My disdain for the poor...

[Annie]

I'm probably taking this a bit off topic, sort of. I do not have 'disdain' for poor people. I'm pretty darn close to 'poor' myself. I was raised with pretty 'middle class' upbringing, yeah probably better than 'middle'. I married well. I divorced poorly. , not really, but financially.

What differentiates me from the woman in the article is that my energies were directed at getting my children raised, helping them get scholarships, grants, and loans for school, and doing all in my power to provide for myself in my 'old age.' The idea of applying for aid never was considered, though the kids would have qualified for 'breakfast and lunch', no way. They didn't have the expensive clothes, but they 'set style'. That I could teach them.

There were 2 years where I averaged over 80 hours per week, so that I could get the experience to get a teaching position; at the same time dealing with a part time job, (32 hours per week) that would give me medical coverage. That was working in the meat department, (butcher's union), at a major grocery store chain.

At the time, one of the kids was in 5th grade, one in 8th, and one in first year of hs. We had just moved, so the two older were enrolled in schools that were more than 12 miles from home. The one wanted to graduate from 8th were he'd gone since 1st grade, the daughter wanted to finish her first year.

My problem with anyone that is 'poor' is when they are not encouraging or setting example for their children to do better. Education and work ethic are everything that American kids need to succeed. It's hard, but very doable. My kids are now in their 20's, doing well, educated and know how to work, make a dollar stretch, and take responsibility. I feel very successful.

 

[trobinett]

I'm probably taking this a bit off topic, sort of. I do not have 'disdain' for poor people. I'm pretty darn close to 'poor' myself. I was raised with pretty 'middle class' upbringing, yeah probably better than 'middle'. I married well. I divorced poorly. , not really, but financially.

What differentiates me from the woman in the article is that my energies were directed at getting my children raised, helping them get scholarships, grants, and loans for school, and doing all in my power to provide for myself in my 'old age.' The idea of applying for aid never was considered, though the kids would have qualified for 'breakfast and lunch', no way. They didn't have the expensive clothes, but they 'set style'. That I could teach them.

There were 2 years where I averaged over 80 hours per week, so that I could get the experience to get a teaching position; at the same time dealing with a part time job, (32 hours per week) that would give me medical coverage. That was working in the meat department, (butcher's union), at a major grocery store chain.

At the time, one of the kids was in 5th grade, one in 8th, and one in first year of hs. We had just moved, so the two older were enrolled in schools that were more than 12 miles from home. The one wanted to graduate from 8th were he'd gone since 1st grade, the daughter wanted to finish her first year.

My problem with anyone that is 'poor' is when they are not encouraging or setting example for their children to do better. Education and work ethic are everything that American kids need to succeed. It's hard, but very doable. My kids are now in their 20's, doing well, educated and know how to work, make a dollar stretch, and take responsibility. I feel very successful.

And you should, congratulations.

 

[jillian]

I'm probably taking this a bit off topic, sort of. I do not have 'disdain' for poor people. I'm pretty darn close to 'poor' myself. I was raised with pretty 'middle class' upbringing, yeah probably better than 'middle'. I married well. I divorced poorly. , not really, but financially.

What differentiates me from the woman in the article is that my energies were directed at getting my children raised, helping them get scholarships, grants, and loans for school, and doing all in my power to provide for myself in my 'old age.' The idea of applying for aid never was considered, though the kids would have qualified for 'breakfast and lunch', no way. They didn't have the expensive clothes, but they 'set style'. That I could teach them.

There were 2 years where I averaged over 80 hours per week, so that I could get the experience to get a teaching position; at the same time dealing with a part time job, (32 hours per week) that would give me medical coverage. That was working in the meat department, (butcher's union), at a major grocery store chain.

At the time, one of the kids was in 5th grade, one in 8th, and one in first year of hs. We had just moved, so the two older were enrolled in schools that were more than 12 miles from home. The one wanted to graduate from 8th were he'd gone since 1st grade, the daughter wanted to finish her first year.

My problem with anyone that is 'poor' is when they are not encouraging or setting example for their children to do better. Education and work ethic are everything that American kids need to succeed. It's hard, but very doable. My kids are now in their 20's, doing well, educated and know how to work, make a dollar stretch, and take responsibility. I feel very successful.

Kudos to you for doing what you needed to, no matter how difficult it was. (Divorce can be a huge kick in the butt financially).

But i think there's another major difference between you and the chick in the story... you came from a background that gave you life skills (middle class or better). Sometimes people don't have a clue where to start to make their lives better.

 

[Annie]

Kudos to you for doing what you needed to, no matter how difficult it was. (Divorce can be a huge kick in the butt financially).

But i think there's another major difference between you and the chick in the story... you came from a background that gave you life skills (middle class or better). Sometimes people don't have a clue where to start to make their lives better.

To accept that, one must conclude that the poor are destined to remain there forever, unless they 'get lucky' in marriage or I guess somehow the government 'lifts them out.'

To me there is an assumption of helplessness, even condescension in the idea they are too dense to get it. Besides, history is replete with examples that prove the thinking false.

 

[jillian]

To accept that, one must conclude that the poor are destined to remain there forever, unless they 'get lucky' in marriage or I guess somehow the government 'lifts them out.'

To me there is an assumption of helplessness, even condescension in the idea they are too dense to get it. Besides, history is replete with examples that prove the thinking false.

