Straight Dope Message Board

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

What Romney gets wrong is conflating those who don't pay income tax with those who expect the government to take care of them.

As many of those who do not pay income tax are his wealthy peers. Yet, they still expect the govt to take care of them. They expect roads and police and fire protection, and a military to thwart invasions, and education system to produce workers, and an economic system in which to make money.

What Romney get right is that the first responsibility for everyone is to take care of themselves and their family. If everyone did that then there would be no need for other people to do it for them. The truth is that the government can't take care of people. A welfare check is no substitute for a job. Teachers, principals, and social workers can't substitute for involved, loving parents.

And what Romney entirely misses is that not everyone can deal with every possible circumstance, that a job doesn't necessarily support oneself, much less a family, without some form of assistance, and that no matter how loving, a parent needs the support of teachers, principals, and social workers to raise their child.

The idea that the government can take care of people if only the right people were elected is poison. The only thing that can help people is self reliance and if universally practiced it would solve nearly every political problem.

Right, because we would just ignore the people dying in the streets until they went away, one way or another. That is certainly a solution, and seems to be the solution that those who are currently elected are going for. Personally, I find that callous, cruel, and inhumane, and find that electing people who share the view that having the richest country in the history of the planet, and yet letting people die from lack of resources is not the country that we want to live in, will decrease the human misery that comes of enforcing your ideals of "personal responsibility" on them. Do you disagree that those who actually want to help those less fortunate them themselves are going to do more to help those less fortunate than themselves than those who subscribe to your every man for themself philosophy?


Any proposal that starts with, "We'll solve all our problems by just getting the people to act in *this* way" is doomed to failure from the start, and working from that idea is either ignorant or disingenuous. 51

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Bone

And apparently folks on the left think Trump is a conservative.

Folks on the right not only think that Trump is a conservative, but they think he's a great conservative.

Your post may have been slightly relevant to the thread were it not for the fact that the great majority of your fellow party members approve of him.

What would you call Trump, and do you think that you could get that 72% of your fellow party members to agree with you on that? 52

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Folks on the right not only think that Trump is a conservative, but they think he's a great conservative.

Your post may have been slightly relevant to the thread were it not for the fact that the great majority of your fellow party members approve of him.

What would you call Trump, and do you think that you could get that 72% of your fellow party members to agree with you on that?

You can approve of Trump’s job as President, and consider him not to be a conservative. I do. 53

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Scylla

You can approve of Trump’s job as President, and consider him not to be a conservative. I do.

Highlight for us which job bits of his presidency you approve of. 54

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

As many of those who do not pay income tax are his wealthy peers. Yet, they still expect the govt to take care of them.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the opposite of what Romney said. The bottom 47% who do not pay taxes are not appealed to by tax cuts, nor would anyone else who didn't pay taxes. And of course, the notion that "many" of Romney's wealthy peers do not pay income tax is wrong, or have not paid the taxes that go to education, roads, and schools, but even apart from that, the statement is false.

Do you disagree that those who actually want to help those less fortunate them themselves are going to do more to help those less fortunate than themselves than those who subscribe to your every man for themself philosophy?

And yet religious conservatives donate more to charitable causes than secular liberals.

Any proposal that starts with, "We'll solve all our problems by just getting the people to act in *this* way" is doomed to failure from the start, and working from that idea is either ignorant or disingenuous.

If you mean "*this* way" to include "do nothing for yourself except sit still and tell the government to fix everything, mostly with money they take from someone else", I would agree.

Strawmanning is fun, isn't it?

Regards,
Shodan 55

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Highlight for us which job bits of his presidency you approve of.

Tax cuts, foreign policy exempting tariffs, border policy, pwning leftists. 56

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Do you think if a single parent loses their job, gets injured, or for some other reason can't afford rent/food/medical care for a time deserves to have the state take their children away? Wouldn't SNAP etc. be cheaper for society then assuming the entire responsibility for raising that child? You can't always force parents to be as responsible as you wish them to be, but those kids are still Americans and deserve to be treated as such and shouldn't be allowed to starve to death or die from treatable conditions due to lack of insurance or ability to pay medical bills, and simply taking every kid away from parents you deem irresponsible by your definition does not seem like what we should be doing in this country. Maybe we just need to accept that some people are not going to be as responsible as you want them to be, but innocent kids should not bear the cost of that. If we are to be the enlightened society that we claim to be, then maybe we just need to deal with that reality instead of trying to justify why we don't need to help those kids.

Can I also pick the most abused case and make it my standard to discuss?
I said nothing about I, or me at all. That is YOU, assigning guilt instead of reading what was written. We were discussing how personal responsibility was not bigoted and YOU started talking about specifics? Why?

To answer the question more directly, SNAP, any social safety net at all is perfectly fine with me but there are plenty of cases out there where personal responsibility should be a bigger value on those we are helping. Temporary assistance is great, for all the cases, even the ones you would care to define. So maybe you don't strip kids from parents who just temporarily lost their job. What about parents who haven't worked for a year 0r 2 or 5 years? What about abusive parents? 57

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

Can I also pick the most abused case and make it my standard to discuss?
I said nothing about I, or me at all. That is YOU, assigning guilt instead of reading what was written. We were discussing how personal responsibility was not bigoted and YOU started talking about specifics? Why?

To answer the question more directly, SNAP, any social safety net at all is perfectly fine with me but there are plenty of cases out there where personal responsibility should be a bigger value on those we are helping. Temporary assistance is great, for all the cases, even the ones you would care to define. So maybe you don't strip kids from parents who just temporarily lost their job. What about parents who haven't worked for a year 0r 2 or 5 years? What about abusive parents?

Because political philosophy is fine to discuss, but what really matters is the real world and the actual affects these philosophies have on real people. If specifics make your philosophical argument look bad, then that's not the fault of the one pointing it out. 58

[Kearsen1]

I would also be on board with a basic guaranteed income. 59

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Because political philosophy is fine to discuss, but what really matters is the real world and the actual affects these philosophies have on real people. If specifics make your philosophical argument look bad, then that's not the fault of the one pointing it out.

