They’re not dying because they’re being taken care of.
What would happen if you took over?
If they are not dying, why did you say that they were?
I didn’t.
By making the benefits NOT means-tested the bureaucracy of means-testing is eliminated, and the disincentives to work caused by means-tested welfare are eliminated. People would still have strong incentive to work: only meager food and housing would be available free. Yes, government spending would increase, but wages could fall and profits increase.
My PhD is not in Economics; is yours? If not, why don’t you Google as I suggested earlier (or even click on a 2014 minimum wage SDMB thread) and find out what experts have determined.
Just because a particular analysis gives a result conforming to your political prejudices doesn’t make it correct.
I decided to run the numbers from that site. (And by the way, those numbers seem pretty accurate, based on other things I’ve seen.)
1938–minimum wage $0.25, which works out to $520 per year, or 30% of the average income of $1,731.
2013–minimum wage $7.25, which works out to $15,080 per year, or 55.9% of the average income of $27,000.
In other words, the minimum wage today is almost twice as high in relative terms as it was originally.
Yes. The board is moderated. One of the rules of this forum is that posters will refrain from accusing other posters of lying. If you do that, again, (particularly when you are simply having a semantic dispute), you will receive a Warning for misbehavior.
And accusations of lying are especially egregious when followed by this:
when the poster did not say what you accuse him of saying.
[ /Moderating ]
Yes, and our society’s definition of “having a decent existence” is also twice as high as it was originally.
Haven’t you read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”? Do you want to go back to the days when society thought it was normal for people to feed their family with nothing but a loaf of stale bread, and not buy their kids a pair of shoes until they were 13 years old?
Me, I’m willing to pay a little more for my Big Mac, if it means that the 45 year old guy behind the counter will be able to pay his rent and buy shoes for his kids.
I just want to address the notion that liberals are surprised by this sort of thing.
I’ve been watching the back-and-forth over benefits cliffs since the President’s first name was Lyndon. And the funny thing is, there’s a conservative scare story either way you do it.
As you note here, the conservative scare story for a sharp drop-off in benefits is that people don’t want to work too much, because they’ll lose their benefits if they do. And that surely happens! If earning more from working means you have less resources overall, of course you’re going to be reluctant to earn more, unless you can jump all the way through the income levels where you’ve come out behind.
And if the benefits cliff is redesigned to be a more gradual slope, so that, net, you come out at least a little bit ahead from any pay increase from working, the result is that people are still getting some modest level of benefits when their income is getting into working-class range. And then the scare story is that “these welfare bums are getting public assistance even though they’re earning $32K a year! Outrageous!!”
I’m sure I’d heard the scare stories at both ends before the President’s name stopped being Jimmy.
The notion that liberals are unaware of the laws of economics is equally bullshit. Look at the lefty blogosphere. There’s this guy named Krugman, has a nobel in Economics. You may disagree with him, but he knows his stuff. You’ve also got mainstays of the lefty blogosphere like Duncan (Atrios) Black, who has a Ph.D. in economics. Or Brad DeLong, a tenured professor in economics. Lots of people (including other lefty bloggers that have a pretty good readership) read these guys.
Now there’s a real question of whether a $15 minimum wage is high enough that it will backfire by reducing employment by increasing employers’ costs more than putting money in the pockets of those who will spend almost all of it will increase employment by increasing demand for basic goods and services.
But in the U.S., we’ve never had a minimum wage increase that wound up backfiring on its intended beneficiaries. So it makes sense to do, in some localities rather than nationwide, a somewhat bigger minimum wage increase than we’ve ever tried before, to see whether or not we finally hit that wall. Either way, these experiments will increase our knowledge of what works and what doesn’t (and I mean the economists will learn, not just the rest of us), without screwing up the economy nationwide.
But we run the opposite experiment - letting the minimum wage sink relative to where it’s been - all the time. And we know all we need to know about that. So it makes sense to try to see how high we can raise it without backfiring.
I think it might help to bring some actual numbers into this discussion.
40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year at $7.25, equals a gross of $15080.00. This doesn’t allow for any sick days or unpaid holidays, but let’s just go with that. Then we need to subtract mandatory payroll taxes, which are about $2150.00, so we are left with $12930.00. Then we can divide that by 12 for a monthly net of $1078.00.
Now maybe we can try to budget that. These are the things I would start with:
Housing
Food
Health Insurance
Electricity
Dental Insurance
Vision Care
Basic Telephone (Gotta be able to call 911 in case of emergency)
Transportation
Water
Trash Disposal
So, anybody want to contribute to or delete from the list before we try to budget that $1078.00 a month?