I don't think it's every poor person who is helpless. However, there are some people who have no life skills. Not everyone understands what they need to change their place in the world. I have a huge problem with "hand outs" unless they come attached with time limits and a requirement that the person getting help, then help themselves through job training and education. I also don't mind us helping with those things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with helping someone for a little while and I think making her get up and better herself benefits her, her kids and society by making her useful instead of useless.

 

[trobinett]

I don't think it's every poor person who is helpless. However, there are some people who have no life skills. Not everyone understands what they need to change their place in the world. I have a huge problem with "hand outs" unless they come attached with time limits and a requirement that the person getting help, then help themselves through job training and education. I also don't mind us helping with those things.

I don't think there's anything wrong with helping someone for a little while and I think making her get up and better herself benefits her, her kids and society by making her useful instead of useless.

If THAT woman came anywhere near what your talking about, none here would have a problem, me thinks.

 

[Gurdari]

not a legitimate argument. Our economy and pay scale have nothing to do with what people deserve. If it did it would be called socialism instead of capitalism

no, but life is about choices and the number of poor ones this person has made are striking. It does make her a slow learner.

Our pay system is also not based on how hard someone's job is. In most cases it is based on the amount of responsiblity that comes with the position.

We were discussing her poor choices and the free ride she is squandering and how dumb she is, etc.
I only mention 'deserve' because when it comes to the poor, it's all about 'earn it' but when the rich are spoken of it seems off limits to dicuss what they 'didn't earn'. I think a nurse has more responsibility than a sports agent, I know which one society could do without longer... but I am well aware the market determine's most wages, but there less options for the poorer to influence taxation, policy, etc than the wealthy.

 

[Gurdari]

Poor people get a free ride as well. It's called they don't pay taxes. In this country we have what is called a graduated tax system. The more you make the more you pay. In this sense our tax code is far as the loopholes and tax breaks are concerned because these provisions take human nature into account. What incentive is there to work harder to acquire more wealth if all it means is more money is going to be taken away? Who would do that?

Poor people do pay taxes. Even if they don't pay income tax (only some of the poor are THAT poor) they still pay tax on purchases (not too sure of the US tax system, but there is sales tax, isn't there?).

The incentive??? Bill Gates probably pays more tax than anyone, how is his cash flow? Still pretty good. Once you make more than enough money that you can send your kids to any school, buy any car, vacation anywhere, buy anything, and never have to worry about having enough for the basic necesseties - I'd say your ok. And the more you make at that point (yes, the mnore tax you'll pay) but your take home pay will continue to grow. That's incentive.

 

[Bern80]

Poor people do pay taxes. Even if they don't pay income tax (only some of the poor are THAT poor) they still pay tax on purchases (not too sure of the US tax system, but there is sales tax, isn't there?).

There is no Federal sales tax. Sales tax is legislated by the states which is why each one has a different one, it can also very within the state as well. Some have sales taxes as high as 8% and some states like MT and OR don't have one at all.

The incentive??? Bill Gates probably pays more tax than anyone, how is his cash flow?

And kudos to him because he also gives more than anyone on Earth as well. Not just in taxes but in charitable donations as well.

Still pretty good. Once you make more than enough money that you can send your kids to any school, buy any car, vacation anywhere, buy anything, and never have to worry about having enough for the basic necesseties - I'd say your ok. And the more you make at that point (yes, the mnore tax you'll pay) but your take home pay will continue to grow. That's incentive.

I think Bill Gates may have actually figured this out. Yes he is spent money on things that most of us can only dream of, but the amount of money he is taking in probably exceeded the ways in which he can think to spend it, on himself anyway. Currently I believe he gives the majority of what he makes away to charity, yes what's left is still pretty hefty. But do you suggest that he keep paying more and more taxes as his earnings increase? That would seem counter productive in that most of us here want our gov't to spend less money. I may be wrong at this point but I believe our tax system has a limit on how much money can be taxed per year.

 

[Bry]

Hi all, thought provoking article and discussion, thanks.

I agree with the general reaction, though the cringe factor from the running commentary in the article was a bit high for me. She's made such a poor showing in life, I can't imagine taking that much time out of my own life to run this woman down.

The biggest problem with the article, as some of you have pointed out, was the choice of this woman as the poster child for the increased minimum wage proposal. The choice was such a bad (or good...) choice for supporting the argument in favour of raising minimum wages that one begins to suspect the author's true motives.

In any case, the question of welfare and minimum wage are not the same. Minimum wage, I think, is different, because it should be tied to a concept of minimum income necessary to support oneself after working a forty-hour work week. It only makes sense that it should be increased over time to keep up with inflation.

Welfare, I think is an important safety net for people who have had a string of bad luck, or even for those that have been irresponsible and need a second chance. It should be a temporary safety net, and should be designed to encourage people to get off their asses. (That means, for me, that someone living on welfare should always be a little bit hungry.)

I understand the argument that this should be provided by charity organizations, and that citizens should not be obligated to help through taxes. It's difficult for me to argue strongly against that position, especially when there seem to be so many abuses in the current system. But in the end, IMHO, that safety net should be guaranteed, and charitable organizations are too limited in scope to provide guarantees.