They don't make the argument look bad, it just means that defining lines that aren't exactly available right now (between us two Shmos on the internet) isnt going to happen. 60

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

They don't make the argument look bad, it just means that defining lines that aren't exactly available right now (between us two Shmos on the internet) is going to happen.

I just think that many that subscribe to the "people just need to be more responsible" mindset to justify not wanting the government to help people at all don't really think about the actual real world effects of this viewpoint if put into action.

I wasn't trying to point at any specific person, even though I was responding to your post originally. My use of "you" was meant in a general sense. 61

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I just think that many that subscribe to the "people just need to be more responsible" mindset to justify not wanting the government to help people at all don't really think about the actual real world effects of this viewpoint if put into action.

I wasn't trying to point at any specific person, even though I was responding to your post originally. My use of "you" was meant in a general sense.

I am perfectly ok with that, as most of mine were as well.

See, that's the thing. Most people who require assistance SHOULD be more responsible. And conservatives hold that value

It's a rather tough pill to swallow when the real world shows you that some people do not give a shit about helping, not only themselves, but family members/children. If someone cannot financially support a child, they should not bring them into this world assuming that someone else will.

Most of our support systems we have in place encourages dependence on it rather than being free of it. 62

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Tax cuts, foreign policy exempting tariffs, border policy, pwning leftists.

...and I shall know you by your limping. 63

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Tax cuts, foreign policy exempting tariffs, border policy, pwning leftists.

Deliberate cruelty to migrant families is a feature, not a bug! 64

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

See, that's the thing. Most people who require assistance SHOULD be more responsible. And conservatives hold that value

And most people SHOULD use their turn signals, but as my commute each day shows me that isn't the case. Also liberals want people to be responsible too, but we understand that some people can't and also that just because some people won't it doesn't mean that we should just let their kids suffer. That hurts us all, and it isn't the kids' fault what circumstances they are born into. If some number of "unworthy" people get assistance in order for us to make sure we don't have American kids starving, then that's just part of being a society. We have to be careful about the consequences of cutting these programs on our most vulnerable citizens.

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

It's a rather tough pill to swallow when the real world shows you that some people do not give a shit about helping, not only themselves, but family members/children. If someone cannot financially support a child, they should not bring them into this world assuming that someone else will.

It's also a tough pill to swallow when you realize that many people don't give a damn about poor kids and justify it with "well they shouldn't have been born", as if that changes anything.

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

Most of our support systems we have in place encourages dependence on it rather than being free of it.

Is this true though? This is a common refrain from the right, but we did welfare reform already, I thought there already is a limit and the idea of a lifelong welfare leech is not really accurate anymore. Am I understanding incorrectly? Are there statistics that show this to be an increasing problem now? I'd like to see that data if this is such a huge problem in our society rather than just a cudgel being used on the right in order to slash social spending and lower their own taxes regardless of the actual reality of the situation. 65

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I just think that many that subscribe to the "people just need to be more responsible" mindset to justify not wanting the government to help people at all don't really think about the actual real world effects of this viewpoint if put into action.

Probably not, but that also cuts both ways.

One does need to worry about what incentives the system sets up. It is nice to say “the government should help out the needy.” It makes one feel good. It’s not your money, and you don’t have to worry about implantation.

I understand that under the current welfare system you have people that would like to get off and support themselves, but if they do at all they lose their benefits, so they are forced to stay on. Seems bad to me.

Also, though people are not bears, you can end up with a “don’t feed the bears” problem, where tourist handouts create bears that become dependent and can’t care for themselves any longer.

Some well meaning programs in the 60s caused great misery. Housing projects were built and people moved there because it was thought that living in close proximity would build a sense of community. This was based on experiments done with rats, believe it or not. The rats are each other. They still thought it was a good idea, because people are not rats, and went ahead and built housing projects, and moved people there. I read a whole book on this thing. I can find the title if you care to read it.

The point is that good intentions are not enough. The debate is always “let’s give more to the poor.” “Or let’s cut funding.” This is not a problem that you solve by throwing money at. Our study of economics and social sciences has progressed a lot in the last 100 years. Our programs to help the poor succeed have not. We are still using a system founded in “the dole” invented by the British to keep the Irish in misery. That is a poor basis.

I think we need to guy and redo the whole system from the ground up so that it’s not a handout, but a path to success. 66

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Deliberate cruelty to migrant families is a feature, not a bug!

Tell me again how I should engage in debate with you based on your sincerity and good faith. 67

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

...and I shall know you by your limping.

I think you just made a funny or clever reference that went right over my head. 68

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Tell me again how I should engage in debate with you based on your sincerity and good faith.

Apologies. Just some mild snark. I had thought that since you learned that Trump's policy of separating children from families was both new and deliberate, you would now oppose the policy, even if you still supported Trump overall, so I was disappointed to see you list "border policy" as a reason you supported him. 69

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Apologies. Just some mild snark. I had thought that since you learned that Trump's policy of separating children from families was both new and deliberate, you would now oppose the policy, even if you still supported Trump overall, so I was disappointed to see you list "border policy" as a reason you supported him.

Disappointment is character building. 70

[iiandyiiii]

Sadly, Scylla, sometimes it seems that the more effort I put into a post, the less likely you are to respond. When I went through, step-by-step, the history of the shutdown in the other thread, you ignored it. Sometimes I succumb to baser thoughts and put out a flippant snarky post, but that's immature and I apologize. Even if such snark appears more likely to actually get engagement. I'd certainly prefer the substantive discussion, even when it gets contentious. 71

[Velocity]

"Personal responsibility" sounds good in theory until or unless there are factors that make it counterproductive or impossible. How is one supposed to deal with personal responsibility when a hospital gives you a $55,000 bill for a broken leg, which can be impossible to pay? Or the phenomenon of "it's expensive to be poor?" Many things in U.S. society are structured in such a way that "the good get it better, the bad get it worse." Or if you are an ex-felon trying to reintegrate into society but everyone ostracizes you and nobody will hire you? 72

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Sadly, Scylla, sometimes it seems that the more effort I put into a post, the less likely you are to respond. When I went through, step-by-step, the history of the shutdown in the other thread, you ignored it. Sometimes I succumb to baser thoughts and put out a flippant snarky post, but that's immature and I apologize. Even if such snark appears more likely to actually get engagement. I'd certainly prefer the substantive discussion, even when it gets contentious.