Good post. I don’t know if aid programs could be designed to keep everyone happy. It’s further complicated by there being so many different programs and a tax code. It’s easy for me to say “remove cliffs”, but designing an actual ideal system, if there is such a thing, is difficult. Patchwork is easier.
Regarding the MW itself, it’s hard to know what level, if any, is ideal. While I’m not convinced we should have one, I think that it should be indexed to inflation if we’re going to have one.
Working two jobs will boost this. Any healthy young person can put in 70 hours. Finding the work with compatible schedules is challenging.
Depending on the area:
Natural gas/Heating oil
Internet access
Took a quick look around and there are some really cheap computers.
Intel Atom laptop
Used Dell
People survive thousands of years without a lot of shit. That’s hardly an argument. We don’t live in a society where a man can go out and hunt and fish for what he needs. In order to survive in modern civilization, a person needs a) skills that enable him to contribute to the great complex apparatus that is modern civilization and b) needs to be connected to it.
Yes, thank you for regaling all the dumb Liberals with your rudimentary understanding of the supply and demand curves taught in freshmen Econ. In actual practice the effects of increasing minimum wage are not quite as cut and dried as creating a price floor resulting in a surplus of workers. Businesses have different price elasticities and will absorb labor cost increases or pass them on to their customers in different ways.
What I’m more interested in is what happens to the overall economy for these cities and states, not anecdotal cherry-picked stories about a couple restaurants and a comic book store closing.
Working 70 hours a week is ridiculous. That doesn’t allow for any quality of life of at all. And not everyone working for minimum wage is a healthy young person anyway.
All of this discussion simply focuses on what the wage earner “needs” and doesn’t address whether that wage earner is giving the equivalent value to his employer.
The underlying assumption seems to be fuck the employer, he is a greedy rich bastard smoking Cuban cigars at 35,000 feet in his private jet airplane while watching the hookers he hired fight over who gets the mountain of cocaine piled in the middle of the 100 year old bottles of scotch.
And even assuming that the business owner is that rich, I don’t see any reason why he takes upon the status of providing a certain lifestyle to his employee. If a person does not have the skills to earn a wage that provides his basic sustenance, then that fact existed before and will continue after his employment contract ends. This is no fault of the employer, and if society is going to decide that we need programs to help this individual ( and we should) then society should bear the costs.
Further, the overwhelming majority of business owners are not rich. Many are bordering on the brink of bankruptcy. Many are bargaining with an employee from less or equal strength.
Since becoming a small business owner two years ago, it amazes me that businesses still survive with the level of taxation placed upon them. The default assumption seems to be that we are earning this lavish living and need to pay, pay, and pay. But we are not only taxed upon our personal income, we are taxed for simply existing. The city where I have my business imposed a B&O tax on my gross receipts. For every employee’s wages, I pay additional social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment tax, workers compensation tax. Tax, tax, tax.
In the context of this debate, the assumption is that I owe my workers a certain “living” wage. I reject that contention. I owe my workers the value of their services that they provide to me and nothing more. If they cannot command a living wage through their skills then their poverty is not a “peculiar” interest of mine as it exists before they worked for me.
Stop complaining about your poor hiring choices.
Though, with that attitude, I’ll bet the work environment is rather toxic.
If paying employees minimum wages is the only thing keeping an employer out of bankruptcy, they should get out of business, because they lack what it takes to be successful.
How is it a poor hiring choice if a hire a guy for a job that is worth $5/hr on the open market and I pay him $5/hr? He is getting his just wage for the services he provides. Or should I just not hire him so that he is 100% on the taxpayers’ dole and the job that I need him for goes uncompleted? That’s the end result of the minimum wage laws.
Further, I take exception to the personal attack about my work environment. You have no reason to make that accusation. Nobody at my business makes near minimum wage. I have, I believe, selected quality people and paid them well for the job that they do. They understand that there is a job to do and I understand that they are human beings that need time away from the job. I hope that they are satisfied with working for me and I believe that they are.
Then why are you complaining about MW at all?
You complain about having to pay a minimum wage.
You’d rather pay what you feel someone is worth.
Why should we trust your judgement?
You say society should pay the cost of unskilled workers yet you complain about taxes.
Or could we pass a law that says the buyer must pay $200 for only $11 worth of beef, on the grounds that the butcher has had a tough year? And if the buyer were to decline to make such a transaction, he be fined by the federal government?
Apparently, yes, you can do that with healthcare, albeit for a different motivation. In this country, it’s perfectly fine, they tell me, to force someone to buy something at bad prices, whether that’s healthcare coverage or employee labor.