The question of supporting large families is a difficult one. This question overwhelmingly affects women, I think unfairly, and I am sympathetic with anyone who feels overwhelmed at the prospect of engaging in the legal quagmires that are involved in making a deadbeat dad do his share. (Perhaps attending counselling and making progress on this score should be a condition for receiving welfare?) One way or another, like it or not, these children are society's burden, whether it be through welfare, or foster networks, or through the penitentiary system.

One last thought...
Stories of single mothers who successfully struggle through and raise healthy responsible children in the process, with or with out government assistance, are an inspiration and they truly have my undying respect and admiration. Some of their stories, perhaps, could have been more suitable fare for articles supporting minimum wage increases; that extra bit of cash would not be lost on them.

 

[Bern80]

Hi all, thought provoking article and discussion, thanks.

I agree with the general reaction, though the cringe factor from the running commentary in the article was a bit high for me. She's made such a poor showing in life, I can't imagine taking that much time out of my own life to run this woman down.

Yeah some of the initial reactions were harsh, but for me it's more out of pure frustration than anything. You ask me what the meaning of life is, and I will tell it is choice. That is really all our experience here boils down to. Becuase that is what I believe and make attempts to live my life that way (and yes I have made bad ones too), it is extraordinarily frustrating to see people consistantly make bad ones. Another point is that I think most people have made more 'choices' (instead of saying they were victimized by a situation) than they are willing to give themselves credit. There really aren't that many true victim's of circumstance. But even then assuming no fault of ones own, where is written that it is everyone elses responsibility to bend over backwards and get you out of that mess. I mean in the end who is responsible for you? You are.

In any case, the question of welfare and minimum wage are not the same. Minimum wage, I think, is different, because it should be tied to a concept of minimum income necessary to support oneself after working a forty-hour work week. It only makes sense that it should be increased over time to keep up with inflation.

I don't agree with that because it is a very slippery slope and where do you draw the line? Think of the questions that must come into play. Enough to support how many people? In what type of living conditions? Assuming what emenities (fridge, oven, microwave, TV, DVD, satellite)? No, the minimum wage can not be defined as what it takes to survive. Even for just one person the min wage would probably have to be at least twice what it being proposed.

 

[Bry]

Thanks for the reply, Bern.

I totally agree with you that accepting responsibility for your own situation is absolutely key to a good and successful life, though that was one of the hardest lessons for me to learn. People who see themselves as victims are caught in a vicious circle which only ever leads one direction. (Perhaps I should reread the article, but my impression was that this woman was not necessarily portraying herself as a victim, but rather the writer of the article was doing it for her. It is conceivable that the woman is perfectly content with her life. IMHO, it was the way the writer presented the story that raises so many objections.)

Is it everyone else's responsibility to help people who can't seem to help themselves? I understand your position, and sympathize with it especially as it relates to welfare. But again, minimum wage is an altogether different concept. Yes, the companies are footing the bill, but I don't think it is because of some external obligation to help the helpless. Rather, they are compensating employees for work rendered. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea here is that all (legal) work is dignified, and if the work meets certain nationally established norms (such as a 40 hour work week), it should provide the person with a decent life. No, I don't think a decent life includes most of the luxuries that you mentioned (and I don't have most of them), but it should provide decent shelter, food, and what each person requires to continue earning that minimum wage (transportaion, for example.). And obviously, the minimum wage has to keep up with inflation in order to continue to provide this minimum standard.

The problem of large families, I agree, makes the equations much more difficult, but one way or another those children will become a burden to society. So as long as the parents can demonstrate that they are meeting certain requirements, I do think they should receive added welfare benefits, but as I said, there is nothing easy about this type of situation, and I am certainly open to other suggestions.

Cheers!

 

[Bern80]

Thanks for the reply, Bern.

I totally agree with you that accepting responsibility for your own situation is absolutely key to a good and successful life, though that was one of the hardest lessons for me to learn. People who see themselves as victims are caught in a vicious circle which only ever leads one direction. (Perhaps I should reread the article, but my impression was that this woman was not necessarily portraying herself as a victim, but rather the writer of the article was doing it for her. It is conceivable that the woman is perfectly content with her life. IMHO, it was the way the writer presented the story that raises so many objections.)

I would imagine she would like to not be where she is right now, but I agree with you the article is written more "woe is here" than "woe is me". Which is even more sad because that would mean she is just being used for an agenda.

Is it everyone else's responsibility to help people who can't seem to help themselves? I understand your position, and sympathize with it especially as it relates to welfare. But again, minimum wage is an altogether different concept. Yes, the companies are footing the bill, but I don't think it is because of some external obligation to help the helpless. Rather, they are compensating employees for work rendered. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea here is that all (legal) work is dignified, and if the work meets certain nationally established norms (such as a 40 hour work week), it should provide the person with a decent life. No, I don't think a decent life includes most of the luxuries that you mentioned (and I don't have most of them), but it should provide decent shelter, food, and what each person requires to continue earning that minimum wage (transportaion, for example.). And obviously, the minimum wage has to keep up with inflation in order to continue to provide this minimum standard.

I guess the best way I can say it is that this is like a lot of other things in terms of government involvement. Ideallisticly speaking there are many things that would be good, including companies paying people a respectable income. Does that mean the gov't should be in the business of mandating that? No. The problem with the later half of your paragraph is again that some all wise body has to decide not only what is enough but under what conditions. If you do some quick math of basic monthly expenses I think you would find that nationl $7.25/hr currently proposed still wouldn't come close to even the basics. That is $15,080 a year before taxes which would probably be about 10% so that $13,572 divided by 26 (pay period) is $522 every two weeks, roughly 4 weeks in a month, that's 1,044/mo. Now we get to start figuring our monthly expenses.