I think that characterization is incorrect. I have tended to engage you at length, and I don’t dodge good debating points. I do move on when in my judgement I find it frustrating, pointless or not interesting, which is what I did in the previous thread. I try not to make a point of not getting pulled back into a conversation that I’ve decided isn’t worth having.

I try not to hold grudges or carry debate from one thread into another, as that is unfair to the participants in the new thread.

The exception is when people troll after me, or I perceive they are carrying grudges.

My sincere suggestion would be to move on and if you have something interesting to say on the current subject, do so. 73

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Scylla

I think that characterization is incorrect. I have tended to engage you at length, and I don’t dodge good debating points. I do move on when in my judgement I find it frustrating, pointless or not interesting, which is what I did in the previous thread. I try not to make a point of not getting pulled back into a conversation that I’ve decided isn’t worth having.

I try not to hold grudges or carry debate from one thread into another, as that is unfair to the participants in the new thread.

The exception is when people troll after me, or I perceive they are carrying grudges.

My sincere suggestion would be to move on and if you have something interesting to say on the current subject, do so.

Fair enough, and best wishes! 74

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The bottom 47% who do not pay taxes

There is no 47% who don't pay taxes.

The 47% who don't pay income taxes pay sales taxes, social security and medicare tax (yes those are taxes) and directly or indirectly property taxes. None of these are progressive, so as a percentage of income they all fall far more heavily on low-income than on high-income people.

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

Most people who require assistance SHOULD be more responsible. .

Problem is: we have an economy that is so structured that it won't work unless there are an awful lot of people working at jobs that don't pay enough to live on.

And the society then wants to punish the people who are working long hours raising the food, cooking the food, cleaning up the mess, taking care of children, taking care of those who are ill, and doing other jobs which are essential for the functioning of society, by not only paying them poorly (or sometimes not paying them at all), but sneering at them for having trouble paying their bills. 75

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

You can approve of Trump’s job as President, and consider him not to be a conservative. I do.

What do you consider him, then?

Originally Posted by Shodan

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the opposite of what Romney said. The bottom 47% who do not pay taxes are not appealed to by tax cuts, nor would anyone else who didn't pay taxes. And of course, the notion that "many" of Romney's wealthy peers do not pay income tax is wrong, or have not paid the taxes that go to education, roads, and schools, but even apart from that, the statement is false.

Yes, that is what Romney said, but Romney was either misinformed or lying. He was trying to make a disparaging remark about those he considered himself to be better than, but the facts bear out that he was also talking about his own peers.

As far as roads and schools, those are paid for, not by income tax, but by property tax and excise tax, both of which are regressive, and both of which are not only paid by the poor, but paid at a higher percentage of income than that of the wealthy, very bad examples for you to choose to try to make Romney's comment about those he looks down on to be any more accurate, or any less hateful.

And yet religious conservatives donate more to charitable causes than secular liberals.

By a pretty small margin, but that's not the point. The conservative gets to choose who is helped by his donation, and can decide that some things are not worthy of support. Don't like black people, don't donate to causes that help black people.
Then there is the fact that they include the donations that they make that help themselves, building churches and paying clergy for their own use, and taking a tax exemption for it.
And finally, you also have the people making donations to get their kids into colleges that they are not qualified to go to, those are also tracked in your charitable cause donations.

If you mean "*this* way" to include "do nothing for yourself except sit still and tell the government to fix everything, mostly with money they take from someone else", I would agree.

No, that is not what I meant, and it would be either stupid or disingenuous to think that I did. That's not even a strawman, that's just completely fabricated from whole cloth.

Strawmanning is fun, isn't it?

You certainly seem to think so, as I have yet to see you do anything but. If you are referring to my comments as a strawman, then you should pay attention to what I was responding to, where Puddlegum made this claim:

The only thing that can help people is self reliance and if universally practiced it would solve nearly every political problem.

Do you deny that this means that everyone needs to change their behavior? Do you deny that that claim is that "nearly every political problem" would be solved?

Originally Posted by Scylla

Tax cuts, foreign policy exempting tariffs, border policy, pwning leftists.

So, you are in favor of massive deficits, sending our people into unnecessary wars, seperating children from their parents and locking them in cages, and hate half of your fellow citizens?

Yeah, that actually does sound like conservative values to me. 76

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

There is no 47% who don't pay taxes.

The 47% who don't pay income taxes pay sales taxes, social security and medicare tax (yes those are taxes) and directly or indirectly property taxes. None of these are progressive, so as a percentage of income they all fall far more heavily on low-income than on high-income people.

Absolutely true.

Problem is: we have an economy that is so structured that it won't work unless there are an awful lot of people working at jobs that don't pay enough to live on.

I’m not sure I understand. I am thinking about those supply/demand charts from Econ 101. People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?

And the society then wants to punish the people who are working long hours raising the food, cooking the food, cleaning up the mess, taking care of children, taking care of those who are ill, and doing other jobs which are essential for the functioning of society, by not only paying them poorly (or sometimes not paying them at all), but sneering at them for having trouble paying their bills.

You are characterizing society as a punishing sneering entity. It’s not really. 77

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

What do you consider him, then?

Orange douchebag.

As far as roads and schools, those are paid for, not by income tax, but by property tax and excise tax, both of which are regressive, and both of which are not only paid by the poor, but paid at a higher percentage of income than that of the wealthy, very bad examples for you to choose to try to make Romney's comment about those he looks down on to be any more accurate, or any less hateful.

Federal funds which are derived from income tax do get used for roads and schools.

So, you are in favor of massive deficits, sending our people into unnecessary wars, seperating children from their parents and locking them in cages, and hate half of your fellow citizens?

Yeah, that actually does sound like conservative values to me.

In this very post that I snipped from you were complaining about being strawmanned.

Pot. Kettle. Black. 78

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?

Good question to ask the coal miners and factory workers and failing farmers why they voted for Trump to bring their jobs back, rather than go to where the job were at.

Where are you suggesting a non-college educated factory worker move to in order to limit the supply and drive up the price? Where should they get the money for that move?

