bulletin board, looked at the new bikes, talked to a few guys about how my bike was running - and I felt good about spending 2 times the money. It all goes back to "value". Small business can compete with the big guys like Wal-Mart - and they do it every day.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

"Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is not the same as "putting on your boots with straps." Your version is probably a more worthwhile version, though, in that it doesn't try to inspire people by having them do the impossible.

The_Dunedan

If it were impossible, nobody would have done it. People have, therefore your statement is false upon it's face (in both senses.)

filtherton

It is a metaphor for self reliance based on a physically impossible phenomena. Don't believe me? Try and pick yourself completely up off the ground by pulling up on your shoes.

A more accurate metaphor would also include some sort of support structure, for instance "pull yourself up onto a chair" or "fully utilize the opportunities given to you." Though that second one might be a bit controversial amongst bootstrap proponents since it implicitly recognizes the role other folks play in an individual's success.

Cimarron29414

And to think I almost apologized for my "Walmart threadjack."

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Tully Mars

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cimarron29414

Not until the Obamas get divorced over extra-marital affairs with the Clintons. See, back on track!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

well, i dont think that the thread jumped the shark because filtherton pointed out that one of the central metaphors tossed about by neo-liberal types--the boot-strap bidness---makes no sense. not only is it incoherent in itself, but it's even more so in how it's used: you know, as the cliche that replaces having to actually think about the social world, which enables all that complexity to get collapsed onto individual gumption and other such nonsense. it's of a piece with all the boats floating atop and even playing field and other such meaningless or close-to meaningless bits of 18th century political economy pollyanna-dom.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

So, true. Only "neo-liberals" use this phrase. Also, it's a HORRIBLE miscarriage of reality to suggest that a person can affect their own course through life. I say we keep calling them victims and sending them checks. There's really nothing better than keeping them down so they'll keep voting "correctly".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

I think you're missing the point. It's not that people don't have the will or don't try and try again; it's that sometimes you just don't get anywhere due to circumstances beyond your control. You see, an original use of the bootstrap metaphor was likely applied to people who accomplished what was viewed as impossible. These are the exceptional cases of exceptional circumstances.

Today, the metaphor is used too often: it's used as a means to communicate, "I worked hard to where I am today, and this is why I'm successful." This has trivialized the meaning of the metaphor, which was intended to communicate overcoming the impossible, not overcoming the difficult.

Those who fail to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps" aren't all on welfare. Some of them are working multiple minimum-wage jobs (or near minimum).

If you think that an individual can have anywhere near total control over their own life, you're overlooking a huge swath of reality. No man is an island, and all that.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tully Mars

Shark! I say. Shark!

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cimarron29414

I agree that the metaphor should not be a catch-all solution to all those struggling. The question always comes back to whether it's the federal government's job to fix [insert your favorite social struggle here]. You say yes, I say no. Not only do I say no, I say they couldn't fix it even if they try for another 1000 years. 1000 years from now, I will say, "I told you so".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

cimmaron: i don't think anyone is arguing on the terms that you set out above.
all you're arguing is your position and it's reverse.
so one either agrees with your position or necessarily thinks the opposite, which of course you get to define.

a false binary, they call that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

You see, but the government has a track record of improving things. It fixed or otherwise improved situations surrounding unfair labour practices (including child and slave labour), universal suffrage, gay rights, racism, social discrimination, consumer rights, etc.

I think what we should realize is that, no, we shouldn't rely on government alone to "fix" social problems, but they are a major participant. Social progress never happened through government alone; it always (or usually) started with "the people."

It's not the government's "job" to merely fix things; it's the government's job to serve the people. Most people are more than willing the help themselves if the odds aren't stacked tremendously against them.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

silent_jay

I like this, I boycott Walmart and encourage others not to shop there, unless they or I need to buy cheap shit for kids twice a year, then I throw my boycott out the window and shop till I drop at Walmart. It isn't really a boycott at all, that's like someone saying they don't drink and encourage others not to drink, but on Christmas and Thanksgiving I throw that out the window and get fuckin shitfaced. Too funny.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Cimarron29414

Tell you what, I'll listen to you and this year 5 orphans won't get ANY christmas presents at all. I will send them a card which says "Sorry, kids but I have to prove my resolve to some concrete-thinking moron on the internet who can't tell the difference between doing 'what's right' and 'the right thing to do'. I'm sure you understand kids. Let this be a life lesson to you - Walmart is bad." Yeah, that's what I will do. Thanks for readjusting my fouled moral compass. Oh, and the drinking analogy - yeah that's a perfect metaphor for what I am doing. You really have me pegged.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

There's too much philosophy mixed with history to give a proper reply. Suffice to say, my believe is that the only things the government has fixed are things the government broke in the first place.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

I assume you are referring to the terms I laid out in #670? If that is the case, then I am going to have to call BS. The current government, media, and members of this forum have attempted to drill into us ad nauseum that "Only government can fix this." To say that you guys haven't been arguing that point for years isn't exactly accurate. The inverse being - the government CAN'T fix this and the people must. Yep, I'll argue that point all day.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

please cite where any of us have said that ONLY the government can fix (issue X)

Rekna

Here is some interesting data in inflation rates over the last few years:

Inflation is down under Obama. Didn't the right wingers claim his policies were going to cause inflation to go through the roof? There is still a chance for that to happen but it hasn't happened yet. Why is that?

silent_jay

Wow concrete thinking moron, you're a fine example for kids, when someone question what you say, call them names, good lesson for the little ones, no need to get personal, I merely said I find it funny, never called you anything, I'd appreciate the same respect, sorry for voicing my opinion, so calm down before posting or maybe think with the mature part of your brain, not the name calling immature portion. I have you pegged for something .

ADDED: Are insults now allowed? Guess the report post button is about as useless as the mods here, or am I not in the proper clique here to get an insult deleted? Guess I'm allowed to insult people as well? This place and it's cliques are quite amusing, it's worse than fuckin high school here.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Cimarron29414

Well, for starters: the president that you voted for said it - several times. The congressional leaders have all said it. And, the implication of approving and supporting all of the federal expansion through one's posts is an implicit belief that only the federal government can fix this.

---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Clearly, I hurt your feelings and I apologize for that. I retract calling you a moron. You simply type moronic statements.

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

Although not a right winger, I will say that no one that I know of has implied that inflation would occur instantaneously. However, you can not inject trillions of dollars into the system, monetize your debt, and then not have inflation. The inflation will occur once the economy starts having growth. Another indicator would be the price of gold. Granted, there is DEFINITELY a fear-based "gold bubble", but not all of the increased price is that bubble. Some of it is genuine loss in buying power of the dollar. You can also see the weakening of the dollar on the world scene. This is due to the world's belief that the dollar will be "worth less" soon - another indicator that inflation is coming.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dippin

Except I already showed you elsewhere that it is false that "trillions of dollars" have been injected into the system.

And if anything, given the constant trade deficits, the dollar is overvalued.

Derwood

just because I voted for Obama doesn't mean I believe everything that comes out of his mouth. that's a mighty leap of logic