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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:40 am

Freeman, what do you think is required to have an basic standard of living. Not what amount of money or wage, but what minimum needs?

I agree with DF about not being in the Constitution, but I am interested in opposing views.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:46 am

It's not socialism. It's simply the idea that we don't compete for acquiring the basic necessities of life; we compete for everything above that. If you follow societal rules, you put in 2,000 of work--you should be able to support yourself.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:52 am

freeman3 wrote: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.

To show what would happen to the small companies?

And, how did it work for them?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 11:58 am

It's not in the Constitution. But I think most people agree that everyone should get basic necessities. It's a moral principle.

For much of human history human beings were in small tribal groups. You think human beings would have survived if people were as greedy as we are now? I am sure certain members of those tribes did better than others but they had to share meat from hunts and whatever was gathered from foraging. It was not everyone for themselves.

We're just a large 300 million person tribe. And we should be willing to share if others don't have enough for basic necessities. Or are we worse than those hunt and gatherer groups that lived many millenia ago?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Oct 2017, 12:04 pm

The problem...is when you exclude large companies you are not examining the job market as a whole. And that's what is important. Jobs may get shifted, some are lost, some are created. They got the result they wanted by focusing on small businesses that (1) had the most difficulty dealing with increased labor costs, and (2) not able to wait to see how increased consumer demand will affect their business. That is unfortunate for them...but what matters is how the job market is affected as a whole. Excluding chains totally skews that assessment.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 12:59 pm

freeman3 wrote:The problem...is when you exclude large companies you are not examining the job market as a whole. And that's what is important. Jobs may get shifted, some are lost, some are created. They got the result they wanted by focusing on small businesses that (1) had the most difficulty dealing with increased labor costs, and (2) not able to wait to see how increased consumer demand will affect their business. That is unfortunate for them...but what matters is how the job market is affected as a whole. Excluding chains totally skews that assessment.

Certainly you can't study an economy properly by not looking across all of it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 2:25 pm

freeman3 wrote:It's not in the Constitution. But I think most people agree that everyone should get basic necessities. It's a moral principle.


I don't think so. I think it depends on how it's worded.

For example, "Should the government guarantee everyone living in the US, including undocumented aliens, a living wage, a place to live, food to eat, and medical care, without regard to whether they work or not?"

I don't think that would get much past 25% if that.

If you think the US is basically a socialist nation, then pass those laws.

For much of human history human beings were in small tribal groups. You think human beings would have survived if people were as greedy as we are now? I am sure certain members of those tribes did better than others but they had to share meat from hunts and whatever was gathered from foraging. It was not everyone for themselves.


Man, that is not the history I read. I'm reading a history of Great Britain right now. When the Saxons hit the island, they killed the Romans without mercy and illiteracy fell on Britain for about 200 years ago.

We're just a large 300 million person tribe. And we should be willing to share if others don't have enough for basic necessities. Or are we worse than those hunt and gatherer groups that lived many millenia ago?


There are plenty of highly-socialized "tribes" out there. The US isn't on the same plane. If you think socialism is more moral, then your choices are clear: change the US or move.

I think your view of history is highly sanitized.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 2:40 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
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.


People earn wages, the same people get public benefits, the true cost of employing people is not being borne by the employer. It's just math RJ. Sorry you're having trouble with that.

And, as I've stated many times, not-for-profit enterprises often make lots of profit. It's just a tax status. Some of the most profitable corporations in America have not-for-profit tax status.

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.


That's just oddly off-topic. Perhaps you think I'm saying something that I'm not?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Oct 2017, 3:13 pm

geojanes wrote:People earn wages, the same people get public benefits, the true cost of employing people is not being borne by the employer. It's just math RJ. Sorry you're having trouble with that.


Snarkmania!

Let's try it another way. Are you paying the "true cost" of your property (presuming you own a home)?

The answer is "no" if you deduct interest, right?

Are you paying the "true cost" of raising a child?

The answer is "no" if you deduct him/her as a dependent, right?

That the government has fixed a certain level of income as eligible for benefits is no different. And, by forcing businesses to pay a "living" (nee "true") wage, you will simply change the market. Oh yes, the employer will bear the burden. Sure. Until he/she jacks their prices to make up the difference.