The problem with anyone bringing up "Econ 101", is that it always seems as though that is as far as they got, and just like insisting that Math 101 says you can't take the root of a negative number, and therefore, wrongly insisting that it cannot be done, there is a reason why the people who actually worry about and work on these things go beyond the basic survey class and actually learn the nuance of how the subject works. 79

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Scylla

I think you just made a funny or clever reference that went right over my head.

Generally attributed as an Irish Blessing:

May those that love us love us and those that don't love us, may God turn their hearts; If he can't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping. 80

[slash2k]

Originally Posted by Scylla

I’m not sure I understand. I am thinking about those supply/demand charts from Econ 101. People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?

Where is this "elsewhere"?

1. A lot of people are geographically locked, for a variety of reasons: spouse's job, familial obligations, etc. While some regions have lots of jobs, if you are constrained to jobs in small-town Nebraska or the hollers of eastern Kentucky, you are on the wrong side of the supply/demand curve and have no leverage.

2. Job concentration is a thing. For example, the single largest private-sector employer in nineteen states is the same company (Wal-Mart); they have enormous power over wages in the retail sector. While most businesses in the US are classified as small, most people work for large firms: half of the private-sector workforce is employed by just 0.4 percent of businesses (cite). You can't go elsewhere if the "elsewhere" is the same company.

3. Particularly in the unskilled to semi-skilled parts of the economy, automation and outsourcing means employers don't need as many hands. If workers demand too much more money, there's a decent chance they can be replaced by somebody in Mumbai or Manila (or by a robot). 81

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Orange douchebag.

An orange douchebag, of which you approve, you mean.

Federal funds which are derived from income tax do get used for roads and schools.

Are you denying the existence of property taxes and gasoline taxes here? I can cite them if you really do not believe in them, but I hope that that is not also something that you have missed.

In this very post that I snipped from you were complaining about being strawmanned.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You specifically said things you were in favor of, I simply pointed out the actual, real life consequences of those things. That's not a strawman, that is, well, taking responsibility for your actions. Something relevant to this thread in that this is yet another way that conservatives wish to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Also, I did not complain about being strawmanned, Shodan admitted that he was strawmanning me, but I did not complain about it, I just observed that that was Shodan's usual debate "tactic", so even your snippet about that is actually a strawman of your own making.

If you advocate for lower taxes, are you not responsible for ballooning deficits? If you advocate for an aggressive foreign policy,are you not responsible for the wars that it causes? If you advocate for a zero tolerance border policy, are you not responsible for the humanitarian crisis it causes? 82

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Good question to ask the coal miners and factory workers and failing farmers why they voted for Trump to bring their jobs back, rather than go to where the job were at.

Ok. Let me know what they say.

Where are you suggesting a non-college educated factory worker move to in order to limit the supply and drive up the price? Where should they get the money for that move?

Unemployment is at 3.8% which is generally considered below full employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 6.7 million job openings but only 6.4 million available workers to fill them as of June 18. This is significant because it was the first time in history that this has ever happened.

Since than it has risen to 7.1 million job openings versus 6.2 million in October of 2018.

Right now it’s about the same (7.3 versus 6.4, iirc)

The job market is the strongest and labor is in greater demand than it has ever been.

What you are talking about is not a significant economic issue. In fact, the opposite is the actual problem. I know you are trying to make an emotional plea about the plight of the worker, but the facts make that a tough proposition.

The problem with anyone bringing up "Econ 101", is that it always seems as though that is as far as they got, and just like insisting that Math 101 says you can't take the root of a negative number, and therefore, wrongly insisting that it cannot be done, there is a reason why the people who actually worry about and work on these things go beyond the basic survey class and actually learn the nuance of how the subject works.

Right. I have an advanced degree and professional credentials in the field of finance. I only minored in economics, but if you say something that confuses me, I can ask one of my economists to clarify it, so, please go ahead and answer my question. I feel confident I can grasp your concept. 83

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Generally attributed as an Irish Blessing:

May those that love us love us and those that don't love us, may God turn their hearts; If he can't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping.

Touché. 84

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

And most people SHOULD use their turn signals, but as my commute each day shows me that isn't the case. Also liberals want people to be responsible too, but we understand that some people can't and also that just because some people won't it doesn't mean that we should just let their kids suffer. That hurts us all, and it isn't the kids' fault what circumstances they are born into. If some number of "unworthy" people get assistance in order for us to make sure we don't have American kids starving, then that's just part of being a society. We have to be careful about the consequences of cutting these programs on our most vulnerable citizens.



It's also a tough pill to swallow when you realize that many people don't give a damn about poor kids and justify it with "well they shouldn't have been born", as if that changes anything.



Is this true though? This is a common refrain from the right, but we did welfare reform already, I thought there already is a limit and the idea of a lifelong welfare leech is not really accurate anymore. Am I understanding incorrectly? Are there statistics that show this to be an increasing problem now? I'd like to see that data if this is such a huge problem in our society rather than just a cudgel being used on the right in order to slash social spending and lower their own taxes regardless of the actual reality of the situation.

I have no studies but the hard thin red line encourages you to stay on whatever assistance you can get instead of working hard (maybe 2 jobs etc) to be above it.
My personal stance is that there should be no cut off for assistance but a sliding scale to promote the person, getting the benefits to go out and find work.

Much like minimum wage, if we are going to have 1, tie it to inflation so we can stop dicking with it ever few years.

I think most people have a disconnect with people on assistance. We think to ourselves, OMG, how effing horrible it would be to be on welfare or SNAP. My anecdotal truth is that it isn't gravy train but it isn't necessarily hard living either (especially if you are living in section 8 housing). They still have cell phones, and cable internet, and food on the table but not vacation getaways and spa treatments.

There are definitely people out there on assistance who do not deserve to be and there are probably people out there not on it, that deserve to be. We are failing, on both ends of that spectrum.

To be honest, I surely do not have all the answers. But the fact as I see it, is that governmental assistance does breed dependence 85

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by slash2k

Where is this "elsewhere"?