For the sake of this argument which is enough to servive I think we will have to assume no gov't assistance of any type because ideally that's what we would like to see happen. So, rent/utilities/phone (i don't think it is reasonable to think about mortgage at this point) being very generous we will call $1000/mo. You now have $44 left for the month. So at this point all we've paid for are the very basic living expenses. Not food, not car or gas or anything else. Based on that alone I think you can see what the min wage would really need to be in order to accomplish what you're after and by extension see the catastrophic effect that would have on the economy if federally mandated.

But even then realistically a min wage is not something that can be federally mandated because standard of living varies so much from region to region

 

[Bry]

Good points, Bern.

Does that mean the gov't should be in the business of mandating that? No. The problem with the later half of your paragraph is again that some all wise body has to decide not only what is enough but under what conditions.

Why not? Some all wise body has to decide that you have to be 16 to drive. Is that number derived scientifically? I doubt it, I sure as hell wasn't ready for that responsibility when I was 16 and I destroyed both of my parents’ cars in less than two weeks. In fact, government has to place all sorts of seemingly arbitrary limits. They don't have to be all wise. They just have to think about a thing and make a decision.

Back before the government got involved in establishing and protecting workers' rights, conditions in the US were pretty similar to what we today associate with the third world. Companies wouldn't pay workers enough to live on, but they'd give them credit to buy from the company store and sometimes a house. It was little different from serfdom. Workers wound up poorer after a day’s work than before it. Does that make sense? Not to me, it doesn't.

Corporate decisions are generally made to maximize profit, as they should be. Companies are responsible first and foremost to their shareholders. They are not capable of making decisions which benefit workers but reduce the bottom line. But making the rules of conducting business such that the people are protected from abuses, that is the government's job. Just like it’s the government's job to take action against any other type of criminality.

I don't mean to say that businesses can't do good things all by themselves. Of course, some have realized that by making working conditions more pleasant, they are more attractive to a better class of workers, and they can increase productivity, just as other companies have learned that they can make more money by not hiring children in third world countries and making some charitable donations (this makes them more attractive to potential clients). Are any of these business decisions ever humanitarian? No. Do good things come of it? Absolutely.

The point is, government does have the responsibility to prevent abuses. They have established the full work week at forty hours, after which a wage earner is entitled to time and a half. Is that limit arbitrary? yes. But limits have to be placed somewhere in order to prevent abuses.

Minimum wage is another way to prevent abuses. Is minimum wage enough to live on? How far that money can go does probably depend a lot on where you earn it. You did the math, and demonstrated that it would be very difficult indeed to live off a 40 hour / week minimum wage even assuming the proposed raise. But I know people who have done it. The point is this: someone's got to sweep the floors and flip the burgers, and those people have got to live. The government can either oblige the companies to pay the workers a necessary minimum or raise taxes and farm out much bigger welfare benefits. Or do you think that those people are just an expendable but renewable resource for the companies to exploit while keeping their overhead as low as possible?

If they decide to prevent abuses and set a minimum, then that minimum should be periodically adjusted for inflation, just like a business periodically decides to raise their prices to keep up with their rising costs. What we can't do is set a minimum at 1940s levels and expect to live off that indefinitely.

You don't like the federal government setting a universal minimum? Fine. Set a mathematical equation to determine living expenses in each state or county/city and oblige the States or local governments to determine their own minimums by setting standards for determining cost of living and forcing them to set a minimum. It might cause a net increase in bureaucracy, not to speak of law suits questioning the minimums that each locality sets, but the final solution is just as acceptable to me and probably more so. By comparison, the Federal minimum wage actually seems like a bit of a cop out.

It's getting a bit off topic, but the issue of competitivity in a globalized economy is a big one. We will probably all have to tighten our belts a bit and try to get free of the consumerist values we've been so well trained into. After all, the bottom line is that if someone in India can do the same job for a tenth the cost, businesses have got to take advantage of that whenever possible. Will we have to consider increasing the work week to 50 hours? Speaking of a slippery slope... how far is it from here back to the feudal model?

 

[bush lover]

The common missing ingredient in this threat is marriage, which seems to be universally disdained or discarded after the first spat. Divorce and promiscuity breeds poverty.

 

[Avatar4321]

The common missing ingredient in this threat is marriage, which seems to be universally disdained or discarded after the first spat. Divorce and promiscuity breeds poverty.

Which is exactly why the Lord teaches us the principles of chastity before marriage and fidelity afterwards.

 

[Bern80]

Good points, Bern.


Why not? Some all wise body has to decide that you have to be 16 to drive. Is that number derived scientifically? I doubt it, I sure as hell wasn't ready for that responsibility when I was 16 and I destroyed both of my parents’ cars in less than two weeks. In fact, government has to place all sorts of seemingly arbitrary limits. They don't have to be all wise. They just have to think about a thing and make a decision.

Who would decide such things wasn't really my point. I don't think it's a decision that should be made. Because the idea that the minimum wage is meant to be a measurement of what one can surviuve on is a wrong headed idea. If that is what you choose as the definition the min wage would probably need to be about 3 times what it is realistically speaking and you can quickly imagine what that would do to our economy.

