Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Oct 2017, 12:34 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Certainly Freeman (and Geo to a lesser extent) were talking in emotional terms.


To be clear, my previous comment was entirely devoid of emotion. If we live in a place where we have public support for food, EITC, Section 8, whatever, and if you are a business person who has low skill jobs, you're going to off-load paying for your workers to the public as much as you can.

There are massive profit incentives for employers to keep wages low, below poverty, so that their employees can qualify for public support, thereby off-loading the true cost of labor to you and me. The public are suckers, and the shrewd business person will take advantage of that, and use their legislators to obfuscate what's really going on, which when reading this thread, they've clearly done an excellent job!

Two sides talking about something, but not the real story, like the suckers we are . . .
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Oct 2017, 12:46 pm

geojanes wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Certainly Freeman (and Geo to a lesser extent) were talking in emotional terms.


To be clear, my previous comment was entirely devoid of emotion. If we live in a place where we have public support for food, EITC, Section 8, whatever, and if you are a business person who has low skill jobs, you're going to off-load paying for your workers to the public as much as you can.

There are massive profit incentives for employers to keep wages low, below poverty, so that their employees can qualify for public support, thereby off-loading the true cost of labor to you and me. The public are suckers, and the shrewd business person will take advantage of that, and use their legislators to obfuscate what's really going on, which when reading this thread, they've clearly done an excellent job!

Two sides talking about something, but not the real story, like the suckers we are . . .


The answer is . . . workers "skilling" themselves out of unskilled labor.

Sorry. That's just reality. We don't live in a socialist utopia, which makes me happy.

$15 an hour in rural Mississippi is pretty sweet. $15 an hour in NYC . . . is skid row.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 3:49 am

Geo:
Ray Jay wrote:
Certainly Freeman (and Geo to a lesser extent) were talking in emotional terms.

To be clear, my previous comment was entirely devoid of emotion. If we live in a place where we have public support for food, EITC, Section 8, whatever, and if you are a business person who has low skill jobs, you're going to off-load paying for your workers to the public as much as you can.


I don't view emotion necessarily as a negative, but in any case, I don't find your comments persuasive. You've constructed a view that because employers are paying workers AND these workers are also on the dole, then it is the employer's faulty. But correlation and causation are two different things. It's not the employer's fault that the worker is only worth $11 per hour (using my state). I just don't see the world that way. If I give $50 to a charity but they really need $100 to complete their mission, the problem is not that I am a cheapskate. I've contributed to their well being.

BTW, using your public assistance examples, food stamps kick in at 130% of the FPL. EITC kicks in at about $45,000. Section 8 in NYC for a family of 4 (I'm doing localized research for you) is up to $76,000 of income. So back to 2,000 hrs. a year you are looking at $38 per hour in NYC. The housing one is interesting because I would imagine if your income goes up you have to look elsewhere for lodging. It may be a poverty trap for some, or al least a reason some people work off the books.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 4:04 am

Danivon:
Well, health insurance is probably a bad one to look at, given the mess it is in.


Agreed, but look above at food stamps, EITC and Section 8 housing which are all above (and way above in some cases) the FPL

Certainly it would seem to me that a reasonable minimum wage would at least be set so that full time work would put your household above poverty levels. Which on your figures and assumptions suggests c. $12 an hour at a federal level.


You are calling for a 56% increase in the minimum wage in some parts of the US. The US poverty level thresholds don't distinguish by geography for the contiguous states, but as Fate wrote, they probably should as cost of living differs dramatically.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 4:09 am

freeman3 wrote:Living wage to me is $15 per hour in a state like California. So $30,000 a year if you work 2,000 hours in a year.


Did you read my link on the impacts in Seattle?

Yes there were economists calling for an increase in the minimum wage, but none of them as far as I know were saying Seattle should increase to $15. And now the results are in.

I think San Fran and some other places would struggle with that #; for Madera and Yuba it would be a disaster.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 6:23 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Certainly Freeman (and Geo to a lesser extent) were talking in emotional terms.