1. A lot of people are geographically locked, for a variety of reasons: spouse's job, familial obligations, etc. While some regions have lots of jobs, if you are constrained to jobs in small-town Nebraska or the hollers of eastern Kentucky, you are on the wrong side of the supply/demand curve and have no leverage.

2. Job concentration is a thing. For example, the single largest private-sector employer in nineteen states is the same company (Wal-Mart); they have enormous power over wages in the retail sector. While most businesses in the US are classified as small, most people work for large firms: half of the private-sector workforce is employed by just 0.4 percent of businesses (cite). You can't go elsewhere if the "elsewhere" is the same company.

3. Particularly in the unskilled to semi-skilled parts of the economy, automation and outsourcing means employers don't need as many hands. If workers demand too much more money, there's a decent chance they can be replaced by somebody in Mumbai or Manila (or by a robot).

These are all issues. There are lots of workers and some have problems, but the great adventure of America is to go forth and seek your fortune.

The jobs market as measured by the statistics I’ve quoted has never been as good as it is now for one who wishes to sell their labor.

Again, an emotional plea you are making, but the actual problem is that there is a worker shortage.

So this thing you are arguing isn’t really a thing. 86

[Kearsen1]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

There is no 47% who don't pay taxes.

The 47% who don't pay income taxes pay sales taxes, social security and medicare tax (yes those are taxes) and directly or indirectly property taxes. None of these are progressive, so as a percentage of income they all fall far more heavily on low-income than on high-income people.



Problem is: we have an economy that is so structured that it won't work unless there are an awful lot of people working at jobs that don't pay enough to live on.

And the society then wants to punish the people who are working long hours raising the food, cooking the food, cleaning up the mess, taking care of children, taking care of those who are ill, and doing other jobs which are essential for the functioning of society, by not only paying them poorly (or sometimes not paying them at all), but sneering at them for having trouble paying their bills.

As a business owner, no they do not pay SSN (or don't have to if they claim 6 or so dependents) . They do pay a pittance of medicare. Do those taxes fund the assistance that is possible for them to be on?

Society doesn't want to punish anyone. What they want to do is encourage growth. Become more valuable (if you can) so that you aren't stuck raising a family on a salary of cooking, cleaning or taking care of the children.

So more accurately 47% of the entire American population pay LITTLE in taxes. 87

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

An orange douchebag, of which you approve, you mean.

The job he has done, yes. The man himself, no.

Are you denying the existence of property taxes and gasoline taxes here? I can cite them if you really do not believe in them, but I hope that that is not also something that you have missed.

Of course not. You said the money for these things comes from sales and property taxes, not income tax. Federal funds derived from income tax also contribute to roads and schools.

You specifically said things you were in favor of, I simply pointed out the actual, real life consequences of those things. That's not a strawman, that is, well, taking responsibility for your actions. Something relevant to this thread in that this is yet another way that conservatives wish to avoid responsibility for their actions.

If you say you like grapes, I can say that they require pesticide which is killing children in Costa Rica, you must like killing children.

Seems childish to me, but if you wish to make that sort of argument, go ahead.

If you advocate for lower taxes, are you not responsible for ballooning deficits?

No. The former does not require the latter. You can have low tax and fiscally responsible spending.

If you advocate for an aggressive foreign policy,are you not responsible for the wars that it causes?

No. The former does not require the latter. You can speak softly and carry a big stick, be a deterrent, have a small war to head off a larger one, etc etc.

If you advocate for a zero tolerance border policy, are you not responsible for the humanitarian crisis it causes?

No. The former does not require the latter. The humanitarian crisis at the border exists because we have a porous border. I would in fact argue the exact opposite. Our lax border policy creates the crisis. The law if incentives suggest this is true. People tend to not flock to fish in ponds that are devoid of fish. 88

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Ok. Let me know what they say.

They said, "Bring me back my job."

Unemployment is at 3.8% which is generally considered below full employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 6.7 million job openings but only 6.4 million available workers to fill them as of June 18. This is significant because it was the first time in history that this has ever happened.

Since than it has risen to 7.1 million job openings versus 6.2 million in October of 2018.

Right now it’s about the same (7.3 versus 6.4, iirc)

The job market is the strongest and labor is in greater demand than it has ever been.

What you are talking about is not a significant economic issue. In fact, the opposite is the actual problem. I know you are trying to make an emotional plea about the plight of the worker, but the facts make that a tough proposition.

You seem to be missing the mismatch of job openings to available skills. The jobs that are open are not jobs that displaced factory workers can do, not without fairly extensive retraining, retraining that I might point out that is cut under the current administration.

If what you say is true, that anyone can take any of these millions of job openings, then it sounds like you are making a case for immigration.

I am making rational and economic arguments, for what is best for society, the emotional plea is when you complain that it is your hard earned money that is going to support your community.

Right. I have an advanced degree and professional credentials in the field of finance. I only minored in economics, but if you say something that confuses me, I can ask one of my economists to clarify it, so, please go ahead and answer my question. I feel confident I can grasp your concept.

Then you should know that talking about the simplicity of a supply/demand graph will fall well short of describing the much more complex issues of labor. Your question of "If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?" is overly simple, and does not even pretend to address the actual issues faced by real people, that people are not a fungible commodity that can fill any job any place any time. You claim to be well versed in finance, given the known fact that people do not go elsewhere to limit supply and drive up the price, what reason would you give? Are they just stubborn, or is it a bit more complicated than you are trying to insinuate? 89

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

As a business owner, no they do not pay SSN (or don't have to if they claim 6 or so dependents) . T

This is 100% incorrect. All employees pay their part of SSN, and medicare, and the number of dependants doesn't factor into it. The only people that get out of paying SSN are people that make more than the cap. 90

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

The job he has done, yes. The man himself, no.

Sounds like a fine hair to split.

Of course not. You said the money for these things comes from sales and property taxes, not income tax. Federal funds derived from income tax also contribute to roads and schools.

You are correct in that I phrased that poorly in that it you could take it to say I said that they were not paid at all by income taxes, my bad. But my point still stands that the taxes that fund the bulk of these things are regressive, and that is in reply to someone trying to make the case that poor people do not pay any taxes towards their roads or schools.