Back before the government got involved in establishing and protecting workers' rights, conditions in the US were pretty similar to what we today associate with the third world. Companies wouldn't pay workers enough to live on, but they'd give them credit to buy from the company store and sometimes a house. It was little different from serfdom. Workers wound up poorer after a day’s work than before it. Does that make sense? Not to me, it doesn't.

The purpose of business is not to pay you enough to live

Corporate decisions are generally made to maximize profit, as they should be. Companies are responsible first and foremost to their shareholders. They are not capable of making decisions which benefit workers but reduce the bottom line. But making the rules of conducting business such that the people are protected from abuses, that is the government's job. Just like it’s the government's job to take action against any other type of criminality.

No it is the free markets job to decide when something is fair or not. What ever would we do without the gov't to save us?

The point is, government does have the responsibility to prevent abuses. They have established the full work week at forty hours, after which a wage earner is entitled to time and a half. Is that limit arbitrary? yes. But limits have to be placed somewhere in order to prevent abuses.

In reality however it almost the exact opposite of what you think. There are very few jobs that would make people work 40 hrs a week even if they could or wanted to. And even more interesting is that teh majority of salaried employees work well over 40 hrs week voluntarily.

Minimum wage is another way to prevent abuses. Is minimum wage enough to live on?

Again that is not the minimum's wages purpose, nor should it be.

How far that money can go does probably depend a lot on where you earn it. You did the math, and demonstrated that it would be very difficult indeed to live off a 40 hour / week minimum wage even assuming the proposed raise. But I know people who have done it. The point is this: someone's got to sweep the floors and flip the burgers, and those people have got to live. The government can either oblige the companies to pay the workers a necessary minimum or raise taxes and farm out much bigger welfare benefits. Or do you think that those people are just an expendable but renewable resource for the companies to exploit while keeping their overhead as low as possible?

If they decide to prevent abuses and set a minimum, then that minimum should be periodically adjusted for inflation, just like a business periodically decides to raise their prices to keep up with their rising costs. What we can't do is set a minimum at 1940s levels and expect to live off that indefinitely.

You don't like the federal government setting a universal minimum? Fine. Set a mathematical equation to determine living expenses in each state or county/city and oblige the States or local governments to determine their own minimums by setting standards for determining cost of living and forcing them to set a minimum. It might cause a net increase in bureaucracy, not to speak of law suits questioning the minimums that each locality sets, but the final solution is just as acceptable to me and probably more so. By comparison, the Federal minimum wage actually seems like a bit of a cop out.

It's getting a bit off topic, but the issue of competitivity in a globalized economy is a big one. We will probably all have to tighten our belts a bit and try to get free of the consumerist values we've been so well trained into. After all, the bottom line is that if someone in India can do the same job for a tenth the cost, businesses have got to take advantage of that whenever possible. Will we have to consider increasing the work week to 50 hours? Speaking of a slippery slope... how far is it from here back to the feudal model?

I hate to keep repeating myself but you really need to wrap your head around this. THE MINIMUM WAGE CAN NOT BE SET SUCH THAT IT IS A MEASUREMENT OF THE MINIMUM ONE CAN LIVE ON. You are also making an inherent assumption in all of this in that everybody looking for a job is doing so to survive thus all jobs should provide that. But people work for many other reasons, teenagers with their first jobs or supplemental income where a minimum wage really isn't necessary. Because there are these other reasons businesses can not be in the business of making sure all of their employees are well enough off. Businesses do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to sell a good or service. Your last sentence simply would not happen if there were no mandated minimum because just like the law of supply and demand applies to you and me when we go buy something it also applies to businesses when they purchase labor.

We have an economic system in this country that we rely on called capitalism. And gov't involvement in it, which is basically the exact opposite of capitalism, rarely yields postive outcomes for anybody.

 

[Bry]

I hate to keep repeating myself but you really need to wrap your head around this. THE MINIMUM WAGE CAN NOT BE SET SUCH THAT IT IS A MEASUREMENT OF THE MINIMUM ONE CAN LIVE ON.

really, Bern, if you say a thing once, I'll understand it. Your tone here is as if you were addressing an idiot, but you are the one who is making assertions without any further support. Repeating a thing a million times doen't make it true.

You assert that to be a living wage, the minimum would have to be three times what it is. I disagree. People can live on considerably less than what you seem to think, though certainly they will have to do without satellite TV and designer basketball shoes. I say it can be done, or it could ten years ago, because I have done it. My living conditions weren't Better Homes and Gardens material but they were clean and comfortable and for the time I was content.

You assert that in reality, few wage scale jobs require 40 hours a week [to avoid having to provide other benefits]. That may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. Most people who have no alternative but to work minimum wage jobs are perfectly adept at working at two or three different jobs. You also say most salaried workers voluntarily work more than 40 hours a week, but you give me no reason to think this information might be relevant to the current discussion. You also say that some people don't need to survive on the wages they earn. A fine and lovely observation, but how is it relevant?

You assert that the purpose of a business is not to pay employees enough to live on. I agree, that's why I think it's the government's job to see that it happens anyway. But should I just take your word for it? Who decides what the purpose of a business is? I suppose that just like a foot or a wheel, the purpose of a thing is closely related to what you use it for. That means that for most people, the purpose of a business is to provide them with a product or service [clients], while for a relatively large group the purpose of a business is to provide a stable and sufficient income [employees], while for a very small group [owners and managers] a business can be for whatever damn thing they want to say it's for. If you want to suggest that the purpose of a business is one thing and not another, you ought to provide some logical support for it.