To be clear, my previous comment was entirely devoid of emotion. If we live in a place where we have public support for food, EITC, Section 8, whatever, and if you are a business person who has low skill jobs, you're going to off-load paying for your workers to the public as much as you can.

There are massive profit incentives for employers to keep wages low, below poverty, so that their employees can qualify for public support, thereby off-loading the true cost of labor to you and me. The public are suckers, and the shrewd business person will take advantage of that, and use their legislators to obfuscate what's really going on, which when reading this thread, they've clearly done an excellent job!

Two sides talking about something, but not the real story, like the suckers we are . . .


The answer is . . . workers "skilling" themselves out of unskilled labor.

Sorry. That's just reality. We don't live in a socialist utopia, which makes me happy.

$15 an hour in rural Mississippi is pretty sweet. $15 an hour in NYC . . . is skid row.


I agree with your comment, but it's unrelated to what I wrote . . .
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 6:29 am

Ray Jay wrote: I don't find your comments persuasive. You've constructed a view that because employers are paying workers AND these workers are also on the dole, then it is the employer's fault


That's not at all what I'm saying. There are rules to the game, and if you play by the rules, and get an advantage, then good for you.

I'm merely pointing out to the public, people who pay taxes, the so-called suckers, that you are subsidizing these for-profit enterprises by paying part of the wages of their workers. I'm not promoting a solution, I'm just stating a fact, which I'm not sure how you can disagree with, since it's not an alternative fact, it's just a fact.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 8:28 am

geojanes wrote:
Ray Jay wrote: I don't find your comments persuasive. You've constructed a view that because employers are paying workers AND these workers are also on the dole, then it is the employer's fault


That's not at all what I'm saying. There are rules to the game, and if you play by the rules, and get an advantage, then good for you.

I'm merely pointing out to the public, people who pay taxes, the so-called suckers, that you are subsidizing these for-profit enterprises by paying part of the wages of their workers. I'm not promoting a solution, I'm just stating a fact, which I'm not sure how you can disagree with, since it's not an alternative fact, it's just a fact.


The solution is for government to stop it. It’s not government’s job to make life “fair.” In fact, “fair” is unattainable. It exists nowhere in the world and it never will.

Greed. Theft. Indolence. These and more are part of the human condition. When there are perfect people, we may have perfect government. Until then, we will have “unfair” conditions in life.

“Shouldn’t government address these unfair conditions?”

To some extent. However, we’ve reached some level of foolishness when unemployment benefits go on for two years, when drug addicts get their necessities met so they can continue being drug addicts, and when the government is (allegedly) subsidizing for-profit enterprises by paying part of the wages of the employees. Government has become a gigantic busybody, involved in areas it does not properly belong. We are being taxed to support people so they don’t have to take a job at less money than they earned before. We are being taxed to support people who cannot function due to their drug addiction—and worse, we are actually giving them the money to stay addicted. And, according to you, we are helping companies underpay their employees.

The liberal answer? More government spending!

No thanks.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 9:01 am

Trumps plan appears to be dead in Congress. The public doesn't like what they know of it...

A slim majority of Americans (52%) oppose President Donald Trump's recent tax reform proposals, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, while only one-third (34%) say they support the Trump plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ ... index.html

Like everything else, he's over promised, under delivered, and is without a personal understanding of what the proposal actually contains.
Its a giveaway to the wealthy, and corporations so he can't get any Democratic support and will lose a few moderate republicans probably. Especially those already pissed at Trump for many other reasons. (McCain, Murkowski, Collins)

Then the few true Republican Deficit hawks oppose it. Rand Paul particularly. (Deficits only matter to 90% of republicans when they aren't in power>)

And if he fails to get a republican version of a "tax plan" passed ... what then for the Trump Presidency? What other reason is there for republicans to keep following the clown?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 9:25 am

geojanes wrote:I'm merely pointing out to the public, people who pay taxes, the so-called suckers, that you are subsidizing these for-profit enterprises by paying part of the wages of their workers. I'm not promoting a solution, I'm just stating a fact, which I'm not sure how you can disagree with, since it's not an alternative fact, it's just a fact.