If you say you like grapes, I can say that they require pesticide which is killing children in Costa Rica, you must like killing children.

That wouldn't follow. But, if I said I liked grapes, and that I demanded more grapes at a lower cost, and the only way to get more grapes at a lower cost is to introduce harmful pesticides that kill children in Costa Rica, then yes, that is something that I would be responsible for. I will note that I was talking about responsibility, it is your strawmanning here that adds in the "must like" part. If I really want these grapes, then I can accept the responsibility that my desires cause harm, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I never said you liked the consequences of the policies that you advocate for, I only said that you refuse to take responsibility for them.

Seems childish to me, but if you wish to make that sort of argument, go ahead.

Agreed that your strawmanning of my argument is childish, but it is not my argument to advance, it is on you to decide if it is the sort of thing that you would like to continue.

No. The former does not require the latter. You can have low tax and fiscally responsible spending.

You say you are into finance. If someone came to you, and said that they didn't want to work so much anymore, would you advise them that they need to cut their spending before they quit their job?

This is what has happened, people complained that they didn't want to pay into taxes, and, rather than decrease our spending, then decrease taxes, we just decreased taxes, driving up our debt, leaving that responsibility to future generations, rather than accepting the reality ourselves.

No. The former does not require the latter. You can speak softly and carry a big stick, be a deterrent, have a small war to head off a larger one, etc etc.

Right, you *can* do that, but that is not the foreign policy of the man that you say you like the foreign policy of.

No. The former does not require the latter. The humanitarian crisis at the border exists because we have a porous border.

No, the humanitarian crisis is because the people who used to be able to enter the country are no longer able to, it is the change in policy that has caused the crisis. People being separated from their families is not due to us having a porous border, it is due to the administration having a policy of deterrence to inflict pain and misery as a punishment for trying to escape the violence that we helped cause.

I would in fact argue the exact opposite. Our lax border policy creates the crisis.

Did we have a lax border previously? If so, then why was there no crisis then?

The law if incentives suggest this is true. People tend to not flock to fish in ponds that are devoid of fish.

Well, that is true, we could end immigration by making our country so shitty that no one wants to come here. 91

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Kearsen1

I have no studies but the hard thin red line encourages you to stay on whatever assistance you can get instead of working hard (maybe 2 jobs etc) to be above it.
My personal stance is that there should be no cut off for assistance but a sliding scale to promote the person, getting the benefits to go out and find work.

Much like minimum wage, if we are going to have 1, tie it to inflation so we can stop dicking with it ever few years.

I think most people have a disconnect with people on assistance. We think to ourselves, OMG, how effing horrible it would be to be on welfare or SNAP. My anecdotal truth is that it isn't gravy train but it isn't necessarily hard living either (especially if you are living in section 8 housing). They still have cell phones, and cable internet, and food on the table but not vacation getaways and spa treatments.

There are definitely people out there on assistance who do not deserve to be and there are probably people out there not on it, that deserve to be. We are failing, on both ends of that spectrum.

To be honest, I surely do not have all the answers. But the fact as I see it, is that governmental assistance does breed dependence

I will completely agree that the cliffs that are built into assistance does tend to cause dependance. I have had employees tell me that they can't work more than a certain number of hours, or they will make too much money and lose benefits. They'd like to work more, and I'd like them to work more, but I can't work them enough or pay them enough to make up for the lost benefits.

I lost one employee to disability. She got diagnosed with a degenerative disease while in my employ. She could have worked what she could manage, and wanted to work what she could manage, but if she did, she'd lose all her disability.

Things like education, job training, relocation assistance, childcare, and healthcare are things that make people more productive and allow people to become more independent and less reliant on assistance, but these are all things that are fought against by conservatives.

Give people the assistance to keep them from being held back, and get rid of cliffs in assistance that disincentivize promotion and growth, and we'll solve far more of the poverty problems than just telling them to take responsibility for themselves. 92

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

They said, "Bring me back my job."

You seem to be missing the mismatch of job openings to available skills. The jobs that are open are not jobs that displaced factory workers can do, not without fairly extensive retraining, retraining that I might point out that is cut under the current administration.

This is not really an issue. Farrier used to be a big thing when the world ran on horse. Progress means that their is always a transition from obsolete jobs to new industry. The job market is basically the best ever. Full employment is generally considered to exist around 6-7%. We are half that. That data tells us that people are in fact transitioning very well. You can look at the data and see that construction and manufacturing, and transportation and manufacturing are all adding jobs. You can look at the government website directly or go here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ass-of-worker/

And see that we are beyond full employment in ALL worker categories.

If what you say is true, that anyone can take any of these millions of job openings, then it sounds like you are making a case for immigration.

Absolutely. I just want them to be documented and to pay taxes, and go through the process so we get the right people. I think it’s obvious we need more immigration.

I am making rational and economic arguments, for what is best for society, the emotional plea is when you complain that it is your hard earned money that is going to support your community.

You’re really not, and I haven’t. This whole plight of the unemployed thing is not borne out by the facts.

Then you should know that talking about the simplicity of a supply/demand graph will fall well short of describing the much more complex issues of labor. Your question of "If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?" is overly simple, and does not even pretend to address the actual issues faced by real people, that people are not a fungible commodity that can fill any job any place any time.

I ask the question because your comment did not seem to reach to the level where it was cognizant of supply versus demand. I asked politely and in the form of a question.

I would be happy to go in depth with you, but frankly, I think you need to start with a 101 refresher.

You claim to be well versed in finance, given the known fact that people do not go elsewhere to limit supply and drive up the price, what reason would you give? Are they just stubborn, or is it a bit more complicated than you are trying to insinuate?

Historically, they do move, once things get bad enough. Sometimes the new jobs come to them.

You are acting is if there is this great problem in this country right now where we have lots of our work people stuck in one place, unwilling or unable to find new jobs.

The fact of the matter is that this has never ever in our history as a country been less of a thing than it is now.

It is so NOT a problem, that that fact itself is actually a problem.

Things need to be really bad in certain segments of the country or specific industries to push people to move or to upgrade their skills so that there are qualified workers available in industries and areas that need them.