You assert that it is the free market's job to determine fairness, and tritely ask wherever would we be without the government to save us. Again you offer no support. I have suggested, through a cursory account of the progress of labour conditions in our country, that the government [namely the judicial branch acting on labor laws proposed and passed through the legislative branch and thus far NOT determined to be unconstitutional by the supreme court] is the rightful and exclusive arbiter of fairness, and that the country is a better place as a result. That is to say, better than third world countries where you will find that your particular brand of savage capitalism is alive and well. Hence the court system, which for all its flaws, does provide some guarantees that if one is treated unfairly, with a little luck and a great deal of patience and persistence, one may receive compensation. You see, that's the basic difference between civilization and a state of nature. You may prefer the state of nature, but you will have to leave this fine civilization to go look for it.

And you assert that market forces determine the value of labor, as if businesses weren't capable of acting together to fix conditions that are most beneficial to their profits. Capitalism is an abstract proscription which, like most abstractions, fails to take into account the human factor. I for one am happy for laws and courts that protect us from abuses. I have given examples of abuses in the past that were corrected through legislation and jurisprudence; I have suggested that it is that same historical process which makes the first world different from the third world; and I have suggested that the new minimum wage adjustments are in logical line with that history. You may disagree, but if you take the trouble to respond, I do hope you will do more than assert the contrary.

 

[Bern80]

You assert that to be a living wage, the minimum would have to be three times what it is. I disagree. People can live on considerably less than what you seem to think, though certainly they will have to do without satellite TV and designer basketball shoes. I say it can be done, or it could ten years ago, because I have done it. My living conditions weren't Better Homes and Gardens material but they were clean and comfortable and for the time I was content.

I believe I did the math on this earlier based on what the current proposed amount of the min wage increase. Go back and look at it and tell me where the numbers need to be tweaked for someone to actually make it on that.

You assert that in reality, few wage scale jobs require 40 hours a week [to avoid having to provide other benefits].

I can't speak for all businesses of course, but at the one I work at we don't have many full-time employees simply because we don't have enough work to warrant employing everyone for 40 hours a week. I also believe it is perfectly fair to have employees be full time or very close to it to pay out benefits because it is not fair to a business to be paying full benefits to someone who is only working 2 days a week.

That may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. Most people who have no alternative but to work minimum wage jobs are perfectly adept at working at two or three different jobs.

That is a typical defeatist atitude. There are always alternatives. Also, with a little effort very few people if they perform near admiably will not be at that wage forever. When it comes to finding jobs there are basically two types of peolpe. Those that let things will happen to them and those that make things happen for themsleves. The later are generally successful and the former generally aren't.

You also say most salaried workers voluntarily work more than 40 hours a week, but you give me no reason to think this information might be relevant to the current discussion. You also say that some people don't need to survive on the wages they earn. A fine and lovely observation, but how is it relevant?

It is relevant for many reasons. Primarily in the concept of hard work. You paint the picture of these poor unfortunate minimum wagers who are breaking their backs at 40hr/wk jobs and would gladly work more if only the evil company would let them, when as a point of FACT it is the owners and Middle Managers that worked their tail off to get where the are. I come from a middle class family primarily because my Dad worked his ass off. He is veternarian and makes six figures, and news flash there are consequences to haveing that kind of job. He regularily worked 50-60 hrs per week plus being on call.

The primary reason it is relevant to me is because as far as this conversation goes is that you are asking the governement to help a specific group of people to get to a place where millions of people similar to my Dad are at and did all on there own without the governments help. Then as the iceing on the cake the government punishes people like my Dad for working hard and making good choices by making him pay higher taxes to reward people like the one in this story for making bad ones.

You assert that the purpose of a business is not to pay employees enough to live on. I agree, that's why I think it's the government's job to see that it happens anyway.

To refine it even more the purpose of business or even people starting a business is to make money (by providing a good or service) You say then it is the government's job to make sure the wage is "fair". How can you not see the link in that by legislating the later it will kill the former?

But should I just take your word for it? Who decides what the purpose of a business is? I suppose that just like a foot or a wheel, the purpose of a thing is closely related to what you use it for. That means that for most people, the purpose of a business is to provide them with a product or service [clients], while for a relatively large group the purpose of a business is to provide a stable and sufficient income [employees], while for a very small group [owners and managers] a business can be for whatever damn thing they want to say it's for. If you want to suggest that the purpose of a business is one thing and not another, you ought to provide some logical support for it.

See above again, but the most basic purpose is people start businesses to make money thus the businesses purpose is to make money. Makeing that money accomplishes many of the above. However one of those items up there is incorrect which happens to be our primary discussion point. It is not accurate to say that businesses purpose for many people is to provide stable income. In fact that is what the purpose of haveing a job is. A place to work (a business) facilitates that, but it is not their purpose.

You assert that it is the free market's job to determine fairness, and tritely ask wherever would we be without the government to save us. Again you offer no support. I have suggested, through a cursory account of the progress of labour conditions in our country, that the government [namely the judicial branch acting on labor laws proposed and passed through the legislative branch and thus far NOT determined to be unconstitutional by the supreme court] is the rightful and exclusive arbiter of fairness, and that the country is a better place as a result. That is to say, better than third world countries where you will find that your particular brand of savage capitalism is alive and well. Hence the court system, which for all its flaws, does provide some guarantees that if one is treated unfairly, with a little luck and a great deal of patience and persistence, one may receive compensation. You see, that's the basic difference between civilization and a state of nature. You may prefer the state of nature, but you will have to leave this fine civilization to go look for it.