I respectfully and strongly disagree. You are stating 2 facts:

1. Some businesses pay people minimum wage.
2. People who are paid minimum wage can receive other government benefits (including food, shelter, and medical insurance).

It is your perspective that those of us who are paying taxes are therefore subsidizing for-profit enterprises. (BTW, a lot of non-profits also pay minimum wage.) However, that is not true; my taxes (and yours) are subsidizing certain people, and not their employers. The linkage is where perspective comes in.

I think it is an excellent example of an "alternative fact" or "fake news" if you will. It's the sort of thing that I see from friends on Facebook or hear on NPR or read in the Boston Globe. Those well meaning people who say this stuff (including friends) think they are providing facts not fully understanding that their view is shaped by their perspective and our culture. It really is a good example of the divide between our relatively liberal media / academia and those of us who no longer see the world that way based on our experiences.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 9:35 am

Getting back on track. Here's a link to an op ed on an economic paper written by Kotlikoff, Benzell, and the IADB's Lagarda. They dispute the TPC's assertion that Trump's plan will lead to massive deficits and not grow the economy. They state that one should use the Global Gaidar Model (which is not used by the Congressional Budget Office, the TPC or the Joint Committee onTaxation).

The Global Gaidar model suggests that the Republican tax plan will increase GDP by 3 to 5% and would raise real wages by 4 to 7%. They also believe that the tax plan is more or less revenue neutral.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-crit ... 1508280692
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 10:47 am

It's not fake news that if Walmart has to pay a living wage than its workers will not receive governmental assistance. There is a basic societal mandate that everyone should have basic necessities, right? Because that is the moral, right thing to do. So if we allow an employer to pay less than a living wage, then the government has to make that up. So our taxes go to workers at Walmart who make less than they need to live on. Our rules are allowing Walmart to pocket the money they could be forced to pay workers to comply with the societal rule that everyone have the basic necessities of life.

I think it's your perspective that it is somehow right that in a wealthy country in the 21st century for an employer to pay a worker less than what they need to live on and shift that responsibility to the government. It's just semantics to argue that our taxes are not subsidizing Walmart by allowing them to pay less than a living wage. You can try to argue that an employer has no responsibility to pay a worker enough money to live on and therefore there is no connection between Walmart and its employees getting governmental assistance, but if we're going to say people have a right to the basic necessities then it is ridiculous to allow an employer to get full-time labor from someone and then expect the rest to chip of us in so that they have enough to live on. And for the employer to pocket the difference between what they pay the worker and what the worker needs to live on.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 10:54 am

Well, I can't read the WSJ article. But why should we buy the Global Gaidar model? Kotlikoff--one of the co-authors of this study--helped develop it. I am not aware of it being a gold standard. Anyway, after almost 40 years of bullshit studies from economists saying tax cuts will be revenue neutral...I am not buying another one.

By the way...Kotlikoff was a presidential candidate and has some pretty way out there ideas.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... ident/amp/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:12 am

freeman3 wrote:It's not fake news that if Walmart has to pay a living wage than its workers will not receive governmental assistance. There is a basic societal mandate that everyone should have basic necessities, right? Because that is the moral, right thing to do.


Nope. That’s socialism.

Where are these concepts in our Constitution? “Everyone should have the basic necessities?”

No.

Everyone should be free to go as far as their talent and effort will permit. For those who are less talented or able, we have a safety net. We don’t guarantee work, success, or income level. We also don’t restrict it.

Our system is regulated capitalism.

So if we allow an employer to pay less than a living wage, then the government has to make that up.


Where is that in the Constitution? The problem is that progressives have decided “equal outcome” is a government mandate. It is not.

And, for the most part, our “poor” have cable TV, X-box, microwave ovens, cars, etc. Those who do not are generally so addicted to drugs or mentally ill that the answer is not in more government financial aid, but in admitting them to clinics or institutions.

You are arguing for more socialism. Elect Bernie.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:37 am

By the way, RJ, the Seattle study is fatally flawed--they did not include chains in their study. No McDonalds, no Burger King, no Walmart. Just businesses that had one location. So mom and pop stores, basically. A ridiculous study that is frankly intentionally biased.