That is exactly what is meant by the concept of full employment, which is the theoretical optimum employment rate that still invents transition to growth. 93

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by Scylla

This is not really an issue. Farrier used to be a big thing when the world ran on horse. Progress means that their is always a transition from obsolete jobs to new industry. The job market is basically the best ever. Full employment is generally considered to exist around 6-7%. We are half that. That data tells us that people are in fact transitioning very well. You can look at the data and see that construction and manufacturing, and transportation and manufacturing are all adding jobs. You can look at the government website directly or go here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ass-of-worker/

See, economics 101, it's not worth $49 a month to me to access that.

And see that we are beyond full employment in ALL worker categories.

Absolutely. I just want them to be documented and to pay taxes,

As do I, funny thing is, most of those who are not documented still pay taxes.

and go through the process so we get the right people.

Ah, the right people. Personally, to me, the right people are people that want to come here and make a better life for themselves and their family. What is your definition of "the right people"?

I think it’s obvious we need more immigration.

Well, the president that you say that you support feels the opposite of that.

You’re really not, and I haven’t. This whole plight of the unemployed thing is not borne out by the facts.

I feel that I most certainly have. I have done no emotional pleading. I do, OTOH, feel that complaining that having to pay to support those less fortunate is a very emotional argument.

It's not just the unemployed, which, whether you believe it or not, really do exist. There are also the underemployed, those making less than a living wage. Then there is the coming crisis of automation that will make more and more low skilled jobs unavailable. We not only need to worry about what happens to the people who are currently displaced by technology, but make plans for those who will be displaced in the future.

Sure, in the long run, things will settle out. We don't see any unemployed buggy whip makers collecting unemployment anymore, but, a quote I'm sure you know well, is that, "in the long run, we are all dead."

I ask the question because your comment did not seem to reach to the level where it was cognizant of supply versus demand. I asked politely and in the form of a question.

No, I understand supply and demand just fine, I just do not see the labor market as being simple enough to put onto a 2 dimensional supply demand graph.

I would be happy to go in depth with you, but frankly, I think you need to start with a 101 refresher.

I'd be happy to go into depth too, if you could lay off the insults.

Historically, they do move, once things get bad enough. Sometimes the new jobs come to them.

"Once things get bad enough..." exactly.

You are acting is if there is this great problem in this country right now where we have lots of our work people stuck in one place, unwilling or unable to find new jobs.

This is an issue that does need to be addressed, yes. Unemployment and underemployement are things that we should actually b concerned about.

The fact of the matter is that this has never ever in our history as a country been less of a thing than it is now.

It is so NOT a problem, that that fact itself is actually a problem.

Things need to be really bad in certain segments of the country or specific industries to push people to move or to upgrade their skills so that there are qualified workers available in industries and areas that need them.

So, you are saying that people need to suffer before some of those suffering can alleviate some of it?

That is exactly what is meant by the concept of full employment, which is the theoretical optimum employment rate that still invents transition to growth.

Are you for or against govt assistance in retraining and relocation? 94

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Scylla

Unemployment is at 3.8% which is generally considered below full employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were 6.7 million job openings but only 6.4 million available workers to fill them as of June 18. This is significant because it was the first time in history that this has ever happened.

Since than it has risen to 7.1 million job openings versus 6.2 million in October of 2018.

Right now it’s about the same (7.3 versus 6.4, iirc)

The job market is the strongest and labor is in greater demand than it has ever been.

So all those jobs at Walmart, in warehouses, waiting on tables at low-priced restaurants, washing the dishes in the back room, cleaning the floors in the hospital, taking tickets at the movies, running checkout at the grocery store, changing diapers at the daycare, changing sheets at the nursing home, harvesting lettuce, packing tomatoes, and I could go on all week -- all of those jobs are any minute going to start offering all of their workers full time positions with full benefits and enough pay to rent a decent and safe apartment within an hour or so's travel from work that has room for a child or an aged mother or whoever, get clothes and food and toothpaste and bedding and so on for oneself and the dependent and maybe get the cat fed and spayed, pay for whatever transportation's necessary to get back and forth to work and whatever care is needed for the dependent so the worker can show up at work consistently, and cover whatever healthcare the insurance doesn't, and have enough over to save for when something comes up? Because something will come up.

Let me know when that happens. Some of the wages have gone up a bit, yes; but not that big a bit. And while you're at it study up on the size of the shock that'll go through the economy as a whole if wages for those jobs do go up that much. Or consider what would happen if all the people doing those jobs stopped doing them, so they could do work that pays better.

And you could buy organically-grown grapes. If you can afford to do that, but buy the pesticided ones because they're cheaper, then yes you are in some part responsible if the pesticide is killing children. (If you have to buy the cheapest food because you've got no money to spare, then I don't think it's your fault.)


-- and yes Kearsen1, everybody in the USA who gets wages pays SSN, it's got nothing to do with number of dependents. I have also written paychecks.

Could say more. No time now. 95

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Ah, the right people. Personally, to me, the right people are people that want to come here and make a better life for themselves and their family. What is your definition of "the right people"?

Those who make a net positive contribution to our society.

Well, the president that you say that you support feels the opposite of that.

I may be wrong, but I think he is fine with legal immigration.

I feel that I most certainly have. I have done no emotional pleading. I do, OTOH, feel that complaining that having to pay to support those less fortunate is a very emotional argument.

I don’t think I’ve made such a complaint. It doesn’t make sense to extend benefits to non citizens, when our society does not fully meet the needs of all of its less fortunate ones though. So, I am not a fan of benefits to illegals.

It's not just the unemployed, which, whether you believe it or not, really do exist.

Yes. Economically the country needs more.

There are also the underemployed, those making less than a living wage.

This may surprise you, but not all jobs can or should provide a living wage.

Then there is the coming crisis of automation that will make more and more low skilled jobs unavailable. We not only need to worry about what happens to the people who are currently displaced by technology, but make plans for those who will be displaced in the future.

What do you mean make plans for? This whole market economy thing works because people respond to incentives. They are capable of determining their market value, making plans and decisions for themselves as individuals better than we are.

No, I understand supply and demand just fine, I just do not see the labor market as being simple enough to put onto a 2 dimensional supply demand graph.