And to what end? You are making a ton of assumptions in the above. Primarily that if someone is poor it's just a fact of life and there just isn't anyway out unless the government helps me. In truth, in this country there just aren't that many victims of circumstance. Most people are where they are by choice. As harsh as it sounds this woman chose to be poor through a series of choices. She can also make choices to get herself out of it. On a personal level you don't make better people, that is people of exemplary character by giveing them a handout, character like that develops from forcing yourself to make good decisions.

And you assert that market forces determine the value of labor, as if businesses weren't capable of acting together to fix conditions that are most beneficial to their profits.

So long as we're asking for logical arguments. Please make one that if that happened today that is what would happen.

Capitalism is an abstract proscription which, like most abstractions, fails to take into account the human factor.

Dead wrong, Capitalism is the answer to the human factor or more spefically human nature. Capitalism, unlike scoialism, is the economic system that takes man's desire to endlessly better himself into account. It is also more in line with the very definition of economics, which is the study of how people balance unlimited wants with limited resources. In socialism, government tries to set the balance in Capitalism people have the option of balancing it (or not) on their own.

I for one am happy for laws and courts that protect us from abuses. I have given examples of abuses in the past that were corrected through legislation and jurisprudence; I have suggested that it is that same historical process which makes the first world different from the third world; and I have suggested that the new minimum wage adjustments are in logical line with that history. You may disagree, but if you take the trouble to respond, I do hope you will do more than assert the contrary.

To some extent that is true, there do need to be laws on the books to protect employees from certain abuses. But legilsating a minimum wage isn't one of them.

 

[Bry]

Ok, Bern, thanks for the responses.

I believe I did the math on this earlier based on what the current proposed amount of the min wage increase. Go back and look at it and tell me where the numbers need to be tweaked for someone to actually make it on that.

Your math allowed 1000 / month for rent, utilities and phone. That seems really high. I mean, REALLY high. I'd have said about 500. Obviously, a minimum wage worker needs to cut some corners and reduce electricity and phone use to the minimum. The person would have to live a truly minimum lifestyle. But that's what we're talking about, right? "Minimum".

I agree with you that it will depend a lot on where the person lives. In NYC, a person would probably have to rent a room in an apartment, but that is a perfectly acceptable option.

I know we disagree on this point. You think I need to wrap my head around the fact that minimum wage cannot by conceived of as the minimum needed to live. I think it should be conceived of that way. But while we're still with the numbers, the poverty line for a two person family is currently set at 13,200 dollars a year, a little less than the 13,572 that you predicted a 40 hour / week minimum wage earner would take home in a year. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I can't speak for all businesses of course, but at the one I work at we don't have many full-time employees simply because we don't have enough work to warrant employing everyone for 40 hours a week. I also believe it is perfectly fair to have employees be full time or very close to it to pay out benefits because it is not fair to a business to be paying full benefits to someone who is only working 2 days a week.

If I understand you here, I think I completely agree. But let's call it what it is. Businesses seek to maximize their profits. That is their natural behavior, for better or for worse. And having one 40 hour/week worker is more expensive than two 20 hour/week workers. So the typical 40 hour/week minimum wage earner will probably have to work at least two jobs and will probably kiss any thoughts of paid vacations goodbye from the beginning. But that's the minimum sort of life I'm considering here.

That is a typical defeatist atitude. There are always alternatives. Also, with a little effort very few people if they perform near admiably will not be at that wage forever. When it comes to finding jobs there are basically two types of peolpe. Those that let things will happen to them and those that make things happen for themsleves. The later are generally successful and the former generally aren't.

I don't think I'm being defeatist by supposing a person who can only work minimum wage jobs, at least to start their working years. Would a person who was aware of other options not chose them? As for the passive and active approach, you are quite correct. But both have to eat, and the go-getter isn't going to flip our hamburgers for us, at least not for long.

It is relevant for many reasons. Primarily in the concept of hard work. You paint the picture of these poor unfortunate minimum wagers who are breaking their backs at 40hr/wk jobs and would gladly work more if only the evil company would let them, when as a point of FACT it is the owners and Middle Managers that worked their tail off to get where the are. I come from a middle class family primarily because my Dad worked his ass off. He is veternarian and makes six figures, and news flash there are consequences to haveing that kind of job. He regularily worked 50-60 hrs per week plus being on call.

No need to create false enemies: that's NOT a picture I painted. That is the picture the article that initiated this discussion tried to paint, and when you throw all those kids into the mix, well you have to recognize that things aren't going to be easy. But let me be clear: I do not think 40 hours could be considered back-breaking in most circumstances, which is why the government established 40 hours as the dividing line between full time and part time; I do not feel sorry for someone who works 40 hours / week at minimum wage, I only think that the concept of minimum wage should make some token attempt to keep up with inflation; I do appreciate the substantially increased work required to arrive at something more [monetarily] in this life and I appreciate the tremendous effort usually required to get a new business off the ground. I'm sure you are rightly proud of your father, but I'm also sure your father does not need to see the unskilled and averagely-motivated workers of the world living in absolute squalor in order to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

The primary reason it is relevant to me is because as far as this conversation goes is that you are asking the governement to help a specific group of people to get to a place where millions of people similar to my Dad are at and did all on there own without the governments help. Then as the iceing on the cake the government punishes people like my Dad for working hard and making good choices by making him pay higher taxes to reward people like the one in this story for making bad ones.