Maybe if the government wasn't subsidizing low wages people wouldn't take those jobs and the employers would be forced to raise them in order to attract candidates?

Oh. Forgot. Only the government can help.

/snarkoff
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:28 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:People earn wages, the same people get public benefits, the true cost of employing people is not being borne by the employer. It's just math RJ. Sorry you're having trouble with that.


Snarkmania!

...

/snarkoff


Yes, it's always nice when someone else notices unfair comments directed at me so I don't have to seem defensive. The unfair comment is very uncharacteristic of Geo.

I think he means "logic", not "math", but even so, he's just conflating 2 different facts and tying them together. He's employing thinking (as he points out, not feeling), but it's not proven logically; it's an opinion. Let's try again: "the true cost of employing people" is not same thing as the state's view of when benefits for various items kick in. There is also a legitimate argument of whether the state's view is correct, but even if the state's view is correct, it's not clear that the employer should be on the hook for this if he isn't getting that much value from the employee.Geo is calling for about $30+ per hour in NY as far as I can tell. It's both a radical concept and a dangerous one in terms of what it would do to our economy,
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:31 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:People earn wages, the same people get public benefits, the true cost of employing people is not being borne by the employer. It's just math RJ. Sorry you're having trouble with that.


Snarkmania!


Sorry, I was being a little snarky, apologies to RJ.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:38 am

Freeman:
Anyway, after almost 40 years of bullshit studies from economists saying tax cuts will be revenue neutra


The only time that corporate tax rates have been materially cut is from 1986 to 1988 when they went from 46% to 34%. Receipts accelerated after that. Really, not a bullshit study but economic reality.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/de ... racket.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statisti ... nue-source
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:39 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:People earn wages, the same people get public benefits, the true cost of employing people is not being borne by the employer. It's just math RJ. Sorry you're having trouble with that.


Snarkmania!


Sorry, I was being a little snarky, apologies to RJ.


no worries..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:45 am

freeman3 wrote:The problem...is when you exclude large companies you are not examining the job market as a whole. And that's what is important. Jobs may get shifted, some are lost, some are created. They got the result they wanted by focusing on small businesses that (1) had the most difficulty dealing with increased labor costs, and (2) not able to wait to see how increased consumer demand will affect their business. That is unfortunate for them...but what matters is how the job market is affected as a whole. Excluding chains totally skews that assessment.


Yes, I don't disagree. The authors had good reason to exclude large employers, but it does create a distortion. We need more research!

Nevertheless, we do have the unintended consequence that small companies cannot handle the increase whereas larger companies can. You've spent a lot of space here talking about how large employers have dehumanized the workplace. It seems like raising the minimum wage substantially increases the power of large corps and may result in further dehumanization.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Oct 2017, 6:47 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's try it another way. Are you paying the "true cost" of your property (presuming you own a home)?

The answer is "no" if you deduct interest, right?

Are you paying the "true cost" of raising a child?

The answer is "no" if you deduct him/her as a dependent, right?

That the government has fixed a certain level of income as eligible for benefits is no different. And, by forcing businesses to pay a "living" (nee "true") wage, you will simply change the market. Oh yes, the employer will bear the burden. Sure. Until he/she jacks their prices to make up the difference.


We've decided (and I think rightly) that there is a public interest in people having children, so they are subsidized by the state.

We've decided (I think wrongly) that there is a public interest in people taking out mortgages to buy their homes, so they are subsidized by the state.

We've decided (I think rightly) that if people work they should earn a minimum wage.

We've decided (I think rightly) that citizens should not go hungry, that many get housing subsidies, and if you don't make much, you get a credit on your taxes instead of having to pay.

All I'm saying is that some employers have figured out that if they pay very low wages, their workers can subsidize their low wages by getting public benefits so the true cost of that person is not being borne by the employer. Does anyone think that's not true?

Does anyone think that employers (for profit and not for profit) are not profiting from the fact that they don't have to pay a living wage and their employees still live and come to work?

I think those things are undeniable facts. The issue of opinion is that what, if anything, should be done about that, and if this even a bad thing or not. We can't really argue those latter points if we can't agree about the facts though.