Why not. Labor is a service like any other good or service. What is the nature of your objection to suggest that it is invalid?

I'd be happy to go into depth too, if you could lay off the insults.

I’m not insulting. To speak intelligently about this topic you either have to know certain things, or be cognizant of your ignorance. That is, to know that you don’t know. You are demonstrating neither. That’s not an insult. It’s an observation.

"Once things get bad enough..." exactly.

Yes. Why is that a problem?

This is an issue that does need to be addressed, yes. Unemployment and underemployement are things that we should actually b concerned about.

Yes. The unemployment rate should be higher. Overall the fact that is not means that we are not doing as well as we could.

So, you are saying that people need to suffer before some of those suffering can alleviate some of it?

Unfortunately, that’s just a fact.

Are you for or against govt assistance in retraining and relocation?

Not right now. Why should the government pay to train workers and move them for corporations? Especially when those corporations are desperate for workers. Why would we subsidize the Fortune 500 any more than we already are? 96

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

So all those jobs at Walmart, in warehouses, waiting on tables at low-priced restaurants, washing the dishes in the back room, cleaning the floors in the hospital, taking tickets at the movies, running checkout at the grocery store, changing diapers at the daycare, changing sheets at the nursing home, harvesting lettuce, packing tomatoes, and I could go on all week -- all of those jobs are any minute going to start offering all of their workers full time positions with full benefits and enough pay to rent a decent and safe apartment within an hour or so's travel from work that has room for a child or an aged mother or whoever, get clothes and food and toothpaste and bedding and so on for oneself and the dependent and maybe get the cat fed and spayed, pay for whatever transportation's necessary to get back and forth to work and whatever care is needed for the dependent so the worker can show up at work consistently, and cover whatever healthcare the insurance doesn't, and have enough over to save for when something comes up? Because something will come up.

No. Why would you think that would be desirable? (I want a formal apology for the length of that sentence.)

Let me know when that happens. Some of the wages have gone up a bit, yes; but not that big a bit. And while you're at it study up on the size of the shock that'll go through the economy as a whole if wages for those jobs do go up that much. Or consider what would happen if all the people doing those jobs stopped doing them, so they could do work that pays better.

Ok. So you see why it’s not desirable. At least partly. Why are you asking me this? 97

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Scylla

No. Why would you think that would be desirable?

Because people doing the essential work of a society should get enough to live on out of it.

Originally Posted by Scylla

(I want a formal apology for the length of that sentence.)

Nope.

Originally Posted by Scylla

Ok. So you see why it’s not desirable.

I see why it doesn't work under the current setup. That doesn't mean it's not desirable.

Originally Posted by Scylla

Why are you asking me this?

Because you said "People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?"

That only works (even all other issues about "going elsewhere" aside) if they can go elsewhere and get a living wage job. If there aren't enough such to go around, then it doesn't work that way. The economy as currently constructed only works if there aren't enough such jobs to go around, as you just acknowledged. 98

[slash2k]

Originally Posted by Scylla

I may be wrong, but I think he is fine with legal immigration.

You would be wrong. Trump has endorsed measures that would have cut legal immigration by 40 to 50 percent or more (such as Tom Cotton's RAISE Act).

Originally Posted by Scylla

This may surprise you, but not all jobs can or should provide a living wage.

So what do you expect to happen to the people filling those jobs?

Originally Posted by Scylla

What do you mean make plans for? This whole market economy thing works because people respond to incentives. They are capable of determining their market value, making plans and decisions for themselves as individuals better than we are.

What if there aren't incentives, though, to which people can respond?

Some economists see a future in which the number of actual jobs in the U.S. declines, even as the population continues to increase. If 150 million people are chasing 125 million jobs, for example, the incentives and wage structures are going to be grossly distorted.

Even today, we see an increasing bifurcation between highly-skilled and highly-paid workers, on the one hand, and the great mass of workers on the other. This latter group has generally seen their wages stagnating or only very slowly increasing, even as the smaller group surges ahead. Moreover, there's not a lot of mobility between the groups. People who spent the early part of their career in a coal mine tend not to have many opportunities to become digital architects or marketing experts, even if they want to learn something new.

Originally Posted by Scylla

Why not. Labor is a service like any other good or service. What is the nature of your objection to suggest that it is invalid?

Labor isn't a single item. A roofer and a nurse are not interchangeable, for example, even though they are both "labor," and even with training may not be capable of doing the other's job. Treating all workers as fungible is overly simplistic to the point of invalidity. 99

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Because people doing the essential work of a society should get enough to live on out of it.



Nope.



I see why it doesn't work under the current setup. That doesn't mean it's not desirable.



Because you said "People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?"

That only works (even all other issues about "going elsewhere" aside) if they can go elsewhere and get a living wage job. If there aren't enough such to go around, then it doesn't work that way. The economy as currently constructed only works if there aren't enough such jobs to go around, as you just acknowledged.

Not all jobs can or should pay a living wage, because some aren’t meant to and aren’t needed to. I worked in a deli after school while in High School, part time. It was a great job a high schooler could get, supplementing the two owners during peak times. If it had to pay a living wage it would likely not have been offered, to the detriment of all. Others work for experience, or to supplement an income or social security, or... because they like it. And, yes, some are working as hard as they can without making enough to live. That is bad. I agree. Can you fix it without causing more damage than you are fixing? That’s tough, likely not.

If you raise the minimum wage, some of those jobs will just go away, depriving people of work. Some of those jobs will be altered, maybe combined with more skilled jobs or requirements raising the barrier for entry. Then too, what is a living wage. It is surely a different number in a small town in Montana, than it is in San Francisco. It is also a different number for someone on SS, or a single person versus one with a family to support, or a student working part time.

Or all workers the same? Or, are some better than others? Why can’t a valuable worker command a higher price? You raise the minimum wage, you are pulling from the pool of cash which could potentially reward quality work, punishing high quality workers and rewarding the marginal.

Raising the minimum wage is making a very arrogant and dangerous statement: that you know better about what a business can afford to spend, and what their labor is worth than the business. You are also telling the worker that you know better what is good for them than they do.

It’s a dangerous thing with unintended consequences. 100