I thought it was the Libs that were supposed to be whiny. But when it comes to your poor ole six-figure-earning dad…

Look, I don't want to punish your Dad, I don't want to raise taxes, I don't want to put any specific group of people anywhere near the accomplishments of you father. The only thing that would make your father even remotely relevant to this conversation is if he had a business that depended largely on the services of minimum wage workers. Minimum wages are not dependent on taxes. Most states already mandate a minimum that is higher than the federal government anyway.

To refine it even more the purpose of business or even people starting a business is to make money (by providing a good or service) You say then it is the government's job to make sure the wage is "fair". How can you not see the link in that by legislating the later it will kill the former?

Sorry, I just don't think it will. Minimum wage increases in the past were less than devastating. Yes, the market needs to make adjustments. Yes, certain sectors will feel the change. Yes there is an effect on the employment market. But the effect is complex rather than directly negative, and in most cases short term. We’re talking about a difference of costs that could be made up for with the slightest of improvements to efficiency.

See above again, but the most basic purpose is people start businesses to make money thus the businesses purpose is to make money. Makeing that money accomplishes many of the above. However one of those items up there is incorrect which happens to be our primary discussion point. It is not accurate to say that businesses purpose for many people is to provide stable income. In fact that is what the purpose of haveing a job is. A place to work (a business) facilitates that, but it is not their purpose.

You are splitting hairs. For the employee, the purpose of the business is to provide him or her with an income. Many local governments recognize this purpose by providing tax breaks and other incentives in order to attract businesses (also known as "employers") IN ORDER TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT. Evidently, there are times when companies like to be considered in this light.

And to what end? You are making a ton of assumptions in the above. Primarily that if someone is poor it's just a fact of life and there just isn't anyway out unless the government helps me. In truth, in this country there just aren't that many victims of circumstance. Most people are where they are by choice. As harsh as it sounds this woman chose to be poor through a series of choices. She can also make choices to get herself out of it. On a personal level you don't make better people, that is people of exemplary character by giveing them a handout, character like that develops from forcing yourself to make good decisions.

The only assumption I made was that a country with a legal system that protects citizens from abuses is preferable to a country without such a legal system. You know what’s really funny? The golf courses in the US are full of six-figure-earners and their families bitching about poor people and how lazy they all are. You'd think they'd find something more interesting to talk about.

Now let’s get this straight once and for all. A wage is not a handout. The woman in this article, for all the stupid shit she’s done and for all you seem to want her to suffer for it, works 40 hours a week. That means she earns 40 times the minimum wage each week. Now, if that minimum wage is the same now as it was five, ten or fifteen years ago, something is wrong BECAUSE THE VALUE OF MONEY TENDS TO GO DOWN OVER TIME which means that we are paying people less money to do the same job as what we were paying a few years ago. It’s as simple as that, and all the moaning and whining about how oppressed and downtrodden the corporate managers are or how to make a stupid or emotionally dysfunctional single mother learn to be a better person is irrelevant.

So long as we're asking for logical arguments. Please make one that if that happened today that is what would happen.

Businesses try to increase profit margins. That means they dump toxic waste in rivers, pressure salaried employees to “voluntarily” work 50-80 hours a week, never let wage earners work 40 hours a week. Whatever corner can be cut gets cut. They do this because they want to make as much money as possible and also because if they don’t, their competitors will have a competitive advantage. However, businesses also are perfectly capable of recognizing when and where competition is not to anyone’s benefit. This results in things like price fixing, wherein various “competitors” agree to set prices which are beneficial for all. The same can happen in competing for resources like workers. Of course, where skilled labor is concerned, it’s all to the highest bidder. But for unskilled labor, where the demand is rarely higher than the supply, the companies could simply set the wages at basement levels and no one would ever be the wiser.

Dead wrong, Capitalism is the answer to the human factor or more spefically human nature. Capitalism, unlike scoialism, is the economic system that takes man's desire to endlessly better himself into account. It is also more in line with the very definition of economics, which is the study of how people balance unlimited wants with limited resources. In socialism, government tries to set the balance in Capitalism people have the option of balancing it (or not) on their own.

Capitalism without oversight and controls is nothing but survival of the biggest. Innovation, efficiency, adaptability, everything that we love Capitalism for goes to shit in the face of an unrestricted big corporate disposed to use “unfair” business practices. And Capitalism is incapable of making decisions in favor of human interest (unless such decision is deemed profit enhancing&#8230. That means slavery in and of itself is perfectly acceptable, along with any number of possible abuses to human rights that can be seen as potentially increasing the company profits. It is, in short, a theoretical model which in practice requires a significant amount of vigilance and governance in order to function well.

To some extent that is true, there do need to be laws on the books to protect employees from certain abuses. But legilsating a minimum wage isn't one of them.

You have asserted that several times, but you still haven’t come up with any reason why not. The only point you've made which is relevant is that IYHO a legislated minimum wage would "kill" business' ability to make money. But that point you only insinuated in the form of a rhetorical question, saying nothing in support.